Comparison of survival outcomes and demographic trends of uterine sarcomas between a single institution and the National Surveillance Epidemiology & End Result database (SEER) from 2002-2012.

• DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.e18140
• Publication Date: 2018-09-06T16:35:09Z
• Authors: Indumathy Varadar...; Sukhdeep Kaur; Ankit Shah; Daniel Kyung; Wereuche Nze; Hareesha R. Chakunta; Maneesh Rajiv Jain; Kristine Marie Ward; Pamela A. Crilley; David Lane Topolsky; Stephanie King; Michael Styler
• Keywords: Lymphadenectomy; Relative survival; Carboplatin

e18140 Background: Uterine sarcomas (US) represent 3-7% of uterine cancers, are pathologically heterogeneous, behave aggressively & portend poor prognosis. We compared the demographics survival outcomes in patients (pts) with US from our institution to SEER 2002-2012. Methods: 60 pts were treated at Hahnemann University Hospital (H) 2002-2012.Incidences 4 major subtypes, grade, mean age stage presentation noted. Survival analyses performed by Kaplan- Meier method. Number that received Lymph node dissection (LND) adjuvant XRT This information was data SEER. Results: lists 13,273 2002-2012; incidence rate endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) 0.4, adenosarcoma (AS) 0.2, carcinosarcoma (CS) 1.4 leiomyosarcoma (LMS) 1.7 per 100,000. In H series, adj chemo administered 40% CS, 60% LMS, 50% ESS. Carboplatin/ paclitaxel choice CS and gemcitabine /docetaxel LMS. Adj not obtainable Conclusions: Mean presentation, grade distribution among subtypes comparable between LMS ESS presented later series higher both 5yr lower pts. may be due % Stage IV. Improved group routine LND, chemo. Further studies essential improve outcomes. AS Age (yr) 70 67.3 56 58.7 62 54.1 56.8 Total Pts (%) 31 (51.7) 4908 (37) 15 (25) 6100 (46) 12 (20) 1536 (11.6) 2 (3.3) 729 (5.5) 1 year 42 67.6 75 77.2 51 80.9 ~ 91.3 3 26 40.9 65 52.5 34 71.6 80.2 5 9 33.6 63 17 69.1 72.8 I 28.1 37 24.9 36 39 100 56.2 II 13 8.5 7 8.3 6.1 0 6 III 32 24.1 11.9 8.2 2.6 IV 19 19.5 33 17.5 15.1 3.6 Unk 20 37.1 18 31.5 31.4 Grade Well Diff 11 49 27 Poorly 48 59 46 45 52 40 44 25 53 LND Y 73 51.9 21.4 58 33.7 46.4 N 22 36.6 66.5 54.4 43.1 10 11.5 11.8 10.5 29 24 21 69 74 78 81