Literature DB >> 25633654

Uterine carcinosarcoma and high-risk endometrial carcinomas: a clinicopathological comparison.

Chuyao Zhang1, Weiguo Hu, Nan Jia, Qing Li, Keqin Hua, Xiang Tao, Li Wang, Weiwei Feng.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics of carcinosarcoma, grade 3 endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (G3EEC), uterine serous carcinoma (USC), and uterine clear cell adenocarcinoma (CC) to determine whether carcinosarcoma exhibited the same characteristics and outcomes as the other 3 high-risk endometrial cancers.
METHODS: A total of 358 patients recruited from the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were included in this study; the cases included 44 carcinosarcomas, 118 G3EECs, 118 USCs, and 78 CCs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze outcomes and prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Uterine carcinosarcomas had significantly worse outcomes (overall survival, disease-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival) compared with G3EEC, USC, and CC (P < 0.001), whereas the other 3 shared similar outcomes. Carcinosarcoma type was an independent factor, even stratified by stage. Eighty-three percent of recurred carcinosarcoma patients occurred within 1 year. Compared with USC and CC, patients with carcinosarcoma had a greater incidence of deep myometrial invasion (55.8%, P < 0.05) and cervical stromal involvement (P = 0.046). The carcinomatous regions of carcinosarcomas demonstrated a similar ER/P53 expression pattern as did USC and CC. However, all features were similar in carcinosarcoma and G3EEC patients, although the P53-positive rate was higher in carcinosarcoma patients compared with G3EEC patients (59.0% vs 38.5%, P = 0.037). For carcinosarcomas, a multivariate analysis showed that advanced stage (P = 0.006) was an independent prognostic factor for disease-specific survival. With regard to endometrioid-or-not epithelial and heterologous-or-homologous sarcomatous components, none of these components demonstrated apparent relationship with prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Carcinosarcomas exhibited significantly poorer outcomes than did G3EECs, USCs, and CCs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to regard carcinosarcomas as a particular type among high-risk epithelial endometrial carcinomas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25633654     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000350

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


  13 in total

1.  Prognostic impact of primary tumor SUVmax on preoperative 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in endometrial cancer and uterine carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Tamaki Yahata; Shigetaka Yagi; Yasushi Mabuchi; Yuko Tanizaki; Aya Kobayashi; Madoka Yamamoto; Mika Mizoguchi; Sakiko Nanjo; Michihisa Shiro; Nami Ota; Sawako Minami; Masaki Terada; Kazuhiko Ino
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-08-04

2.  Serous carcinomatous component championed by heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF) predisposing to metastasis and recurrence in stage I uterine malignant mixed mullerian tumor.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; David Shimizu; Jeffrey L Killeen; Stacey A Honda; Di Lu; Alexander Stanoyevitch; Fritz Lin; Beverly Wang; Edwin S Monuki; Michele Carbone
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 3.  Review of Recommended Treatment of Uterine Carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Joseph Menczer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2015-11

4.  TCGA Classification of Endometrial Cancer: the Place of Carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Annarita Gencarelli; Antonio Mollo; Maurizio Guida; Luigi Insabato; Angela Santoro; Gian Franco Zannoni; Fulvio Zullo
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.201

Review 5.  Prognostic value of the TCGA molecular classification in uterine carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Diego Raimondo; Damiano Arciuolo; Giuseppe Angelico; Michele Valente; Giulia Scaglione; Nicoletta D'alessandris; Paolo Casadio; Frediano Inzani; Antonio Mollo; Angela Santoro; Renato Seracchioli; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 4.447

6.  The effect of surgical approach on the outcomes and prognosis of high-risk histologic endometrioid carcinomas.

Authors:  Zhihong Han; Zhong Zheng; Kai Tao; Yanping Yu; Jinping Wu; Xiaofei Tian
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

7.  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

Review 8.  New classification of endometrial cancers: the development and potential applications of genomic-based classification in research and clinical care.

Authors:  A Talhouk; J N McAlpine
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Res Pract       Date:  2016-12-13

9.  Gene aberration profile of tumors of adolescent and young adult females.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Kanke; Akihiko Shimomura; Motonobu Saito; Takayuki Honda; Kouya Shiraishi; Yoko Shimada; Reiko Watanabe; Hiroshi Yoshida; Masayuki Yoshida; Chikako Shimizu; Kazuaki Takahashi; Hirohiko Totsuka; Hideaki Ogiwara; Sou Hirose; Koji Kono; Kenji Tamura; Aikou Okamoto; Takayuki Kinoshita; Tomoyasu Kato; Takashi Kohno
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-12-29

Review 10.  New Pathological and Clinical Insights in Endometrial Cancer in View of the Updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines.

Authors:  Angela Santoro; Giuseppe Angelico; Antonio Travaglino; Frediano Inzani; Damiano Arciuolo; Michele Valente; Nicoletta D'Alessandris; Giulia Scaglione; Vincenzo Fiorentino; Antonio Raffone; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.