The role of lymphadenectomy in uterine carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed mullerian tumours): a critical literature review
- 267 Downloads
Uterine carcinosarcomas are rare and highly aggressive tumours. Although surgery is the cornerstone of treatment, the extent of the procedure remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the available literature data regarding the rationale of lymphadenectomy and its possible impact on survival.
A systematic Medline, PubMed and Scopus search with special focus on the publications of the last decade.
Carcinosarcomas have similar clinical characteristics and behaviour with grade 3 endometrioid or aggressive variants of uterine adenocarcinoma. All studies have demonstrated that the FIGO stage of disease is the most important prognostic factor, followed by the depth of myometrial invasion, extra-uterine spread and positive peritoneal cytology. Moreover, lymph node involvement will be found in 14–38% of patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. This figure is similar to the one reported for endometrial carcinoma. Therefore, lymphadenectomy is mandatory for staging purposes. Regarding its impact on survival, the majority of studies confirm a significant survival benefit. The possible mechanisms for the improvement of survival from lymphadenectomy include removal of micro-metastatic foci, reduction of recurrence risk (removal of “target tissue”) and mechanical circumvallate of the disease. Given that 5–38% of the patients will experience local recurrence and 30–83% distant metastases, lymphadenectomy reduces the risk of the first and identifies patients in advanced stage that may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, aiming to reduce the second and ultimately improve overall survival.
Our review data fully justifies the rationale of lymphadenectomy, which beyond staging information seems to offer a measurable survival benefit.
KeywordsCarcinosarcoma Mixed mullerian tumour Lymphadenectomy Survival
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
- 10.Morice P, Rodrigues A, Pautier P, Rey A, Camatte S, Atallah D, Pomel C, Lhommé C, Haie-Meder C, Duvillard P, Castaigne D (2003) Surgery for uterine sarcoma: review of the literature and recommendations for the standard surgical procedure. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 31(2):147–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sutton G, Kavanagh J, Wolfson A, Tornos C (2005) Corpus: mesenchymal tumors. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC, Barakat RR, Markman M, Randall ME (eds) Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology, 4th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 873–894Google Scholar
- 15.Hacker NF (2005) Uterine cancer. In: Berek JS, Hacker NF (eds) Practical gynecologic oncology, 4th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 397–442Google Scholar
- 16.Hacker NF, Marsden DE (2006) Surgery for uterine cancer. In: Luesley DM, Lawton FG, Berchuck A (eds) Uterine cancer. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 142–144Google Scholar
- 21.Brown L (2008) Pathology of uterine malignancies. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 20(6):433–447 Epub 2008 May 21Google Scholar
- 24.Amant F, Cadron I, Fuso L, Berteloot P, de Jonge E, Jacomen G, Van Robaeys J, Neven P, Moerman P, Vergote I (2005) Endometrial carcinosarcomas have a different prognosis and pattern of spread compared to high-risk epithelial endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 98(2):274–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Rovirosa A, Ascaso C, Ordi J, Abellana R, Arenas M, Lejarcegui JA, Pahisa J, Puig-Tintoré LM, Mellado B, Armenteros B, Iglesias X, Biete A (2002) Is vascular and lymphatic space invasion a main prognostic factor in uterine neoplasms with a sarcomatous component? A retrospective study of prognostic factors of 60 patients stratified by stages. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52(5):1320–1329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Benito V, Lubrano A, Arencibia O, Andújar M, Alvarez E, Medina N, Falcón JM, Falcón O (2009) Clinicopathologic analysis of uterine sarcomas from a single institution in the Canary Islands. Int J Gynaecol Obstet (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- 28.Kokawa K, Nishiyama K, Ikeuchi M, Ihara Y, Akamatsu N, Enomoto T, Ishiko O, Motoyama S, Fujii S, Umesaki N (2006) Clinical outcomes of uterine sarcomas: results from 14 years worth of experience in the Kinki district in Japan (1990–2003). Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(3):1358–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Leath CA 3rd, Numnum TM, Kendrick JE 4th, Frederick PJ, Rocconi RP, Conner MG, Straughn JM Jr (2009) Patterns of failure for conservatively managed surgical stage I uterine carcinosarcoma: implications for adjuvant therapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19(5):888–891Google Scholar
- 41.Akahira J, Tokunaga H, Toyoshima M, Takano T, Nagase S, Yoshinaga K, Tase T, Wada Y, Ito K, Niikura H, Yamada H, Sato A, Sasano H, Yaegashi N (2006) Prognoses and prognostic factors of carcinosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma and uterine leiomyosarcoma: a comparison with uterine endometrial adenocarcinoma. Oncology 71(5–6):333–340 Epub 2007 Aug 9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Reed NS, Mangioni C, Malmström H, Scarfone G, Poveda A, Pecorelli S, Tateo S, Franchi M, Jobsen JJ, Coens C, Teodorovic I, Vergote I, Vermorken JB (2008) European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gynaecological Cancer Group. 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 44(6):808–18 (Epub 2008 Apr 2). Erratum in: Eur J Cancer. 2008 Jul; 44(11):1612Google Scholar
- 47.Yoney A, Eren B, Eskici S, Salman A, Unsal M (2008) Retrospective analysis of 105 cases with uterine sarcoma. Bull Cancer 95(3):E10–17Google Scholar