Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: MR and clinical findings compared with high-grade serous carcinoma.
Adult
Aged
Biomarkers, Tumor
Carcinosarcoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Case-Control Studies
Cystadenocarcinoma, Serous
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Hemorrhage
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Middle Aged
Necrosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Postmenopause
Premenopause
Retrospective Studies
Tumor Burden
Cancer
Carcinoma
Magnetic resonance imaging
Malignant mixed epithelial and mesenchymal tumor
Ovarian sarcoma
Journal
Japanese journal of radiology
ISSN: 1867-108X
Titre abrégé: Jpn J Radiol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101490689
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
accepted:
04
11
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
20
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To clarify imaging and clinical characteristics of ovarian carcinosarcoma (CS) compared with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). We retrospectively reviewed MR imagings of 12 patients with CS and 30 patients with HGSC and evaluated tumor size, shape, appearance, nature of cystic and solid components, hemorrhage, and necrosis. Age, premenopausal or postmenopausal, histologic subtype, presence of endometriosis, tumor markers, and stage were also evaluated. These parameters were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test/Fisher's exact test. The mean size of CSs was 13.6 cm, and significantly larger than that of HGSCs (mean 9.0 cm, p = 0.022). The stained-glass appearance (67% vs. 23%, p = 0.013), hemorrhage (100% vs. 50%, p = 0.003), necrosis (75.0% vs. 13%, p = 0.000), and endometriosis (33% vs. 7%, p = 0.012) were significantly more common in CSs. The postmenopausal ratio of CSs was 100% and significantly higher than that of HGSCs (70.0%, p = 0.041). Among the tumor makers, only CA-125 was significantly lower in CSs than in HGSCs (mean 715.1 U/ml vs. 1677.1 U/ml, p = 0.009). The stage distribution was similar and was not significantly different. CSs formed larger masses, and the stained-glass appearance, hemorrhage, and necrosis were more frequently observed in CSs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33216290
doi: 10.1007/s11604-020-01072-7
pii: 10.1007/s11604-020-01072-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
357-366Références
Ellenson LH, Kupryjanczyk J, Carinelli SG, Prat J, Cho KR, Singer G, Kim RK, Soslow R, Nogales FF, Cao D, Vang R, Carinelli SG, Zaloudek CJ. Tomours of the ovary; mixed epithelial and mesenchymal tumours. In: Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2013. p. 42–3.
Brown E, Stewart M, Rye T, Al-Nafussi A, Williams AR, Bradburn M, et al. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: 19 years of prospective data from a single center. Cancer. 2004;100:2148–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20256 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.20256
pubmed: 15139057
Kunkel J, Peng Y, Tao Y, Krigman H, Cao D. Presence of a sarcomatous component outside the ovary is an adverse prognostic factor for primary ovarian malignant mixed mesodermal/mullerian tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:831–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31824ee500 .
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31824ee500
pubmed: 22588065
del Carmen MG, Birrer M, Schorge JO. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:271–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.418 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.418
pubmed: 22155675
Kanis MJ, Kolev V, Getrajdman J, Zakashansky K, Cohen C, Rahaman J. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary: a single institution experience and review of the literature. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2016;37:75–9.
pubmed: 27048114
Boussios S, Karathanasi A, Zakynthinakis-Kyriakou N, Tsiouris AK, Chatziantoniou AA, Kanellos FS, et al. Ovarian carcinosarcoma: current developments and future perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;134:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.12.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.12.006
pubmed: 30771873
Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:284–96. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21456 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21456
pubmed: 29809280
pmcid: 6621554
Tanaka YO, Okada S, Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Saida T, Oki A, et al. Solid non-invasive ovarian masses on MR: histopathology and a diagnostic approach. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80:e91–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.032 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.032
pubmed: 20576386
Li W, Chu C, Cui Y, Zhang P, Zhu M. Diffusion-weighted MRI: a useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37:897–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-011-9814-x .
doi: 10.1007/s00261-011-9814-x
pubmed: 22038329
Tanaka YO, Okada S, Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Oki A, Saida T, et al. Differentiation of epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes by use of imaging and clinical data: a detailed analysis. Cancer Imaging. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-016-0061-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s40644-016-0061-9
pubmed: 26873307
pmcid: 4752792
Erdem CZ, Bayar U, Erdem LO, Barut A, Gundogdu S, Kaya E. Polycystic ovary syndrome: dynamic contrast-enhanced ovary MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.08.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.08.005
pubmed: 15186884
Costa MJ, Walls J. Epidermal growth factor receptor and c-erbB-2 oncoprotein expression in female genital tract carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed müllerian tumors). Clinicopathologic study of 82 cases. Cancer. 1996;77:533–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960201)77:3<533::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-5 .
