Daniel S Kapp1, Jacob Y Shin, John K Chan. 1. Division of Radiation Therapy, Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Cancer Center, Stanford, California 94305-5847, USA. dskapp@stanford.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to determine the prognostic factors associated with disease-specific survival (DSS) and to analyze the role of lymphadenectomy (LND) and oophorectomy in the management of uterine leiomyosarcomas (LMS). METHODS: Data were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1988-2003). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for analyses. RESULTS: The median age of the 1396 patients was 52 years. There were 951 patients (68.1%) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I disease, 43 patients (3.1%) with stage II disease, 99 patients (7.1%) with stage III disease, and 303 patients (21.7%) with stage IV disease. Distribution by tumor grade included 87 patients with grade 1 tumors, 208 with grade 2, and 509 patients with grade 3 tumors. The 5-year DSS rates for patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease were 75.8%, 60.1%, 44.9%, and 28.7%, respectively. Lymph node metastases were identified in 23 of 348 patients (6.6%) who underwent LND. The 5-year DSS rate was 26% in patients who had positive lymph nodes compared with 64.2% in patients who had negative lymph nodes (P < .001). Of 341 patients aged <50 years with stage I or II disease, 240 (70.4%) underwent oophorectomy. There was no difference in 5-year DSS based on oophorectomy. On multivariate analysis, older age at diagnosis, more recent year of diagnosis, African-American race, higher tumor grade, higher stage of disease, and lack of primary surgical treatment all were associated significantly with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: Independent predictors of DSS in patients with uterine LMS included age, race, stage, grade, and primary surgery. Oophorectomy was not found to have an independent impact on survival. Cancer 2008. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to determine the prognostic factors associated with disease-specific survival (DSS) and to analyze the role of lymphadenectomy (LND) and oophorectomy in the management of uterine leiomyosarcomas (LMS). METHODS: Data were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1988-2003). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for analyses. RESULTS: The median age of the 1396 patients was 52 years. There were 951 patients (68.1%) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I disease, 43 patients (3.1%) with stage II disease, 99 patients (7.1%) with stage III disease, and 303 patients (21.7%) with stage IV disease. Distribution by tumor grade included 87 patients with grade 1 tumors, 208 with grade 2, and 509 patients with grade 3 tumors. The 5-year DSS rates for patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease were 75.8%, 60.1%, 44.9%, and 28.7%, respectively. Lymph node metastases were identified in 23 of 348 patients (6.6%) who underwent LND. The 5-year DSS rate was 26% in patients who had positive lymph nodes compared with 64.2% in patients who had negative lymph nodes (P < .001). Of 341 patients aged <50 years with stage I or II disease, 240 (70.4%) underwent oophorectomy. There was no difference in 5-year DSS based on oophorectomy. On multivariate analysis, older age at diagnosis, more recent year of diagnosis, African-American race, higher tumor grade, higher stage of disease, and lack of primary surgical treatment all were associated significantly with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: Independent predictors of DSS in patients with uterine LMS included age, race, stage, grade, and primary surgery. Oophorectomy was not found to have an independent impact on survival. Cancer 2008. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
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: Rebecca C Arend; Michael D Toboni; Allison M Montgomery; Robert A Burger; Alexander B Olawaiye; Bradley J Monk; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Fong W Liu; Valerie B Galvan-Turner; Krista S Pfaendler; Teresa C Longoria; Robert E Bristow Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah Chiang; Cheng-Han Lee; Colin J R Stewart; Esther Oliva; Lien N Hoang; Rola H Ali; Martee L Hensley; Javier A Arias-Stella; Denise Frosina; Achim A Jungbluth; Ryma Benayed; Marc Ladanyi; Meera Hameed; Lu Wang; Yu-Chien Kao; Cristina R Antonescu; Robert A Soslow Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 7.842
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: Kristelle Lusby; Kari Brewer Savannah; Elizabeth G Demicco; Yiqun Zhang; Markus Ph Ghadimi; Eric D Young; Chiara Colombo; Ryan Lam; Tugce E Dogan; Jason L Hornick; Alexander J Lazar; Kelly K Hunt; Matthew L Anderson; Chad J Creighton; Dina Lev; Raphael E Pollock Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-20 Impact factor: 5.344