Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Pelvic and/or Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Surgical Management of Apparently Early Carcinosarcoma of Uterus

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

To determine the incidence of lymph node (LN) metastasis in patients with apparently early carcinosarcoma of the uterus, to analyze the clinicopathologic factors associated with LN metastasis, and to evaluate the role of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in treatment of such conditions.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 41 patients with carcinosarcoma intraoperatively confined to the uterus who underwent complete staging procedures including pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Results

After surgery, two patients (4.9%) were upstaged to stage IIIA because of positive peritoneal washing cytology, and 13 (31.7%) were upstaged to stage IIIC as a result of LN metastasis. Five patients had pelvic, three had para-aortic, and five had both pelvic and para-aortic LN metastases. The mean number of metastatic LNs was 3.7 (range 1–15). On multivariate analysis, myometrial invasion >1/2 [odds ratio (OR) 8.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57–45.92; P = 0.013] and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (OR 8.50; 95% CI 1.57–45.92; P = 0.013) were significantly predictive of LN metastasis. After a median follow-up interval of 32 months (range 3–179 months), the 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 73% and 84%, respectively, and the 5-year DFS and OS rates were 73% and 69%, respectively. Patients with LVSI or LN metastasis had significantly poorer DFS and OS.

Conclusions

Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy should be performed in patients with apparently early carcinosarcoma of the uterus, especially in those with myometrial invasion >1/2 or LVSI.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ali S, Wells M. Mixed Mullerian tumors of the uterine corpus: a review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1993;3(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Echt G, Jepson J, Steel J, et al. Treatment of uterine sarcomas. Cancer. 1990;66(1):35–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pecorelli S, Benedet JL, Creasman WT, Shepherd JH (1999) FIGO staging of gynecologic cancer. 1994–1997 FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 65(3):243–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. FIGO. Annual report on the results of treatment in gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2989;28:189–93.

  5. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H, III, Ngan HY, Pecorelli S (2000) FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 70(2):209–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nielsen SN, Podratz KC, Scheithauer BW, O’Brien PC. Clinicopathologic analysis of uterine malignant mixed mullerian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;34(3):372–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Romanini A, Genazzani AR. The management of patients with uterine sarcoma: a debated clinical challenge. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008;65(2):129–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gadducci A, Romanini A. Adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage uterine sarcomas: an open question. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2001;22(5):352–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Temkin SM, Hellmann M, Lee YC, Abulafia O. Early-stage carcinosarcoma of the uterus: the significance of lymph node count. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(1):215–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Major FJ, Blessing JA, Silverberg SG, et al. (1993) Prognostic factors in early-stage uterine sarcoma. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 71(4):1702–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCluggage WG, Haller U, Kurman RJ, et al. Mixed epithelial and mesenchymal tumours. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, editors. World Health Organization classification of tumour. Pahology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC; 2003. p. 245–49.

  12. Manolitsas TP, Wain GV, Williams KE, Freidlander M, Hacker NF. Multimodality therapy for patients with clinical stage I and II malignant mixed Mullerian tumors of the uterus. Cancer. 2001;91(8):1437–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yamada SD, Burger RA, Brewster WR, Anton D, Kohler MF, Monk BJ. Pathologic variables and adjuvant therapy as predictors of recurrence and survival for patients with surgically evaluated carcinosarcoma of the uterus. Cancer. 2000;88(12):2782–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morrow CP. Leiomyosarcoma. In: Morrow CP, Curtin JP, editors. Gynecologic cancer surgery. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p. 613–16.

  15. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, Disaia PJ, Silverberg SG, Miller A, Blessing JA. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(6):825–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 60(8):2035–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schink JC, Lurain JR, Wallemark CB, Chmiel JS. Tumor size in endometrial cancer: a prognostic factor for lymph node metastasis. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70(2):216–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Silverberg SG, Major FJ, Blessing JA, Fetter B, Askin FB, Liao SY, et al. (1990) Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mesodermal tumor) of the uterus. A Gynecologic Oncology Group pathologic study of 203 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 9(1):1–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Podczaski ES, Woomert CA, Stevens CW, Jr, Manetta A, Larson JE, Zaino RJ, et al. Management of malignant, mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;32(2):240–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al. (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 100(23):1707–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):125–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joo-Hyun Nam PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, JY., Kim, DY., Kim, JH. et al. The Role of Pelvic and/or Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Surgical Management of Apparently Early Carcinosarcoma of Uterus. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 861–868 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0833-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0833-6

Keywords

Navigation