Diagnosis, treatment and survival of uterine sarcoma: A retrospective cohort study of 122 cases

Plentz,Tatiane Burle De Siqueira Ferroni; Candido,Elaine Cristina; Dias,Lais Flausino; Toledo,Maria Carolina Szymanski; Vale,Diama Bhadra; Teixeira,Julio Cesar

doi:10.3892/mco.2020.2151

Diagnosis, treatment and survival of uterine sarcoma: A retrospective cohort study of 122 cases

Authors:
- Tatiane Burle De Siqueira Ferroni Plentz
- Elaine Cristina Candido
- Lais Flausino Dias
- Maria Carolina Szymanski Toledo
- Diama Bhadra Vale
- Julio Cesar Teixeira
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, 13083‑881 São Paulo, Brazil
Published online on: October 6, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2020.2151
Article Number: 81

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess the diagnosis, treatment and follow‑up of uterine sarcoma cases. A retrospective cohort study with 122 women recruited between 2001 and 2016 was performed. The data regarding epidemiology, clinical presentation, treatment and follow‑up were analyzed based on the following histological types: Carcinosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) and adenosarcoma. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, logistic regression and survival curves. The diagnosis of uterine sarcoma exhibited an increasing trend of +1.2 new cases every 2 years (P=0.044) and comprised 10% of all uterine cancer diagnoses. There were 47% carcinosarcomas, 22% leiomyosarcomas, 16% ESS and 14% adenosarcomas. The majority of the women was ≥60 years old (62%). Among the subjects, 77% were postmenopausal, 61% had a body mass index up to 29.9 kg/m² and 71% presented with a comorbidity. Regression analysis exhibited an association between post menopause and the histological type associated with lower overall survival (OS), namely leiomyosarcoma or carcinosarcoma (odds ratio, 5.45, P<0.001). Stage I malignancy was present in 44% and Stage IV in 22%. The treatment included primary surgery in 78% of the cases, whereas 79% received adjuvant therapy. Only 55 cases achieved disease control and 20 relapsed (36%) with a 5‑year OS rate of 33%. The OS was lower for carcinosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma (20%; P=0.003). In summary, the present study indicated that the number of uterine sarcoma cases had increased between 2001 and 2016. The majority of the women were >60 years old and diagnosed in advanced stages. The postmenopausal status was associated with histological types of poor prognosis. The OS was low and worse for patients with carcinosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma.

