Cargando…
Retrospective Analysis of Patients with Gynaecological Uterine Sarcomas in a Tertiary Hospital
Uterine sarcomas are rare and heterogeneous malignancies accounting for 1% to 3% of all gynaecological tumours. There are many histological subtypes recognised, including leiomyosarcomas, endometrial stromal sarcoma, and uterine carcinosarcoma, although the latest has been recently discarded in this...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880358/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207710 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020222 |
Sumario: | Uterine sarcomas are rare and heterogeneous malignancies accounting for 1% to 3% of all gynaecological tumours. There are many histological subtypes recognised, including leiomyosarcomas, endometrial stromal sarcoma, and uterine carcinosarcoma, although the latest has been recently discarded in this group. Despite its low incidence, these types of cancer currently entail multiple challenges, either in diagnostics or clinical management, with a poor prognosis associated. The present work aimed to complete a comparative analysis of the different histological subtypes based on the clinicopathological characteristics of our population, the therapeutic characteristics, and associated prognosis in 161 patients treated in our centre during the period between 1985 and 2020. Moreover, a systematic review grouped a total of 2211 patients with a diagnosis of uterine sarcoma from 19 articles published in 16 countries from 2002 to 2021 was performed, all with retrospective analyses. Our results showed that apart from uterine carcinosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma is the most frequent subtype of uterine sarcoma, with unique clinical, demographic, and survival parameters. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review conducted in this field and, thus, it shows the difficulties of collecting a significant number of patients per year, a valid reason why multicentre or national registries are recommended to allow a more exhaustive analysis of this pathology. |
---|