Literature DB >> 21666484

Comparison of survival outcomes between patients with malignant mixed mullerian tumors and high-grade endometrioid, clear cell, and papillary serous endometrial cancers.

Ashley Sinclair Felix1, Roslyn A Stone, Robert Bowser, Mamatha Chivukula, Robert P Edwards, Joel L Weissfeld, Faina Linkov.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors (MMMTs) are an aggressive subtype of endometrial cancer (EC). Previous studies compare survival between high-grade endometrioid (EM), clear cell (CC), and papillary serous (PS) ECs; yet few studies compare MMMTs to these aggressive subtypes. The goal of this study was to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) among EC subtypes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of EC cases treated at Magee-Women's Hospital between 1996 and 2008. Kaplan-Meier estimates of RFS, DSS, and OS as well as and log-rank tests were used to compare survival distributions between histologic subtypes. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios for histologic subtypes, adjusted for other significant prognostic factors. Interactions between histologic subtype and prognostic factors were examined to assess effect modification.
RESULTS: This cohort included 81 MMMT (15%), 254 high-grade EM (46%), 73 CC (13%), and 147 PS (26%) cases. Compared to high-grade EM (6%) and CC (7%) cases, relatively more MMMT (12%) and PS (12%) cases were nonwhite. Stage differed significantly among the subtypes, with 36%, 34%, 37%, and 51% of MMMT, high-grade EM, CC, and PS cases, respectively, diagnosed at advanced late stage (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests showed similar RFS, DSS, and OS between MMMT, high-grade EM, CC, and PS cases stratified by stage. In adjusted Cox regression models, RFS and DSS were not significantly different between MMMT and other subtypes. High-grade EM cases had a significantly better OS compared to MMMT cases (HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.98).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first retrospective study to suggest that certain survival outcomes are similar among MMMT, high-grade EM, CC, and PS subtypes. Other large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21666484      PMCID: PMC3827731          DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31821a62dd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  25 in total

1.  Pathologic variables and adjuvant therapy as predictors of recurrence and survival for patients with surgically evaluated carcinosarcoma of the uterus.

Authors:  S D Yamada; R A Burger; W R Brewster; D Anton; M F Kohler; B J Monk
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  Malignant biphasic uterine tumours: carcinosarcomas or metaplastic carcinomas?

Authors:  W G McCluggage
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Patterns of recurrence in malignant mixed müllerian tumor of the uterus.

Authors:  W J Spanos; L J Peters; M J Oswald
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1986-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Management of malignant, mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus.

Authors:  E S Podczaski; C A Woomert; C W Stevens; A Manetta; J E Larson; R J Zaino; R Mortel
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Mixed müllerian tumors of the uterus: a clinicopathologic study.

Authors:  T V Dinh; R E Slavin; B S Bhagavan; E V Hannigan; E M Tiamson; R B Yandell
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 6.  Uterine carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed Mullerian tumors) are metaplastic carcinomas.

Authors:  W G McCluggage
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.437

7.  A clinical and biological comparison between malignant mixed müllerian tumors and grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Amy E Bland; Rebecca Stone; Cara Heuser; Jianfen Shu; Amir Jazaeri; Jamie Shutter; Kristin Atkins; Laurel Rice
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 8.  Uterine sarcomas: a review.

Authors:  Emanuela D'Angelo; Jaime Prat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Evaluation of prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in uterine carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  K Galaal; F M Kew; K F Tam; A Lopes; M Meirovitz; R Naik; K A Godfrey; M H Hatem; R J Edmondson
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 2.435

10.  Malignant mixed Müllerian tumors of the uterus: analysis of patterns of failure, prognostic factors, and treatment outcome.

Authors:  Michael Callister; Lois M Ramondetta; Anuja Jhingran; Thomas W Burke; Patricia J Eifel
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  11 in total

1.  Significance of MNK1 in prognostic prediction and chemotherapy development of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  S Hou; P Du; P Wang; C Wang; P Liu; H Liu
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Biphasic malignant tumours of the abdominal cavity.

Authors:  L Max Almond; Adrian T Warfield; Anant Desai; David Gourevitch; Samuel J Ford
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Controversies in the Management of Early-stage Serous Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Alyssa Larish; Andrea Mariani; Carrie Langstraat
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Analysis of recurrence and survival rates in grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Jieyu Wang; Nan Jia; Qing Li; Chao Wang; Xiang Tao; Keqin Hua; Weiwei Feng
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and outcomes in uterine carcinosarcoma and grade 3 endometrial cancer patients: a comparative study.

Authors:  Jun Zhu; Hao Wen; Rui Bi; Xiaohua Wu
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 4.401

6.  Prognostic value of metabolic parameters determined by preoperative ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Hyun Ju Lee; Jong Jin Lee; Jeong Yeol Park; Jong Hyeok Kim; Yong Man Kim; Young Tak Kim; Joo Hyun Nam
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.401

7.  What Has Changed in the Management of Uterine Serous Carcinomas? Two Decades of Experience.

Authors:  Michalis Liontos; Anna Svarna; Charalampos Theofanakis; Oraianthi Fiste; Angeliki Andrikopoulou; Maria Kaparelou; Konstantinos Koutsoukos; Nikolaos Thomakos; Dimitrios Haidopoulos; Alexandros Rodolakis; Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos; Flora Zagouri
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Uterine carcinosarcoma: A 10-year single institution experience.

Authors:  Leana Terblanche; Matthys H Botha
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.752

9.  Port-Site Metastasis of Uterine Carcinosarcoma after Laparoscopy.

Authors:  Zhen Tan; Ang Li; Long Chen; XiaoWen Xu; ChuanGang Fu
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  Could miRNA Signatures be Useful for Predicting Uterine Sarcoma and Carcinosarcoma Prognosis and Treatment?

Authors:  Laura Gonzalez Dos Anjos; Bruna Cristine de Almeida; Thais Gomes de Almeida; André Mourão Lavorato Rocha; Giovana De Nardo Maffazioli; Fernando Augusto Soares; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Edmund Chada Baracat; Katia Candido Carvalho
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.