Britt K Erickson1, David W Doo2, Bin Zhang3, Warner K Huh4, Charles A Leath4. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham Division of Gynecologic Oncology, USA. Electronic address: britte@uab.edu. 2. University of Colorado Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, USA. 3. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, USA. 4. University of Alabama at Birmingham Division of Gynecologic Oncology, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: GOG 150 suggested that Black women had worse survival compared to White women with uterine carcinosarcoma. Our objective was to compare treatment and survival outcomes between Black and White women at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer center serving a diverse racial population. METHODS: An IRB approved retrospective cohort study of uterine carcinosarcoma patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Survival was compared by race and stratified by stage. Median progression free and overall survival (PFS and OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariate survival analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 158 women were included: 93 (59%) were Black and 65 (41%) were White. 95 (60%) had early stage disease and 63 (40%) had advanced stage disease. Black women had a shorter PFS (7.9 vs. 14.2 months, p<0.001) and OS (13.4 vs. 30.8 months, p<0.001). There was no difference in survival between Black and White women with advanced stage disease (OS 8.5 vs. 11.8, p=0.18). However, PFS and OS were worse in Black women compared to White women with early stage disease (PFS 13.6 vs. 77.4, p=0.001), (OS 25.4 vs. 94.7, p=0.003). On multivariate analysis accounting for age, stage, BMI, and adjuvant treatment, Black race remained independently associated with risk of death (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.25-3.23). CONCLUSIONS: Black women with uterine carcinosarcoma have worse survival compared to White women despite similar patient and treatment characteristics. This difference is largely due to differences in survival in early stage disease.
OBJECTIVE: GOG 150 suggested that Black women had worse survival compared to White women with uterine carcinosarcoma. Our objective was to compare treatment and survival outcomes between Black and White women at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer center serving a diverse racial population. METHODS: An IRB approved retrospective cohort study of uterine carcinosarcomapatients diagnosed between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Survival was compared by race and stratified by stage. Median progression free and overall survival (PFS and OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariate survival analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 158 women were included: 93 (59%) were Black and 65 (41%) were White. 95 (60%) had early stage disease and 63 (40%) had advanced stage disease. Black women had a shorter PFS (7.9 vs. 14.2 months, p<0.001) and OS (13.4 vs. 30.8 months, p<0.001). There was no difference in survival between Black and White women with advanced stage disease (OS 8.5 vs. 11.8, p=0.18). However, PFS and OS were worse in Black women compared to White women with early stage disease (PFS 13.6 vs. 77.4, p=0.001), (OS 25.4 vs. 94.7, p=0.003). On multivariate analysis accounting for age, stage, BMI, and adjuvant treatment, Black race remained independently associated with risk of death (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.25-3.23). CONCLUSIONS: Black women with uterine carcinosarcoma have worse survival compared to White women despite similar patient and treatment characteristics. This difference is largely due to differences in survival in early stage disease.
Authors: Vivien W Chen; Christie R Eheman; Christopher J Johnson; Monique N Hernandez; David Rousseau; Timothy S Styles; Dee W West; Meichin Hsieh; Anne M Hakenewerth; Maria O Celaya; Randi K Rycroft; Jennifer M Wike; Melissa Pearson; Judy Brockhouse; Linda G Mulvihill; Kevin B Zhang Journal: J Registry Manag Date: 2014
Authors: Matthew A Powell; Virginia L Filiaci; Martee L Hensley; Helen Q Huang; Kathleen N Moore; Krishnansu S Tewari; Larry J Copeland; Angeles A Secord; David G Mutch; Alessandro Santin; David P Warshal; Nick M Spirtos; Paul A DiSilvestro; Olga B Ioffe; David S Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 50.717
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
Authors: Lorraine T Dean; Xiaochen Zhang; Nawar Latif; Robert Giuntoli; Lilie Lin; Ashley Haggerty; Sarah Kim; David Shalowitz; Caitlin Stashwick; Fiona Simpkins; Robert Burger; Mark Morgan; Emily Ko; Kathryn Schmitz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anne R Van Arsdale; Rebecca C Arend; Maria J Cossio; Britt K Erickson; Yanhua Wang; David W Doo; Charles A Leath; Gary L Goldberg; Gloria S Huang Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 4.452