BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors including efficacy of postoperative chemotherapy in Japanese patients with uterine carcinosarcoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective survey of seven medical facilities in the Tohoku Gynecologic Cancer Unit. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients who had undergone hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were enrolled. No significant difference was observed in overall survival according to patient age (≤ 50 years vs >50 years) or retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (performed vs. not performed). However, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (stage I/II vs stage III/IV) and postoperative chemotherapy (provided vs not provided) were significant prognostic factors in both univariate and multivariate analyses for the 25-month median follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results revealed that postoperative chemotherapy should be considered for all uterine carcinosarcoma stages in Japanese patients.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors including efficacy of postoperative chemotherapy in Japanese patients with uterine carcinosarcoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective survey of seven medical facilities in the Tohoku Gynecologic Cancer Unit. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients who had undergone hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were enrolled. No significant difference was observed in overall survival according to patient age (≤ 50 years vs >50 years) or retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (performed vs. not performed). However, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (stage I/II vs stage III/IV) and postoperative chemotherapy (provided vs not provided) were significant prognostic factors in both univariate and multivariate analyses for the 25-month median follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results revealed that postoperative chemotherapy should be considered for all uterine carcinosarcoma stages in Japanese patients.
Authors: E Sartori; L Bazzurini; A Gadducci; F Landoni; A Lissoni; T Maggino; P Zola; B La Face Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Frederic Amant; Isabelle Cadron; Luca Fuso; Patrick Berteloot; Eric de Jonge; Gerd Jacomen; Johan Van Robaeys; Patrick Neven; Philippe Moerman; Ignace Vergote Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S G Silverberg; F J Major; J A Blessing; B Fetter; F B Askin; S Y Liao; A Miller Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 1990 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Howard D Homesley; Virginia Filiaci; Maurie Markman; Pincas Bitterman; Lynne Eaton; Larry C Kilgore; Bradley J Monk; Frederick R Ueland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aaron H Wolfson; Mark F Brady; Thomas Rocereto; Robert S Mannel; Yi-Chun Lee; Robert J Futoran; David E Cohn; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: F J Major; J A Blessing; S G Silverberg; C P Morrow; W T Creasman; J L Currie; E Yordan; M F Brady Journal: Cancer Date: 1993-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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