İrfan Cicin1, Tahsin Özatlı2, Esma Türkmen1, Türkan Özturk3, Melike Özçelik4, Devrim Çabuk5, Ayşe Gökdurnalı2, Özlem Balvan4, Yaşar Yıldız6, Metin Şeker7, Nuriye Özdemir8, Burcu Yapar9, Özgür Tanrıverdi10, Yusuf Günaydin11, Serkan Menekşe12, Berna Öksüzoğlu2, Asude Aksoy13, Bülent Erdogan1, M Bekir Hacıoglu1, Erkan Arpaci14, Alper Sevinç15. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University School of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Karadeniz Technical University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lütfi Kırdar Research and Training Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Atatürk Research and Training Hospital, İzmir, Turkey. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Cumhuriyet University School of Medicine, Sivas, Turkey. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Numune Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Pamukkale University School of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Muğla University School of Medicine, Muğla, Turkey. 11. Department of Medical Oncology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, Celal Bayar University School of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey. 13. Department of Medical Oncology, İnönü University School of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya Research and Training Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey. 15. Department of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep University School of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors and the standard treatment approach for gynaecological carcinosarcomas have not yet been clearly defined. Although carcinosarcomas are more aggressive than pure epithelial tumours, they are treated similarly. Serous/clear cell and endometrioid components may be predictive factors for the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or radiotherapy (RT) or RT in patients with uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas. Heterologous carcinosarcomas may benefit more from adjuvant CT. AIMS: We aimed to define the prognostic and predictive factors associated with treatment options in ovarian (OCS) and uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with ovarian and uterine carcinosarcoma from 2000 to 2013, and 127 women were included in this study (24 ovarian and 103 uterine). Patients admitted to seventeen oncology centres in Turkey between 2000 and December 2013 with a histologically proven diagnosis of uterine carcinosarcoma with FIGO 2009 stage I-III and patients with sufficient data obtained from well-kept medical records were included in this study. Stage IV tumours were excluded. The patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Data from 104 patients were evaluated for this study. RESULTS: Age (≥70 years) was a poor prognostic factor for UCS (p=0.036). Pelvic±para aortic lymph node dissection did not affect overall survival (OS) (p=0.35). Macroscopic residual disease was related with OS (p<0.01). The median OS was significantly longer in stage I-II patients than stage III patients (p=0.03). Adjuvant treatment improved OS (p=0.013). Adjuvant radiotherapy tended to increase the median OS (p=0.075). However, this tendency was observed in UCS (p=0.08) rather than OCS (p=0.6).Adjuvant chemotherapy had no effect on OS (p=0.15).Adjuvant radiotherapy significantly prolonged the median OS in patients with endometrioid component (p=0.034). A serous/clear cell component was a negative prognostic factor (p=0.035). Patients with serous/clear cell histology for whom adjuvant chemotherapy was applied had significantly longer OS (p=0.019), and there was no beneficial effect of adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.4). Adjuvant chemotherapy was effective in heterologous tumours (p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, the stage and chemotherapy were prognostic factors for all patients. Age was an independent prognostic factor for UCS. However, serous/clear cell histology and radiotherapy tended to be significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The primary location, the histological type of sarcomatous and the epithelial component may be predictive factors for the efficacy of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in UCS and OCS.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors and the standard treatment approach for gynaecological carcinosarcomas have not yet been clearly defined. Although carcinosarcomas are more aggressive than pure epithelial tumours, they are treated similarly. Serous/clear cell and endometrioid components may be predictive factors for the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or radiotherapy (RT) or RT in patients with uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas. Heterologous carcinosarcomas may benefit more from adjuvant CT. AIMS: We aimed to define the prognostic and predictive factors associated with treatment options in ovarian (OCS) and uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with ovarian and uterine carcinosarcoma from 2000 to 2013, and 127 women were included in this study (24 ovarian and 103 uterine). Patients admitted to seventeen oncology centres in Turkey between 2000 and December 2013 with a histologically proven diagnosis of uterine carcinosarcoma with FIGO 2009 stage I-III and patients with sufficient data obtained from well-kept medical records were included in this study. Stage IV tumours were excluded. The patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Data from 104 patients were evaluated for this study. RESULTS: Age (≥70 years) was a poor prognostic factor for UCS (p=0.036). Pelvic±para aortic lymph node dissection did not affect overall survival (OS) (p=0.35). Macroscopic residual disease was related with OS (p<0.01). The median OS was significantly longer in stage I-II patients than stage III patients (p=0.03). Adjuvant treatment improved OS (p=0.013). Adjuvant radiotherapy tended to increase the median OS (p=0.075). However, this tendency was observed in UCS (p=0.08) rather than OCS (p=0.6).Adjuvant chemotherapy had no effect on OS (p=0.15).Adjuvant radiotherapy significantly prolonged the median OS in patients with endometrioid component (p=0.034). A serous/clear cell component was a negative prognostic factor (p=0.035). Patients with serous/clear cell histology for whom adjuvant chemotherapy was applied had significantly longer OS (p=0.019), and there was no beneficial effect of adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.4). Adjuvant chemotherapy was effective in heterologous tumours (p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, the stage and chemotherapy were prognostic factors for all patients. Age was an independent prognostic factor for UCS. However, serous/clear cell histology and radiotherapy tended to be significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The primary location, the histological type of sarcomatous and the epithelial component may be predictive factors for the efficacy of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in UCS and OCS.
Authors: Leigh A Cantrell; Laura Havrilesky; Dominic T Moore; David O'Malley; Margaret Liotta; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Christa I Nagel; David E Cohn; Amanda Nickles Fader; Amy H Wallace; Peter Rose; Paola A Gehrig Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: A K Sood; J I Sorosky; M S Gelder; R E Buller; B Anderson; E J Wilkinson; J A Benda; L S Morgan Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gunjal Garg; Jay P Shah; Sanjeev Kumar; Christopher S Bryant; Adnan Munkarah; Robert T Morris Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: R Athavale; N Thomakos; K Godfrey; F Kew; P Cross; A de Barros Lopes; M H Hatem; R Naik Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 3.437