Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Uterine Grade 3 Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma and Carcinosarcoma Really Clinically Similar?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the cases with uterine high-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma (HGEAC) and uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS).

Methods

A total of 141 patients were included in this study. Of them, 61 cases had uterine HGEAC (group 1) and 80 had UCS (group 2). Both groups were compared in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics including age, stage, initial symptom, surgical approach, myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), lymph node invasion, adjuvant therapy, and survival. The Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the outcomes and prognostic factors.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to age, nulliparity, menopausal status, and the main initial symptom. Both groups were similar in terms of stage, depth of myometrial invasion, and lymph node metastasis. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 74% and 91% of the cases in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p < 0.001). LVSI was found to be more frequent in group 1 (p = 0.032); however, in group 2, positive cytology was more common (p = 0.008). Chemotherapy was the main adjuvant therapy for UCS, while radiotherapy was the main adjuvant therapy for HGEAC. There was no difference between the groups in terms of disease-free survival (DFS); however, overall survival (OS) was found to be longer in group 1 (p = 0.029). Histopathologic type and LVSI were determined as independent predictive factors for OS.

Conclusion

UCSs are clinically more aggressive than HGEAC and should be considered as a separate group of tumors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harano K, Hirakawa A, Yunokawa M, Nakamura T, Satoh T, Nishikawa T, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma: a multi-institutional retrospective study from the Japanese gynecologic oncology group. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(1):168–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berton-Rigaud D, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Ledermann JA, Leitao MM, Powell MA, Poveda A, et al. Gynecologic cancer inter group (GCIG) consensus review for uterine and ovarian carcinosarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(9 Suppl 3):S55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cantrell LA, Blank SV, Duska LR. Uterine carcinosarcoma: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137(3):581–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Seshan VE, Schiff PB, Burke WM, Cohen CJ, et al. Uterine carcinosarcomas and grade 3 endometrioid cancers: evidence for distinct tumor behavior. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bland AE, Stone R, Heuser C, Shu J, Jazaeri A, Shutter J, et al. A clinical and biological comparison between malignant mixed Müllerian tumors and grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(2):261–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu J, Wen H, Bi R, Perrone T. Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and outcomes in uterine carcinosarcoma and grade 3 endometrial cancer patients: a comparative study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016;27(2):e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gungorduk K, Ozdemir A, Ertas IE, Gokcu M, Telli E, Oge T, et al. Adjuvant treatment modalities, prognostic predictors and outcomes of uterine carcinosarcomas. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47(2):282–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Felix AS, Stone RA, Bowser R, Chivukula M, Edwards RP, Weissfeld JL, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between patients with malignant mixed Mullerian tumors and high-grade endometrioid, clear cell, and papillary serous endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(5):877–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nemani D, Mitra N, Guo M, Lin L. Assessing the effects of lymphadenectomy and radiation therapy in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma: a SEER analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(1):82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Amant F, Cadron I, Fuso L, Berteloot P, de Jonge E, Gl Jacomen. Endometrial carcinosarcomas have a different prognosis and pattern of spread compared to high-risk epithelial endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;98(2):274–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. George E, Lillemoe TJ, Twiggs LB, Perrone T. Malignant mixed Müllerian tumor versus high-grade endometrial carcinoma and aggressive variants of endometrial carcinoma: a comparative analysis of survival. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995;14(1):39–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Desai NB, Kollmeier MA, Makker V, Levine DA, Abu-Rustum NR, Alektiar KM. Comparison of outcomes in early stage uterine carcinosarcoma and uterine serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(1):49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang C, Hu W, Jia N, Li Q, Hua K, Tao X, Wang L, Feng W. Uterine carcinosarcoma and high-risk endometrial carcinomas: a clinicopathological comparison. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(4):629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cantrell LA, Havrilesky L, Moore DT, O’Malley D, Liotta M, Secord AA, Nagel CI, Cohn DE, Fader AN, Wallace AH, Rose P, Gehrig PA. A multi-institutional cohort study of adjuvant therapy in stage I–II uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):22–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sorbe B, Paulsson G, Andersson S, Steineck G. A population-based series of uterine carcinosarcomas with long-term follow-up. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(4):759–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Galaal K, Al Moundhri M, Bryant A, Lopes AD, Lawrie TA. Adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:10. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010681.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Artioli G, Wabersich J, Ludwig K, Gardiman MP, Borgato L, Garbin F. Rare uterine cancer: carcinosarcomas. Review from histology to treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;94(1):98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorusso D, Martinelli F, Mancini M, Sarno I, Ditto A, Raspagliesi F. Carboplatin–paclitaxel versus cisplatin–ifosfamide in the treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(7):1256–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(5):888–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsuo K, Takazawa Y, Ross MS, Elishaev E, Podzielinski I, Yunokawa M, et al. Significance of histologic pattern of carcinoma and sarcoma components on survival outcomes of uterine carcinosarcoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(7):1257–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuo K, Takazawa Y, Ross MS, Elishaev E, Yunokawa M, Sheridan TB, et al. Characterizing sarcoma dominance pattern in uterine carcinosarcoma: homologous versus heterologous element. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(3):433–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Dr. Gülşah Seydaoğlu for the statistical analysis of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, 01330, Saricam, Adana, Turkey

    Umran Kucukgoz Gulec, Ahmet Baris Guzel & Mehmet Ali Vardar

  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

    Semra Paydas

  3. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

    Derya Gumurdulu & Emine Kilic Bagir

Authors
  1. Umran Kucukgoz Gulec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Semra Paydas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Derya Gumurdulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmet Baris Guzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emine Kilic Bagir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mehmet Ali Vardar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umran Kucukgoz Gulec.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kucukgoz Gulec, U., Paydas, S., Gumurdulu, D. et al. Are Uterine Grade 3 Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma and Carcinosarcoma Really Clinically Similar?. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 17, 48 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0296-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0296-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation