Cancer genomics & proteomics · 2022
Mesonephric-like Carcinosarcoma of the Uterine Corpus: Clinicopathological, Molecular and Prognostic Characteristics in Comparison With Uterine Mesonephric-like Adenocarcinoma and Conventional Endometrial Carcinosarcoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Sujin, Park Eunhyang, Kim Hyun-Soo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological, prognostic and molecular characteristics of uterine mesonephric-like carcinosarcoma (MLCS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected clinical, pathological, and genetic information from 12 MLCS patients, and analyzed their differences from mesonephric-like adenocarcinoma (MLA) and conventional endometrial carcinosarcoma (CECS).
RESULTS: The epithelial component was exclusively MLA in all MLCS cases. Metastatic and recurrent tumors consisted predominantly or exclusively of MLA in the majority of MLCS cases. Patients with MLCS and MLA presented with more advanced-stage disease than those with CECS. They also exhibited post-treatment recurrence and lung metastases more frequently than CECS. Disease-free survival rates of MLCS and MLA were shorter than those of CECS. Tumor protein 53 gene mutations were detected in four MLCS cases.
CONCLUSION: The predominance or exclusive presence of MLA in metastatic and recurrent tumors highlights the possibility that MLA may determine the clinical outcomes of patients with MLCS. Further studies are required to provide direct molecular evidence of the monoclonal origin of uterine MLCS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected clinical, pathological, and genetic information from 12 MLCS patients, and analyzed their differences from mesonephric-like adenocarcinoma (MLA) and conventional endometrial carcinosarcoma (CECS).
RESULTS: The epithelial component was exclusively MLA in all MLCS cases. Metastatic and recurrent tumors consisted predominantly or exclusively of MLA in the majority of MLCS cases. Patients with MLCS and MLA presented with more advanced-stage disease than those with CECS. They also exhibited post-treatment recurrence and lung metastases more frequently than CECS. Disease-free survival rates of MLCS and MLA were shorter than those of CECS. Tumor protein 53 gene mutations were detected in four MLCS cases.
CONCLUSION: The predominance or exclusive presence of MLA in metastatic and recurrent tumors highlights the possibility that MLA may determine the clinical outcomes of patients with MLCS. Further studies are required to provide direct molecular evidence of the monoclonal origin of uterine MLCS.