Tanaka YO, Tsunoda H, Minami R, Yoshikawa H, Minami M. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:434–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21469 .
doi: 10.1002/jmri.21469
pubmed: 18666176
Kamishima Y, Takeuchi M, Kawai T, Kawaguchi T, Yamaguchi K, Takahashi N, et al. A predictive diagnostic model using multiparametric MRI for differentiating uterine carcinosarcoma from carcinoma of the uterine corpus. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35:472–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0655-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s11604-017-0655-6
pubmed: 28584958
Ohguri T, Aoki T, Watanabe H, Nakamura K, Nakata H, Matsuura Y, et al. MRI findings including gadolinium-enhanced dynamic studies of malignant, mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus: differentiation from endometrial carcinomas. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2737–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1405-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1405-3
pubmed: 12386766
Kim S, Kim YT, Kim S, Kim SW, Lee JY, Kang WJ. Diagnostic value of (18) F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the preoperative evaluation of uterine carcinosarcoma. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;52:445–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-018-0549-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s13139-018-0549-2
pubmed: 30538776
pmcid: 6261857
Ling Y, Feng CY, Xia SM, Shen LH, Luo LQ, Zhang HY. Magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian carcinosarcoma: correlation to the clinicopathological findings. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2010;30:1648–50.
pubmed: 20650791
Pankaj S, Nazneen S, Kumari A, Kumari S, Choudhary V, Roy VK. A rare tumor of the ovary: carcinosarcoma report and review of literature. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016;66:648–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0788-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s13224-015-0788-4
pubmed: 27803534
Sood AK, Sorosky JI, Gelder MS, Buller RE, Anderson B, Wilkinson EJ, et al. Primary ovarian sarcoma: analysis of prognostic variables and the role of surgical cytoreduction. Cancer. 1998;1(82):1731–7.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980501)82:9<1738::AID-CNCR21>3.0.CO;2-4
Ariyoshi K, Kawauchi S, Kaku T, Nakano H, Tsuneyoshi M. Prognostic factors in ovarian carcinosarcoma: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of 23 cases. Histopathology. 2000;37:427–36. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.01015.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.01015.x
pubmed: 11119124
Gourley C, Al-Nafussi A, Abdulkader M, Smyth J, Gabra H. Malignant mixed mesodermal tumours: biology and clinical aspects. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1437–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00114-4 .
doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00114-4
pubmed: 12110488
Sonoda Y, Saigo PE, Gederici MG, Boyd J. Carcinosarcoma of the ovary in a patient with germline BRCA2 mutation: evidence for monoclonal origin. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76:226–9. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5681 .
doi: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5681
pubmed: 10637076
Carnevali I, Cimetti L, Sahnane N, Libera L, Cavallero A, Formenti G, et al. Two cases of carcinosarcomas of the ovary involved in hereditary cancer syndromes. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2017;36:64–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000290 .
doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000290
pubmed: 27167672
Matias-Guiu X, Stewart CJ. Endometriosis-associated ovarian neoplasia. Pathology. 2018;50:190–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.10.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2017.10.006
pubmed: 29241974
Amin K, Brumley B, Erickson BK, Khalifa MA. Müllerian carcinosarcoma arising from atypical pelvic endometriosis. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2018;25:87–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2018.06.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2018.06.009
pubmed: 30014020
pmcid: 6019402
Menon S, Deodhar K, Rekhi B, Dhake R, Gupta S, Ghosh J, et al. Clinico-pathological spectrum of primary ovarian malignant mixed mullerian tumors (OMMMT) from a tertiary cancer institute: a series of 27 cases. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2013;56:365–71. https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.125293 .
doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.125293
pubmed: 24441223
Marko J, Marko KI, Pachigolla SL, Crothers BA, Mattu R, Wolfman DJ. Mucinous neoplasms of the ovary: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2019;39:982–97. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180221 .
doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180221
pubmed: 31283462
pmcid: 6677283