Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare outcomes of patients with mixed and pure endometrial carcinomas (MEC). We reviewed data of patients with MEC, endometroid (EC), serous (SC), and clear cell (CC) carcinomas between 2002 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DF) survival rates were evaluated, according to the percentage of histologic components. Clinicopathological variables and treatment strategies were assessed. Furthermore, χ2 tests were used to compare proportions and Kaplan–Meier curves to compare recurrence and survival. Sample consisted of 302 cases with mean age 66.3 years. Early-stage disease was recorded in EC compared with CC and SC. Adnexal involvement was more frequent in MEC compared with EC (p=0.043). Extra uterine metastasis was more frequent in the SC compared to the EC group, while lymphovascular space involvement was more frequent in the MEC and CC compared to the SC (p=0.001). EC had less omentum involvement compared to CC (p=0.035) and SC (p<0.001). Furthermore, cervical involvement was more frequent in CC compared to EC (p=0.011). Recurrence (p=0.265) and OS (p=0.533) were found to be similar in MEC compared with CC, SC, and EC. Moreover, recurrence and OS were similar between EC-CC and EC-SC. There were no differences in recurrence and survival in MEC with a type II component larger than 10% or 20% (p>0.05).
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. All authors had an equal contribution.
Competing interests: Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
References
1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2016. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2016.Search in Google Scholar
2. Arnold, M, Karim-Kos, HE, Coebergh, JW, Byrnes, G, Antilla, A, Ferlay, J, et al.. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Canc 2015;51:1164–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002.Search in Google Scholar
3. Bokhman, JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1983;15:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(83)90111-7.Search in Google Scholar
4. Zaino, R, Carinelli, S, Ellenson, LH. Tumors of the uterine corpus. WHO classification of tumors of female reproductive organs. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.Search in Google Scholar
5. Gilks, CB, Oliva, E, Soslow, RA. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2013;37:874–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31827f576a.Search in Google Scholar
6. Matrai, CE, Pirog, EC, Ellenson, LH. Despite diagnostic morphology, many mixed endometrial carcinomas show unexpected immunohistochemical staining patterns. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2018;37:405–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000443.Search in Google Scholar
7. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Kandoth, C, Schultz, N, Cherniack, AD, Akbani, R, Liu, Y, Shen, H, et al.. For the Cancer GenomeAtlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497:67–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12113.Search in Google Scholar
8. Soslow, RA, Tornos, C, Park, KJ, Malpica, A, Matias-Guiu, X, Oliva, E, et al.. Endometrial carcinoma diagnosis: use of FIGO grading and genomic subcategories in clinical practice: recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019;38(1 Suppl):S64–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000518.Search in Google Scholar
9. Kobel, M, Meng, B, Hoang, LN, Almadani, N, Li, X, Soslow, RA, et al.. Molecular analysis of mixed endometrial carcinomas shows clonality in most cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:166–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000536.Search in Google Scholar
10. Roelofsen, T, van Ham, MA, Wiersma van Tilburg, JM, Zomer, SF, Bol, M, Massuger, LF, et al.. Pure compared with mixed serous endometrial carcinoma: two different entities? Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1371–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e318273732e.Search in Google Scholar
11. Quddus, MR, Sung, CJ, Zhang, C, Lawrence, WD. Minor serous and clear cell components adversely affect prognosis in “mixed-type” endometrial carcinomas: a clinicopathologic study of 36 stage-I cases. Reprod Sci 2010;17:673–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719110368433.Search in Google Scholar
12. Roelofsen, T, van Ham, MA, de Hullu, JA, Massuger, LF. Clinical management of uterine papillary serous carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2011;11:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1586/era.10.199.Search in Google Scholar
13. Fader, AN, Starks, D, Gehrig, PA, Secord, AA, Frasure, HE, O’Malley, DM, et al.. An updated clinicopathologic study of early-stage uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC). Gynecol Oncol 2009;115:244–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.07.030.Search in Google Scholar
14. Catasus, L, Gallardo, A, Cuatrecasas, M, Prat, J. Concomitant PI3K-AKTand p53 alterations in endometrial carcinomas are associated with poor prognosis. Mod Pathol 2009;22:522–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2009.5.Search in Google Scholar
15. Coenegrachts, L, Garcia-Dios, DA, Depreeuw, J, Santacana, M, Gatius, S, Zikan, M, et al.. Mutation profile and clinical outcome of mixed endometrioid-serous endometrial carcinomas are different from that of pure endometrioid or serous carcinomas. Virchows Arch 2015;466:415–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1728-5.Search in Google Scholar
16. Lawrenson, K, Pakzamir, E, Liu, B, Lee, JM, Delgado, MK, Duncan, K, et al.. Molecular analysis of mixed endometrioidandserous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. PloS One 2015;J10:e0130909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130909.Search in Google Scholar
17. Rabban, J, Gilks, CB, Malpica, A, Matias-Guiu, X, Mittal, K, Mutter, GL, et al.. Issues in the differential diagnosis of uterine low-grade endometrioid carcinoma, including mixed endometrial carcinomas: recommendations from the international society of gynecological pathologists. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019;38(Suppl 1):S25–S39, https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000512.Search in Google Scholar
18. Salvesen, HB, Haldorsen, IS, Trovik, J. Markers for individualized therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e353–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70213-9.Search in Google Scholar
19. Espinosa, I, D’angelo, E, Palacios, J, Prat, J. Mixed and ambiguous endometrial carcinomas. Aheterogenous group of tumors with different clinico-pathologic and molecular genetic features. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:972–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000640.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