View Figures

View References

1	Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 68:394–424. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Singh N and Gilks CB: The changing landscape of gynaecological cancer diagnosis: Implications for histopathological practice in the 21st century. Histopathology. 70:56–69. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Tropé CG, Abeler VM and Kristensen GB: Diagnosis and treatment of sarcoma of the uterus. A review. Acta Oncol. 51:694–705. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Ghirardi V, Bizzarri N, Guida F, Vascone C, Constantini B, Scambia G and Fagotti A: Role of surgery in gynaecological sarcomas. Oncotarget. 10:2561–2575. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Giuntoli RL 2nd, Metzinger DS, DiMarco CS, Cha SS, Sloan JA, Keeney GL and Gostout BS: Retrospective review of 208 patients with leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: Prognostic indicators, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 89:460–469. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Hoang L, Chiang S and Lee CH: Endometrial stromal sarcomas and related neoplasms: New developments and diagnostic considerations. Pathology. 50:162–177. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS and Young RH (eds): WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. 4th edition. IARC Press, Lyon, pp135-147, 2014.
8	Oliva E: Cellular mesenchymal tumors of the uterus: A review emphasizing recent observations. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 33:374–384. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Prat J: FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 104:177–178. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Ueda SM, Kapp DS, Cheung MK, Shin JY, Osann K, Husain A, Teng NN, Berek JS and Chan JK: Trends in demographic and clinical characteristics in women diagnosed with corpus cancer and their potential impact on the increasing number of deaths. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 198(218)2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	World Health Organization: International Statistical Classiﬁcation of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. ICD-10 version 2015. Available at: urihttps://icd.who.int/browse10/2015/ensimplehttps://icd.who.int/browse10/2015/en.
12	FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 125:97–98. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Koivisto-Korander R, Martinsen JI, Weiderpass E, Lemnen A and Pukkala E: Incidence of uterine leiomyosarcoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma in nordic countries: Results from NORDCAN and NOCCA databases. Maturitas. 72:56–60. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Mbatani N, Olawaiye EA and Prat J: Uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 143:51–58. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Felix AS, Cook LS, Gaudet MM, Rohan TE, Schouten LJ, Setiawan VW, Wise LA, Anderson KE, Bernstein L, De Vivo I, et al: The etiology of uterine sarcomas: A pooled analysis of the epidemiology of endometrial cancer consortium. Br J Cancer. 108:727–734. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Zhang YY, Li Y, Qin M, Cai Y, Jin Y and Pan LY: High-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: A retrospective study of factors influencing prognosis. Cancer Manag Res. 11:831–837. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Ishidera Y, Yoshida H, Oi Y, Katayama K, Miyagi E, Hayashi H and Shigeta H: Analysis of uterine corporeal mesenchymal tumors occurring after menopause. BMC Women Health. 19(13)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Koivisto-Korander R, Butzow R, Koivisto AM and Leminen A: Clinical outcome and prognostic factors in 100 cases of uterine sarcoma: Experience in helsinki university central hospital 1990-2001. Gynecol Oncol. 111:74–81. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Oliva E: Practical issues in uterine pathology from banal to bewildering: The remarkable spectrum of smooth muscle neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 29 (Suppl 1):S104–S120. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Burghaus S, Halmen S, Gass P, Mehlhorn G, Schrauder MG, Lux MP, Renner SP, Beckmann MW, Hein A and Thiel FC: Outcome and prognosis in uterine sarcoma and malignant mixed mullerian tumor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 294:343–351. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Menczer J: Review of recommended treatment of uterine carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 16(53)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Nordal RR and Thoresen SO: Uterine sarcomas in Norway 1956-1992: Incidence, survival and mortality. Eur J Cancer. 33:907–911. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Zivanovic O, Leitao MM, Iasonos A, Jacks LM, Zhou Q, Abu-Rustum NR, Soslow RA, Juretzka MM, Chi DS, Barakat RR, et al: Stage-specific outcomes of patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma: A comparison of the international federation of gynecology and obstetrics and american joint committee on cancer staging systems. J Clin Oncol. 27:2066–2072. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Wada H, Enomoto T, Fujita M, Yoshino K, Nakashima R, Kurachi H, Haba T, Wakasa K, Shroyer KR, Tsujimoto M, et al: Molecular evidence that most but not all carcinosarcomas of the uterus are combination tumors. Cancer Res. 57:5379–5385. 1997.PubMed/NCBI
25	Nusrath S, Bafna S, Rajagopalan R, Thammineedi SR, Raju KVV, Patnaik SC, Pawar S, Reddy Y, Chavali RN and Murthy SS: Uterine sarcomas: Experience from a tertiary cancer care center from India. Indian J Surg Oncol. 10:342–349. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Şükür YE, Taşkın S, Varlı B, Ateş C, Güngör M and Ortaç F: Prognostic factors for disease-free and overall survival of patients with uterine carcinosarcoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 23:114–120. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Bernard B, Clarke BA, Malowany JI, McAlpine J, Lee CH, Atenafu EG, Ferguson S and Mackay H: Uterine adenosarcomas: A dual-institution update on staging, prognosis and survival. Gynecol Oncol. 131:634–639. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Pietzner K, Buttmann-Schweiger N, Sehouli J and Kraywinkel K: Incidence patterns and survival of gynecological sarcoma in Germany: Analysis of population-based cancer registry data on 1066 women. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 28:134–138. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	D'Angelo E and Prat J: Uterine sarcomas: A review. Gynecol Oncol. 116:131–139. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar