Literature DB >> 21889193

FIGO staging for carcinosarcoma: can the revised staging system predict overall survival?

Tana S Pradhan1, Erin E Stevens, Michael Ablavsky, Ghadir Salame, Yi-Chun Lee, Ovadia Abulafia.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to detect differences in overall survival between the 1988 FIGO staging and current staging of uterine carcinosarcomas to determine if revised 2009 staging accurately predicts actual patient survival.
METHODS: From 1988 until 2010, patients with uterine carcinosarcoma were retrospectively identified from tumor registry records. Patients were grouped in both broad stages (1-4) and all FIGO substages in order to detect differences. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were generated to predict death before the end of the second year post-diagnosis for both the new and revised system. Kaplan Meier estimated median survival time was utilized to compare actual patient survival.
RESULTS: Of 112 patients with carcinosarcoma, 37 patients (33%) had FIGO Stage I disease, 15 patients (13.4%) had Stage II disease, 36 patients (32%) were diagnosed as Stage III, and 24 patients (21.4%) had Stage IV disease. 106 of 112 (94.6%) patients underwent lymphadenectomy (pelvic +/- para-aortic). Four patients (3.6%) were downstaged when utilizing broad staging criteria: 2 patients were downstaged from Stage II to I, and 2 patients were downstaged from Stage III to Stage I and II respectively. When looking at substage, the area under the ROC was 0.67 for the former staging system, and 0.65 for the revised staging. Kaplan-Meier estimated median survival time post-diagnosis was 610 days (95% CI [478,930]).
CONCLUSION: Based upon our reclassification of 112 patients with uterine carcinosarcoma, the revised FIGO staging system does not predict survival more accurately than former staging. Carcinosarcoma has an overall poor prognosis and better indicators of survival are needed.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21889193     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  3 in total

1.  Histopathological features of HER2 overexpression in uterine carcinosarcoma: proposal for requirements in HER2 testing for targeted therapy.

Authors:  Hiroshi Yoshida; Tadaaki Nishikawa; Koji Matsumoto; Masahiko Mori; Yasuyuki Hirashima; Kazuhiro Takehara; Kazuya Ariyoshi; Kosei Hasegawa; Kan Yonemori
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  The reasonable timing of the adjuvant radiotherapy in the treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma according to the surgical intent: suggestion based on progression patterns.

Authors:  Jeong Il Yu; Doo Ho Choi; Seung Jae Huh; Won Park; Dongryul Oh; Duk Soo Bae
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2013-06-30

3.  Clinical Characteristics, Surgical Management and Adjuvant Therapy of Patients with Uterine Carcinosarcoma: A Retrospective Case Series.

Authors:  C Wallwiener; A Hartkopf; S Kommoss; C Joachim; M Wallwiener; F A Taran; S Brucker
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.915

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.