OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of lymph node and ovarian metastases in newly diagnosed uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and to describe possible predictive factors. METHODS: We used our prospectively acquired databases to identify 275 consecutive patients with uterine LMS treated from 7/82 to 12/01. Patients were included if there was clear documentation of lymph nodes and/or ovarian tissue in the pathologic reports. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. Statistical analysis using the Fisher exact test was used to determine prognostic factors. RESULTS: There were 108 patients (39.2%) identified in whom an oophorectomy and 37 patients (13.5%) in whom lymph node sampling was performed as part of the initial surgical management of uterine LMS. Bilateral oophorectomy was performed in 102 (94.4%) of the 108 patients. The median numbers of pelvic, para-aortic, and total lymph nodes acquired were 5 (range, 1-27), 3 (range, 1-9), and 6 (range, 1-34), respectively. Ovarian metastases were found in 4 (3.9%) out of 108 patients. Two (2.8%) of the 71 patients with disease confined to the uterus and/or cervix (stage I/II) and 2 (5.4%) of the 37 patients with gross extrauterine disease had ovarian metastases (P = 0.43). Positive lymph nodes were seen in 3 (8.1%) of 37 patients. No patients with stage I/II disease had positive lymph nodes (P = 0.015). None of the factors analyzed predicted for metastases to the ovary. Only the presence or absence of gross extrauterine disease correlated with lymph node metastasis. In addition, all three of these cases had clinically suspicious (enlarged) lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ovarian and lymph node metastases in uterine LMS is very low and is most commonly associated with extrauterine disease. Lymph node dissection for uterine LMS should be reserved for patients with clinically suspicious nodes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of lymph node and ovarian metastases in newly diagnosed uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and to describe possible predictive factors. METHODS: We used our prospectively acquired databases to identify 275 consecutive patients with uterine LMS treated from 7/82 to 12/01. Patients were included if there was clear documentation of lymph nodes and/or ovarian tissue in the pathologic reports. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. Statistical analysis using the Fisher exact test was used to determine prognostic factors. RESULTS: There were 108 patients (39.2%) identified in whom an oophorectomy and 37 patients (13.5%) in whom lymph node sampling was performed as part of the initial surgical management of uterine LMS. Bilateral oophorectomy was performed in 102 (94.4%) of the 108 patients. The median numbers of pelvic, para-aortic, and total lymph nodes acquired were 5 (range, 1-27), 3 (range, 1-9), and 6 (range, 1-34), respectively. Ovarian metastases were found in 4 (3.9%) out of 108 patients. Two (2.8%) of the 71 patients with disease confined to the uterus and/or cervix (stage I/II) and 2 (5.4%) of the 37 patients with gross extrauterine disease had ovarian metastases (P = 0.43). Positive lymph nodes were seen in 3 (8.1%) of 37 patients. No patients with stage I/II disease had positive lymph nodes (P = 0.015). None of the factors analyzed predicted for metastases to the ovary. Only the presence or absence of gross extrauterine disease correlated with lymph node metastasis. In addition, all three of these cases had clinically suspicious (enlarged) lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ovarian and lymph node metastases in uterine LMS is very low and is most commonly associated with extrauterine disease. Lymph node dissection for uterine LMS should be reserved for patients with clinically suspicious nodes.
Authors: Oliver Zivanovic; Lindsay M Jacks; Alexia Iasonos; Mario M Leitao; Robert A Soslow; Emanuela Veras; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Richard R Barakat; Murray F Brennan; Martee L Hensley Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lien N Hoang; Amandeep Aneja; Niamh Conlon; Deborah F Delair; Sumit Middha; Ryma Benayed; Martee L Hensley; Kay J Park; Travis J Hollmann; Meera R Hameed; Cristina R Antonescu; Robert A Soslow; Sarah Chiang Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Martee L Hensley; Brigitte A Barrette; Klaus Baumann; David Gaffney; Anne L Hamilton; Jae-Weon Kim; Johanna U Maenpaa; Patricia Pautier; Nadeem Ahmad Siddiqui; Anneke M Westermann; Isabelle Ray-Coquard Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Paulina Cybulska; Vasileios Sioulas; Theofano Orfanelli; Oliver Zivanovic; Jennifer J Mueller; Vance A Broach; Kara C Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Martee L Hensley; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Dennis S Chi; Kaled M Alektiar; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 5.482