Maria B Schiavone1, Oliver Zivanovic1,2, Qin Zhou3, Mario M Leitao1,2, Douglas A Levine1,2, Robert A Soslow4,5, Kaled M Alektiar6, Vicky Makker7,8, Alexia Iasonos3, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum9,10. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 9. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Abu-rusn@mskcc.org. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Abu-rusn@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of patients with uterine carcinosarcoma undergoing sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for all women with uterine cancer treated at our institution from January 1, 1998 to August 31, 2014. Patients were grouped based on whether they had undergone SLN mapping or routine lymphadenectomy at the time of staging. SLN evaluation was performed according to a standard institutional protocol that incorporates a surgical algorithm and pathologic ultrastaging. RESULTS: We identified 136 patients with uterine carcinosarcoma who had undergone lymph node evaluation; 48 had surgical staging with SLN mapping and 88 had routine lymphadenectomy consisting of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node dissection. Stage distribution for the SLN group included: stage I, 31 (65 %); stage II, 1 (2 %); stage III, 11 (23 %); stage IV, 5 (10 %). Stage distribution for the non-SLN group included: stage I, 48 (55 %); stage II, 4 (4 %); stage III, 19 (22 %); stage IV, 17 (19 %) (p = 0.4). Median number of lymph nodes removed was 8 and 20, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Median number of positive nodes was similar between the groups (p = 0.2). Of the 67 patients who had a documented recurrence, 14 of 20 (70 %) in the SLN and 34 of 47 (74 %) in the non-SLN group demonstrated a distant/multifocal pattern of recurrence. There was no difference in median progression-free survival between the groups (23 vs. 23.2 months, respectively; p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival in women with uterine carcinosarcoma undergoing SLN mapping with adjuvant therapy appears similar to that of patients treated before the incorporation of the SLN protocol. Additional prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to validate these early results.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of patients with uterine carcinosarcoma undergoing sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for all women with uterine cancer treated at our institution from January 1, 1998 to August 31, 2014. Patients were grouped based on whether they had undergone SLN mapping or routine lymphadenectomy at the time of staging. SLN evaluation was performed according to a standard institutional protocol that incorporates a surgical algorithm and pathologic ultrastaging. RESULTS: We identified 136 patients with uterine carcinosarcoma who had undergone lymph node evaluation; 48 had surgical staging with SLN mapping and 88 had routine lymphadenectomy consisting of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node dissection. Stage distribution for the SLN group included: stage I, 31 (65 %); stage II, 1 (2 %); stage III, 11 (23 %); stage IV, 5 (10 %). Stage distribution for the non-SLN group included: stage I, 48 (55 %); stage II, 4 (4 %); stage III, 19 (22 %); stage IV, 17 (19 %) (p = 0.4). Median number of lymph nodes removed was 8 and 20, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Median number of positive nodes was similar between the groups (p = 0.2). Of the 67 patients who had a documented recurrence, 14 of 20 (70 %) in the SLN and 34 of 47 (74 %) in the non-SLN group demonstrated a distant/multifocal pattern of recurrence. There was no difference in median progression-free survival between the groups (23 vs. 23.2 months, respectively; p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival in women with uterine carcinosarcoma undergoing SLN mapping with adjuvant therapy appears similar to that of patients treated before the incorporation of the SLN protocol. Additional prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to validate these early results.
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Jacob D Gomez; Kaled M Alektiar; Robert A Soslow; Martee L Hensley; Mario M Leitao; Ginger J Gardner; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-08-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: F Khoury-Collado; M P Murray; M L Hensley; Y Sonoda; K M Alektiar; D A Levine; M M Leitao; D S Chi; R R Barakat; N R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz; Whitney Spannuth; Marilyn J Greer; Sheena Sharma; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback; Lois M Ramondetta Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Kaled Alektiar; Alexia Iasonos; Gali Lev; Yukio Sonoda; Carol Aghajanian; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Fady Khoury-Collado; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Robert A Soslow; Fanny Dao; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Carol L Brown; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Fady Khoury-Collado; Gretchen E Glaser; Oliver Zivanovic; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Dennis S Chi; Mary L Gemignani; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Derman Basaran; Shaina Bruce; Emeline M Aviki; Jennifer J Mueller; Vance A Broach; Karen Cadoo; Robert A Soslow; Kaled M Alektiar; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Malcolm S Ross; Mayu Yunokawa; Marian S Johnson; Hiroko Machida; Kohei Omatsu; Merieme M Klobocista; Dwight D Im; Shinya Satoh; Tsukasa Baba; Yuji Ikeda; Stephen H Bush; Kosei Hasegawa; Erin A Blake; Munetaka Takekuma; Masako Shida; Masato Nishimura; Sosuke Adachi; Tanja Pejovic; Satoshi Takeuchi; Takuhei Yokoyama; Yutaka Ueda; Keita Iwasaki; Takahito M Miyake; Shiori Yanai; Tadayoshi Nagano; Tadao Takano; Mian Mk Shahzad; Frederick R Ueland; Joseph L Kelley; Lynda D Roman Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Floor J Backes; John F Boggess; Walter H Gotlieb; W Jeffrey Lowery; Emma C Rossi; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca J Wolsky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
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