Prognostic and Predictive Factors for Uterine Sarcomas: A Single Center Experience
Öz
Objective: To determine the factors impacting recurrence and long-term survival in uterine sarcoma patients, recognizing the challenge due to histological diversity and lack of definitive treatment.
Methods: We reviewed data from uterine sarcoma patients treated from July 2010 to August 2021. Cases were divided into endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and others (rhabdomyosarcoma, adenosarcoma), examining clinicopathological features, age, survival rates, and recurrence risk factors.
Results: In 43 patients (average age 59.1), most common symptom was vaginal bleeding. Majority were postmenopausal, with a breakdown of 65.1% ESS, 18.6% LMS, and 16.3% other sarcomas. Most (65.1%) were stage 1. Surgery was primarily via laparotomy (95.3%), with 79.1% receiving adjuvant therapy. Recurrence was 18.6%. Significant differences in survival rates were found across groups, with LMS significantly affecting survival and recurrence risk linked to tumor size and surgical stage. Five-year overall survival was 72.1%, and disease-free survival was 67.4%.
Conclusion: ESS is the most common uterine sarcoma, but LMS presents the worst prognosis. Tumor size and surgical stage are key to recurrence risk, highlighting the need for further study on adjuvant treatments.
Anahtar Kelimeler
prognosis, recurrence, surgery, uterine sarcoma, adjuvant therapy
Destekleyen Kurum
yok
Etik Beyan
2022/404 sayılı kararı selcuk üniversitesi tıp fakültesi etik kurulu
Teşekkür
no conflict of interest
Kaynakça
- 1. D’Angelo E, Prat J. Uterine sarcomas: a review. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116: 131-139.
- 2. Bocker W. [WHO classification of breast tumors and tumors of the female genital organs: pathology and genetics]. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 2002; 86: 116-119.
- 3. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for uterine Sarcomas. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2009, 179, Corrigendum in Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2009, 106, 277.
- 4. Benson C, Miah AB (2017) Uterine sarcoma—current perspectives. Int J Womens Health 9:597–606.
- 5. Shushkevich AT, P.H.; Littell, R.D.; Shah, N.A.; Chiang, S.; Thornton, K.; Hensley, M.L.; Slomovitz, B.M.; Holcomb, K.M.; Leitao, M.M.; et al. State of the science: Uterine sarcomas: From pathology to practice. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 159, 3–7.
- 6. Cantú de León DG, H.; Pérez Montiel, D.; Coronel, J.; Pérez-Plasencia, C.; Villavicencio-Valencia, V.; Soto-Reyes, E.; Herrera, L.A. Uterine sarcomas: Review of 26 years at The Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia of Mexico. Int. J. Surg. 2013, 11, 518–523.
- 7. Burghaus SH, S.; Gass, P.; Mehlhorn, G.; Schrauder, M.G.; Lux, M.P.; Renner, S.P.; Beckmann, M.W.; Hein, A.; Thiel, F.C. Outcome and prognosis in uterine sarcoma and malignant mixed Mullerian tumor. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2016, 294, 343–351.
- 8. Kyriazoglou AL, M.; Ziogas, D.C.; Zagouri, F.; Koutsoukos, K.; Tsironis, G.; Tsiara, A.; Kaparelou, M.; Zakopoulou, R.; Thomakos, N.; et al. Management of uterine sarcomas and prognostic indicators: Real-world data from a single institution. BMC, Cancer 2018, 1247.
- 9. Wickerham DL FB, Wolmark N, Bryant J, Costantino J, Bernstein L, Runowicz CD. Association of tamoxifen and uterine sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 2758-2760.
- 10. Chu CS LL, Rubin SC. Cancer of the uterine body. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg's Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. Philadelphia: WoltersKluwer/Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 2008. pp 1543-1563.