Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35005157›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022

Clinicopathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes in adenosarcoma of gynecologic sites.

Jessie Y Li, Levent Mutlu, Joan Tymon-Rosario, Wafa Khadraoui, Nupur Nagarkatti, Pei Hui, Natalia Buza, Lingeng Lu, Peter Schwartz, Gulden Menderes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jessie Y LiYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Levent MutluYale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA.
Joan Tymon-RosarioYale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA.
Wafa KhadraouiBridgeport Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bridgeport, CT, USA.
Nupur NagarkattiYale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA.
Pei HuiYale University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, New Haven, CT, USA.
Natalia BuzaYale University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, New Haven, CT, USA.
Lingeng LuYale School of Public Health, Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, New Haven, CT, USA.
Peter SchwartzYale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA.
Gulden MenderesYale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine clinicopathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes of patients diagnosed with Mullerian adenosarcoma and to evaluate ovarian preservation as a practical management option in early-stage disease.

methodsA retrospective review was performed of 31 patients treated for uterine, ovarian, or cervical adenosarcoma at our institution between 1/2000-3/2020. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier estimates, the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

resultsMedian age was 51 years (IQR: 41-68). Primary sites included uterine corpus (n = 23, 74.2%), uterine cervix (n = 7, 22.6%), and ovary (n = 1, 3.2%). Surgical management primarily consisted of total hysterectomy +/- bilateral adnexectomy +/- lymph node dissection. Fifteen (48.1%) patients underwent lymph node dissection; no patients had positive nodes. Ovaries were preserved in 6 (19.4%). Twenty-two (71.0%) patients received no adjuvant therapy, 4 (12.9%) received chemotherapy, 1 (3.2%) received chemoradiation, and 3 (9.7%) received hormonal therapy. Sarcomatous overgrowth (p = 0.04), high grade histology (p = 0.002), and greater depth of myometrial invasion (p = 0.001) were associated with decreased RFS. None of the 6 patients with ovarian preservation had recurrences. At last follow up, 21 patients (67.7%) had no evidence of disease, 7 (22.6%) were deceased due to disease, and 3 (9.7%) were deceased due to non-cancerous reasons.

conclusionsUterine adenosarcoma appears to have a relatively good prognosis, especially in the absence of risk factors, such as sarcomatous overgrowth, high grade histology, and deep myometrial invasion. Ovarian preservation may be a feasible management option with non-inferior outcomes for premenopausal women with early-stage disease. Future studies including larger patient cohorts are needed for this rare disease.

Indexed as

Fertility preservationMullerian adenosarcomaOvarian preservation

Identifiers

PMID35005157
PMCPMC8715286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.