J Cancer 2019; 10(15):3352-3360. doi:10.7150/jca.30691 This issue

Research Paper

Low-Grade Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma and Uterine Adenosarcoma: A Comparison of Clinical Manifestations and Outcomes

Yanyan Zhang, Yan Li, Huifang Huang, Jiaxin Yang, Ming Wu, Ying Jin✉*, Lingya Pan✉*

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
* These authors contributed equally to this work

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
Zhang Y, Li Y, Huang H, Yang J, Wu M, Jin Y, Pan L. Low-Grade Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma and Uterine Adenosarcoma: A Comparison of Clinical Manifestations and Outcomes. J Cancer 2019; 10(15):3352-3360. doi:10.7150/jca.30691. Available from https://www.jcancer.org/v10p3352.htm

File import instruction


Objective: Our study aimed to assess factors associated with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in low grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS) and uterine adenosarcoma, and to determine the differences in clinical manifestations and outcomes between the two diseases.

Methods: A total of 132 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 1998 to 2016. The associations of clinical and pathological factors with PFS and OS were evaluated.

Results: Of the 132 included patients, 104 had LG-ESS and 28 had uterine adenosarcoma. All patients were followed up for at least 1.5 years. There were significant differences between LG-ESS and uterine adenosarcoma in terms of age distribution (41.05±10.5 vs 46.11±14.96 years, P=0.042), delivery time (nulliparity=0: 18.27% vs 35.71%, P=0.046), history of the uterine leiomyoma (65.38% vs 39.29%, P=0.012), and polypoid tumor growth (14.42% vs 60.71%, P=0.007). According to the pathological findings, the proportion of uterine adenosarcoma patients with uterine leiomyoma (60.71%) was significantly higher than that for the LG-ESS patients (32.69%) (P=0.007). Uterine adenosarcoma seemed to be associated with longer PFS and OS than LG-ESS (PFS: 42.69±29.94 vs 50.50±40.50 months; OS: 58.72±37.29 vs 69.46±47.58 months), but the differences were not statistically significant. Multivariate Cox regression showed that age, menopause, history of uterine leiomyoma, stage, and hormone therapy were independent risk factors with respect to PFS, whereas age and stage were risk factors affecting OS in LG-ESS patient. Peritoneal lavage cytology and radiotherapy were risk factors affecting PFS and peritoneal lavage cytology for OS in patients with uterine adenosarcoma.

Conclusion: The patients with advanced LG-ESS had poor prognosis. Age and history of uterine leiomyoma were associated with poor PFS, while menopause and hormone therapy were protective factors associated with improved PFS in patients with LG-ESS. Peritoneal lavage cytology and radiotherapy did not improve prognosis of uterine adenosarcoma.

Keywords: low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma, uterine adenosarcoma, clinical manifestations, prognosis