Gunjal Garg1, Cecilia Yee2, Kendra Schwartz3, David G Mutch4, Robert T Morris5, Matthew A Powell4. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine., Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: gunjalgarg@yahoo.com. 2. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine., Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of care, predictors, and impact of chemotherapy on survival in elderly women diagnosed with early-stage uterine carcinosarcoma. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify women 65 years or older diagnosed with stage I-II uterine carcinosarcomas from 1991 through 2007. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazards models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 462 women met the eligibility criteria; 374 had stage I, and 88 had stage II uterine carcinosarcomas. There were no appreciable differences over time in the percentages of women administered chemotherapy for early stage uterine carcinosarcoma (14.7% in 1991-1995, 14.9% in 1996-2000, and 17.9% in 2001-2007, P=0.67). On multivariable analysis, the factors positively associated with receipt of chemotherapy were younger age at diagnosis, higher disease stage, residence in the eastern part of the United States, and lack of administration of external beam radiation (P<0.05). In the adjusted Cox-proportional hazards regression models, administration of three or more cycles of chemotherapy did not reduce the risk of death in stage I patients (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.83-2.39) but was associated with non-significant decreased mortality in stage II patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 15-18% of elderly patients diagnosed with early-stage uterine carcinosarcoma were treated with chemotherapy. This trend remained stable over time, and chemotherapy was not associated with any significant survival benefit in this patient population. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of care, predictors, and impact of chemotherapy on survival in elderly women diagnosed with early-stage uterine carcinosarcoma. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify women 65 years or older diagnosed with stage I-II uterine carcinosarcomas from 1991 through 2007. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazards models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 462 women met the eligibility criteria; 374 had stage I, and 88 had stage II uterine carcinosarcomas. There were no appreciable differences over time in the percentages of women administered chemotherapy for early stage uterine carcinosarcoma (14.7% in 1991-1995, 14.9% in 1996-2000, and 17.9% in 2001-2007, P=0.67). On multivariable analysis, the factors positively associated with receipt of chemotherapy were younger age at diagnosis, higher disease stage, residence in the eastern part of the United States, and lack of administration of external beam radiation (P<0.05). In the adjusted Cox-proportional hazards regression models, administration of three or more cycles of chemotherapy did not reduce the risk of death in stage I patients (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.83-2.39) but was associated with non-significant decreased mortality in stage II patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 15-18% of elderly patients diagnosed with early-stage uterine carcinosarcoma were treated with chemotherapy. This trend remained stable over time, and chemotherapy was not associated with any significant survival benefit in this patient population. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinosarcoma; Chemotherapy; Outcomes; Patterns of care
Authors: Benjamin E Greer; Wui-Jin Koh; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; Michael A Bookman; Robert E Bristow; Susana M Campos; Kathleen R Cho; Larry Copeland; Marta Ann Crispens; Patricia J Eifel; Warner K Huh; Wainwright Jaggernauth; Daniel S Kapp; John J Kavanagh; John R Lurain; Mark Morgan; Robert J Morgan; C Bethan Powell; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; Angeles Alvarez Secord; William Small; Nelson Teng Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: G Sutton; V L Brunetto; L Kilgore; J T Soper; R McGehee; G Olt; S S Lentz; J Sorosky; J G Hsiu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vijaya Sundararajan; Dawn Hershman; Victor R Grann; Judith S Jacobson; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Remi A Nout; Hein Putter; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Jan J Jobsen; Ludy C H W Lutgens; Elzbieta M van der Steen-Banasik; Jan Willem M Mens; Annerie Slot; Marika C Stenfert Kroese; Bart N F M van Bunningen; Vincent T H B M Smit; Hans W Nijman; Philine P van den Tol; Carien L Creutzberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth L Dickson; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Paola A Gehrig; Stuart Pierce; Laura Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Joseph Dottino; Amanda N Fader; Stephanie Ricci; Melissa A Geller Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-09-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kerri Beckmann; Sudarshan Selva-Nayagam; Ian Olver; Caroline Miller; Elizabeth S Buckley; Kate Powell; Dianne Buranyi-Trevarton; Raghu Gowda; David Roder; Martin K Oehler Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.989