Predictive and Prognostic Factors in Ovarian and Uterine Carcinosarcomas

Year 2016, Volume: 33 Issue: 5, 517 - 524, 01.09.2016

İrfan Cicin Tahsin Özatlı Esma Türkmen Türkan Özturk Melike Özçelik Devrim Çabuk Ayşe Gökdurnalı Özlem Balvan Yaşar Yıldız Metin Şeker Nuriye Özdemir Burcu Yapar Özgür Tanrıverdi Yusuf Günaydin Serkan Menekşe Berna Öksüzoğlu Asude Aksoy Bülent Erdoğan M. Bekir Hacıoglu Erkan Arpaci Alper Sevinç Mehmet Atilla Uysal Sinem İliaz

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.

Keywords

Carcinosarcoma, ovary, uterine, predictive factors, prognostic factors

References

• 1. Soslow RA. Mixed Müllerian tumors of the female genital tract. Surg Pathol Clin 2009;2:707-30. [CrossRef]
• 2. Pacaut C, Bourmaud A, Rivoirard R, Moriceau G, Guy JB, Collard O, et al. Uterine and ovary carcinosarcomas: outcome, prognosis factors, and adjuvant therapy. Am J Clin Oncol 2015;38:272-7. [CrossRef]
• 3. Ariyoshi K, Kawauchi S, Kaku T, Nakano H, Tsuneyoshi M. Prognostic factors in ovarian carcinosarcoma: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of 23 cases. Histopathology 2000;37:427-36 [CrossRef]
• 4. del Carmen MG, Birrer M, Schorge JO. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:271-7. [CrossRef]
• 5. Kernochan LE, Garcia RL. Carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed Mullerian tumor) of the uterus: advances in elucidation of biologic and clinical characteristics. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7:550-6; quiz 7.
• 6. Erickson BK, Doo DW, Zhang B, Huh WK, Leath CA 3rd. Black race independently predicts worse survival in uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:238-41. [CrossRef]
• 7. Inthasorn P, Carter J, Valmadre S, Beale P, Russell P, Dalrymple C. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors in malignant mixed Mullerian tumors of the uterine corpus. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2002;12:348-53. [CrossRef]
• 8. Rauh-Hain JA, Diver EJ, Clemmer JT, Bradford LS, Clark RM, Growdon WB, et al. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary compared to papillary serous ovarian carcinoma: a SEER analysis. Gynecol Oncol 131:46-51. [CrossRef]
• 9. Garg G, Shah JP, Kumar S, Bryant CS, Munkarah A, Morris RT. Ovarian and uterine carcinosarcomas: a comparative analysis of prognostic variables and survival outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010;20:888-94. [CrossRef]
• 10. Athavale R, Thomakos N, Godfrey K, Kew F, Cross P, de Barros Lopes A, et al. The effect of epithelial and stromal tumor components on FIGO stage III and IV ovarian carcinosarcomas treated with primary surgery and chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:1025-30. [CrossRef]
• 11. George E, Lillemoe TJ, Twiggs LB, Perrone T. Malignant mixed mullerian tumor versus high-grade endometrial carcinoma and aggressive variants of endometrial carcinoma: a comparative analysis of survival. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1995;14:39-44. [CrossRef]
• 12. Sood AK, Sorosky JI, Gelder MS, Buller RE, Anderson B, Wilkinson EJ, et al. Primary ovarian sarcoma: analysis of prognostic variables and the role of surgical cytoreduction. Cancer 1998;82:1731-7. [CrossRef]
• 13. Chang J, Sharpe JC, A’Hern RP, Fisher C, Blake P, Shepherd J, et al. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: incidence, prognosis, treatment and survival of patients. Ann Oncol 1995;6:755-8.
• 14. Morrow CP, d’Ablaing G, Brady LW, Blessing JA, Hreshchyshyn MM. A clinical and pathologic study of 30 cases of malignant mixed mullerian epithelial and mesenchymal ovarian tumors: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1984;18:278-92. [CrossRef]
• 15. Cicin I, Saip P, Eralp Y, Selam M, Topuz S, Ozluk Y, et al. Ovarian carcinosarcomas: clinicopathological prognostic factors and evaluation of chemotherapy regimens containing platinum. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:136-40. [CrossRef]
• 16. Kunkel J, Peng Y, Tao Y, Krigman H, Cao D. Presence of a sarcomatous component outside the ovary is an adverse prognostic factor for primary ovarian malignant mixed mesodermal/mullerian tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:831-7. [CrossRef]
• 17. Reed NS, Mangioni C, Malmström H, Scarfone G, Poveda A, Pecorelli S, et al. Phase III randomised study to evaluate the role of adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy in the treatment of uterine sarcomas stages I and II: an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gynaecological Cancer Group Study (protocol 55874). Eur J Cancer 2008;44:808-18. [CrossRef]
• 18. Cantrell LA, Havrilesky L, Moore DT, O’Malley D, Liotta M, Secord AA, et al. A multi-institutional cohort study of adjuvant therapy in stage I-II uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2012;127:22-6. [CrossRef]
• 19. Tanner EJ, Leitao MM Jr, Garg K, Chi DS, Sonoda Y, Gardner GJ, et al. The role of cytoreductive surgery for newly diagnosed advanced-stage uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2011;123:548-52. [CrossRef]
• 20. Doo DW, Erickson BK, Arend RC, Conner MG, Huh WK, Leath CA 3rd. Radical surgical cytoreduction in the treatment of ovarian carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:234-7. [CrossRef