PURPOSE: To analyze treatment modalities and prognostic factors in patients with Stage I-II endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty four patients (nineteen with low-grade ESS [LGESS] and five with high-grade ESS [HGESS]) were assessed retrospectively in terms of general characteristics, prognostic factors, treatment methods and survival. RESULTS: Twenty patients were at Stage I and three were at Stage II. The stage of one patient could not be determined. With respect to age and comorbidity, no statistically significant difference was found among disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.990; p=0.995). However, DFS was significantly shorter in Stage II than Stage I patients (p=0.002). It was also significantly shorter in HGESS patients than in LGESS patients (p=0.000). There was no statistically significant differences among the overall survival (OVS) times of patients with respect to age at diagnosis and comorbid disease (p=0.905; p=0.979) but OVS was significantly shorter in patients with HGESS (p=0.00) and Stage II disease (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found with respect to OVS between patients who received radiotherapy (RT) and those who did not receive RT (p=0.055). It was not statistically possible to include other treatment modalities in the analysis because of the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Grade and stage of a tumour were found to be the most important prognostic factors. It was not possible to determine the optimal surgical method and the effect of adjuvant treatment since the number of cases was insufficient.
PURPOSE: To analyze treatment modalities and prognostic factors in patients with Stage I-II endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty four patients (nineteen with low-grade ESS [LGESS] and five with high-grade ESS [HGESS]) were assessed retrospectively in terms of general characteristics, prognostic factors, treatment methods and survival. RESULTS: Twenty patients were at Stage I and three were at Stage II. The stage of one patient could not be determined. With respect to age and comorbidity, no statistically significant difference was found among disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.990; p=0.995). However, DFS was significantly shorter in Stage II than Stage I patients (p=0.002). It was also significantly shorter in HGESS patients than in LGESS patients (p=0.000). There was no statistically significant differences among the overall survival (OVS) times of patients with respect to age at diagnosis and comorbid disease (p=0.905; p=0.979) but OVS was significantly shorter in patients with HGESS (p=0.00) and Stage II disease (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found with respect to OVS between patients who received radiotherapy (RT) and those who did not receive RT (p=0.055). It was not statistically possible to include other treatment modalities in the analysis because of the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Grade and stage of a tumour were found to be the most important prognostic factors. It was not possible to determine the optimal surgical method and the effect of adjuvant treatment since the number of cases was insufficient.
Authors: Matthew L Hemming; Andrew J Wagner; Marisa R Nucci; Sarah Chiang; Lu Wang; Martee L Hensley; Suzanne George Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 5.482