K Matsuo1, Y Takazawa2, M S Ross3, E Elishaev4, I Podzielinski5, M Yunokawa6, T B Sheridan7, S H Bush8, M M Klobocista9, E A Blake10, T Takano11, S Matsuzaki12, T Baba13, S Satoh14, M Shida15, T Nishikawa16, Y Ikeda17, S Adachi18, T Yokoyama19, M Takekuma20, K Fujiwara16, Y Hazama22, D Kadogami23, M N Moffitt24, S Takeuchi25, M Nishimura26, K Iwasaki27, N Ushioda28, M S Johnson5, M Yoshida29, A Hakam30, S W Li9, A M Richmond31, H Machida32, P Mhawech-Fauceglia33, Y Ueda12, K Yoshino12, K Yamaguchi13, T Oishi14, H Kajiwara34, K Hasegawa16, M Yasuda35, K Kawana17, K Suda18, T M Miyake22, T Moriya36, Y Yuba37, T Morgan38, T Fukagawa39, A Wakatsuki27, T Sugiyama25, T Pejovic24, T Nagano23, K Shimoya22, M Andoh21, Y Shiki19, T Enomoto18, T Sasaki40, K Fujiwara16, M Mikami15, M Shimada14, I Konishi13, T Kimura12, M D Post31, M M Shahzad8, D D Im41, H Yoshida29, K Omatsu28, F R Ueland5, J L Kelley3, R G Karabakhtsian42, L D Roman32. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4. Department of Pathology, MaGee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. 6. Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of Pathology, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore. 8. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa. 9. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bronx. 10. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University, Miyagi. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University, Osaka. 13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyoto University, Kyoto. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tottori University, Tottori. 15. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University, Kanagawa. 16. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama. 17. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo. 18. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University, Niigata. 19. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Osaka. 20. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka. 21. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama. 22. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama. 23. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Kitano Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 24. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Portland, USA. 25. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iwate Medical University, Morioka. 26. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokushima University, Tokushima. 27. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aichi Medical University, Aichi. 28. Department of Gynecology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo. 29. Departments of Pathology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 30. Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa. 31. Department of Pathology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 32. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. 33. Department of Pathology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. 34. Department of Pathology, Tokai University, Kanagawa. 35. Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama. 36. Department of Pathology, Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama. 37. Department of Pathology, Kitano Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 38. Department of Pathology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. 39. Department of Pathology, Iwate Medical University, Morioka. 40. Department of Pathology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 41. Department of Gynecology, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore. 42. Department of Pathology, University of Kentucky, Lexington Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of the histology of carcinoma and sarcoma components on survival outcome of uterine carcinosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted to examine uterine carcinosarcoma cases that underwent primary surgical staging. Archived slides were examined and histologic patterns were grouped based on carcinoma (low-grade versus high-grade) and sarcoma (homologous versus heterologous) components, correlating to clinico-pathological demographics and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1192 cases identified, 906 cases were evaluated for histologic patterns (carcinoma/sarcoma) with high-grade/homologous (40.8%) being the most common type followed by high-grade/heterologous (30.9%), low-grade/homologous (18.0%), and low-grade/heterologous (10.3%). On multivariate analysis, high-grade/heterologous (5-year rate, 34.0%, P = 0.024) and high-grade/homologous (45.8%, P = 0.017) but not low-grade/heterologous (50.6%, P = 0.089) were independently associated with decreased progression-free survival (PFS) compared with low-grade/homologous (60.3%). In addition, older age, residual disease at surgery, large tumor, sarcoma dominance, deep myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, and advanced-stage disease were independently associated with decreased PFS (all, P < 0.01). Both postoperative chemotherapy (5-year rates, 48.6% versus 39.0%, P < 0.001) and radiotherapy (50.1% versus 44.1%, P = 0.007) were significantly associated with improved PFS in univariate analysis. However, on multivariate analysis, only postoperative chemotherapy remained an independent predictor for improved PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.43, P < 0.001]. On univariate analysis, significant treatment benefits for PFS were seen with ifosfamide for low-grade carcinoma (82.0% versus 49.8%, P = 0.001), platinum for high-grade carcinoma (46.9% versus 32.4%, P = 0.034) and homologous sarcoma (53.1% versus 38.2%, P = 0.017), and anthracycline for heterologous sarcoma (66.2% versus 39.3%, P = 0.005). Conversely, platinum, taxane, and anthracycline for low-grade carcinoma, and anthracycline for homologous sarcoma had no effect on PFS compared with non-chemotherapy group (all, P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, ifosfamide for low-grade/homologous (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.63, P = 0.005), platinum for high-grade/homologous (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.60, P < 0.001), and anthracycline for high-grade/heterologous (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.62, P = 0.001) remained independent predictors for improved PFS. Analyses of 1096 metastatic sites showed that carcinoma components tended to spread lymphatically, while sarcoma components tended to spread loco-regionally (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Characterization of histologic pattern provides valuable information in the management of uterine carcinosarcoma.
BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of the histology of carcinoma and sarcoma components on survival outcome of uterine carcinosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted to examine uterine carcinosarcoma cases that underwent primary surgical staging. Archived slides were examined and histologic patterns were grouped based on carcinoma (low-grade versus high-grade) and sarcoma (homologous versus heterologous) components, correlating to clinico-pathological demographics and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1192 cases identified, 906 cases were evaluated for histologic patterns (carcinoma/sarcoma) with high-grade/homologous (40.8%) being the most common type followed by high-grade/heterologous (30.9%), low-grade/homologous (18.0%), and low-grade/heterologous (10.3%). On multivariate analysis, high-grade/heterologous (5-year rate, 34.0%, P = 0.024) and high-grade/homologous (45.8%, P = 0.017) but not low-grade/heterologous (50.6%, P = 0.089) were independently associated with decreased progression-free survival (PFS) compared with low-grade/homologous (60.3%). In addition, older age, residual disease at surgery, large tumor, sarcoma dominance, deep myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, and advanced-stage disease were independently associated with decreased PFS (all, P < 0.01). Both postoperative chemotherapy (5-year rates, 48.6% versus 39.0%, P < 0.001) and radiotherapy (50.1% versus 44.1%, P = 0.007) were significantly associated with improved PFS in univariate analysis. However, on multivariate analysis, only postoperative chemotherapy remained an independent predictor for improved PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.43, P < 0.001]. On univariate analysis, significant treatment benefits for PFS were seen with ifosfamide for low-grade carcinoma (82.0% versus 49.8%, P = 0.001), platinum for high-grade carcinoma (46.9% versus 32.4%, P = 0.034) and homologous sarcoma (53.1% versus 38.2%, P = 0.017), and anthracycline for heterologous sarcoma (66.2% versus 39.3%, P = 0.005). Conversely, platinum, taxane, and anthracycline for low-grade carcinoma, and anthracycline for homologous sarcoma had no effect on PFS compared with non-chemotherapy group (all, P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, ifosfamide for low-grade/homologous (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.63, P = 0.005), platinum for high-grade/homologous (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.60, P < 0.001), and anthracycline for high-grade/heterologous (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.62, P = 0.001) remained independent predictors for improved PFS. Analyses of 1096 metastatic sites showed that carcinoma components tended to spread lymphatically, while sarcoma components tended to spread loco-regionally (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Characterization of histologic pattern provides valuable information in the management of uterine carcinosarcoma.
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Kohei Omatsu; Malcolm S Ross; Marian S Johnson; Mayu Yunokawa; Merieme M Klobocista; Dwight D Im; Stephen H Bush; Yutaka Ueda; Tadao Takano; Erin A Blake; Kosei Hasegawa; Tsukasa Baba; Masako Shida; Shinya Satoh; Takuhei Yokoyama; Hiroko Machida; Sosuke Adachi; Yuji Ikeda; Keita Iwasaki; Takahito M Miyake; Shiori Yanai; Masato Nishimura; Tadayoshi Nagano; Munetaka Takekuma; Satoshi Takeuchi; Tanja Pejovic; Mian Mk Shahzad; Frederick R Ueland; Joseph L Kelley; Lynda D Roman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Matthieu Le Gallo; Meghan L Rudd; Mary Ellen Urick; Nancy F Hansen; Maria J Merino; David G Mutch; Paul J Goodfellow; James C Mullikin; Daphne W Bell Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Koji Matsuo; David J Nusbaum; Shinya Matsuzaki; Erica J Chang; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright; Philipp Harter; Maximilian Klar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sheila E Segura; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Yaser R Hussein; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Britta Weigelt; Robert A Soslow; Deborah F DeLair Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Marian Symmes Johnson; Thomas C Tucker; Quan Chen; Bin Huang; Christopher P DeSimone; Rachel W Miller; Lauren A Baldwin; Tricia I Fredericks; Brian T Burgess; Frederick R Ueland Journal: South Med J Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 0.954