Benjamin Margolis1, Ana I Tergas2, Ling Chen3, June Y Hou4, William M Burke4, Jim C Hu5, Cande V Ananth6, Alfred I Neugut7, Dawn L Hershman7, Jason D Wright8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 5. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States. 7. Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. Electronic address: jw2459@columbia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuroendocrine carcinomas of the cervix (NECC) are rare and thought to be aggressive. We performed a population-based analysis to examine the natural history, treatment patterns and outcomes of women with NECC compared to squamous cell carcinoma (SCCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) of the cervix. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was utilized to identify women with NECC, SCCC, and AC treated from 1998 to 2011. Clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics were compared between the groups. The association between tumor histology and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: We identified 127,332 patients, including 1,896 (1.5%) with NECC and 101,240 (79.5%) with SCCC and 24,196 (19.0%) with AC. Patients with NECC were younger, more often white, commercially insured, and diagnosed with metastatic disease at presentation compared to women with SCCC. Patients with early-stage NECC were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation after surgery (P<0.05 for both). In multivariable models stratified by stage and adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics, the risk of death was higher for patients with NECC compared to SCCC for all stages of disease: stages IB-IIA (HR=2.96; 95% CI, 2.48-3.52), stages IIB-IVA (HR=1.70; 95% CI, 1.45-1.99) and stage IVB (HR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.91-1.43). CONCLUSION: NECC are aggressive tumors associated with an increased risk of death. Survival is inferior for NECC compared to squamous cell tumors for women with both early and advanced stage disease.
OBJECTIVE:Neuroendocrine carcinomas of the cervix (NECC) are rare and thought to be aggressive. We performed a population-based analysis to examine the natural history, treatment patterns and outcomes of women with NECC compared to squamous cell carcinoma (SCCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) of the cervix. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was utilized to identify women with NECC, SCCC, and AC treated from 1998 to 2011. Clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics were compared between the groups. The association between tumor histology and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: We identified 127,332 patients, including 1,896 (1.5%) with NECC and 101,240 (79.5%) with SCCC and 24,196 (19.0%) with AC. Patients with NECC were younger, more often white, commercially insured, and diagnosed with metastatic disease at presentation compared to women with SCCC. Patients with early-stage NECC were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation after surgery (P<0.05 for both). In multivariable models stratified by stage and adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics, the risk of death was higher for patients with NECC compared to SCCC for all stages of disease: stages IB-IIA (HR=2.96; 95% CI, 2.48-3.52), stages IIB-IVA (HR=1.70; 95% CI, 1.45-1.99) and stage IVB (HR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.91-1.43). CONCLUSION: NECC are aggressive tumors associated with an increased risk of death. Survival is inferior for NECC compared to squamous cell tumors for women with both early and advanced stage disease.
Authors: Vijaya Galic; Thomas J Herzog; Sharyn N Lewin; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joshua G Cohen; Daniel S Kapp; Jacob Y Shin; Renata Urban; Alexander E Sherman; Lee-may Chen; Kathryn Osann; John K Chan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: David R Spigel; Peter M Townley; David M Waterhouse; Liang Fang; Ibrahim Adiguzel; Jane E Huang; David A Karlin; Leonardo Faoro; Frank A Scappaticci; Mark A Socinski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lauren Averett Byers; Jing Wang; Monique B Nilsson; Junya Fujimoto; Pierre Saintigny; John Yordy; Uma Giri; Michael Peyton; You Hong Fan; Lixia Diao; Fatemeh Masrorpour; Li Shen; Wenbin Liu; Boris Duchemann; Praveen Tumula; Vikas Bhardwaj; James Welsh; Stephanie Weber; Bonnie S Glisson; Neda Kalhor; Ignacio I Wistuba; Luc Girard; Scott M Lippman; Gordon B Mills; Kevin R Coombes; John N Weinstein; John D Minna; John V Heymach Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Georgia A McCann; Christina E Boutsicaris; Megan M Preston; Floor J Backes; Eric L Eisenhauer; Jeffrey M Fowler; David E Cohn; Larry J Copeland; Ritu Salani; David M O'Malley Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Dai Geyang; Chen Gaowen; L I Xiaoxuan; Zheng Youhong; Wang Yuan; Li Xingsong; L I Jing; Zhou Jing; Xie Yu; Wang Yifeng Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2021-01-30
Authors: M Frumovitz; M F Munsell; J K Burzawa; L A Byers; P Ramalingam; J Brown; R L Coleman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Clemens B Tempfer; Iris Tischoff; Askin Dogan; Ziad Hilal; Beate Schultheis; Peter Kern; Günther A Rezniczek Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 4.430