Vol 92, No 11 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-04-27

open access

Page views 6718
Article views/downloads 704
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Prognosis of the patients suffered from uterine carcinosarcoma from rural and urban areas

Anna Danska-Bidzinska1, Anna Nasierowska-Guttmejer2, Elwira Bakula-Zalewska3, Mariusz Bidzinski4, Waldemar Wierzba5
Pubmed: 33914324
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(11):774-777.


Objectives: Uterine carcinosarcoma is a very aggressive neoplasm. Patients’ median age at diagnosis ranges from 62 to 67 years. The aim of this study was to compare treatment results and prognostic factors for residents of urban and rural areas suffering from uterine carcinosarcoma.
Material and methods: Clinical outcomes of 58 uterine carcinosarcoma patients treated in one institution were assessed: 25 residents of rural and 33 of urban areas. All the patients were treated by using surgery followed by chemotherapy (48 pts) or radiotherapy (10 pts). Standard chemotherapy regimen comprised of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin on day one at area under curve (AUC) six every 21 days. Radiotherapy was performed by combined treatment — tele and brachytherapy. External beam pelvic radiation therapy (EBRT) once a day, five days a week with a daily fraction size of 1.8 Gy over five weeks at cumulative dose 50.4 Gy was the first part of adjuvant treatment. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy at dose 22.5 Gy was the second part of radiotherapy.
Results: A strong correlation between tumor diameter and the presence of lymph node metastasis was observed. Tumor size greater then 4.5 cm correlated with presence of node involvement and this parameter was statistically significant (p = 0.015). There was no significant correlation between other analyzed clinical factors and overall survival. In the period 2004–2010 43.5% (10/23) and 50% (14/28) of rural and urban residents, respectively, died due to carcinosarcoma progression.
Conclusions: Uterine carcinosarcoma patients in rural and urban areas seem to have similar outcomes.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Cantrell LA, Blank SV, Duska LR. Uterine carcinosarcoma: A review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 137(3): 581–588.
  2. Hosh M, Antar S, Nazzal A, et al. Uterine Sarcoma: Analysis of 13,089 Cases Based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016; 26(6): 1098–1104.
  3. Denschlag D, Ulrich UA. Uterine uarcinosarcomas - diagnosis and management. Oncol Res Treat. 2018; 41(11): 675–679.
  4. Cherniack AD, Shen H, Walter V, et al. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated molecular characterization of uterine carcinosarcoma. Cancer Cell. 2017; 31(3): 411–423.
  5. Dey S, Hablas A, Seifeldin IA, et al. Urban-rural differences of gynaecological malignancies in Egypt (1999-2002). BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2009; 117(3): 348–355.
  6. Alshahrani S, Hablas A, Chamberlain RM, et al. Changing Incidence of Uterine Cancer in Rural Egypt: Possible Impact of Nutritional and Epidemiologic Transitions. J Glob Oncol. 2019; 5: 1–7.
  7. Garg G, Yee C, Schwartz K, et al. Patterns of care, predictors, and outcomes of chemotherapy in elderly women with early-stage uterine carcinosarcoma: a population-based analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133(2): 242–249.
  8. Park J, Blackburn BE, Rowe K, et al. Rural-metropolitan disparities in ovarian cancer survival: a statewide population-based study. Ann Epidemiol. 2018; 28(6): 377–384.
  9. Singh R. Review literature on uterine carcinosarcoma. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014; 10(3): 461–468.
  10. Szpurek D, Moszynski R, Szubert S, et al. Urban and rural differences in characteristics of ovarian cancer patients. Ann Agri Environ Med. 2013; 20(2): 390–94.
  11. Zahnd WE, James AS, Jenkins WD, et al. Rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018; 27(11): 1265–1274.
  12. Strosnider H, Kennedy C, Monti M, et al. Rural and urban differences in air quality, 2008-2012, and Community Drinking Water Quality, 2010-2015 - United States. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017; 66(13): 1–10.
  13. Stamenić V, Strnad M. Urban-rural differences in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2011; 52(1): 76–86.
  14. Nurwanti E, Hadi H, Chang JS, et al. Rural-urban differences in dietary behavior and obesity: results of the riskesdas study in 10-18-year-old Indonesian children and adolescents. Nutrients. 2019; 11(11).
  15. Gonzalez Bosquet J, Terstriep SA, Cliby WA, et al. The impact of multi-modal therapy on survival for uterine carcinosarcomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 116(3): 419–423.
  16. Gokce ZK, Turan T, Karalok A, et al. Clinical outcomes of uterine carcinosarcoma: results of 94 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015; 25(2): 279–287.
  17. Wolfson AH, Brady MF, Rocereto T, et al. A gynecologic oncology group randomized phase III trial of whole abdominal irradiation (WAI) vs. cisplatin-ifosfamide and mesna (CIM) as post-surgical therapy in stage I-IV carcinosarcoma (CS) of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107(2): 177–185.
  18. Magnuson WJ, Petereit DG, Anderson BM, et al. Impact of adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy in stage I uterine sarcoma. Anticancer Res. 2015; 35(1): 365–370.
  19. Powell MA, Filiaci VL, Rose PG, et al. Phase II evaluation of paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of carcinosarcoma of the uterus: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(16): 2727–2731.
  20. Galaal K, van der Heijden E, Godfrey K, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy after surgery for uterine carcinosarcoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(2): CD006812.
  21. Seagle BLL, Kanis M, Kocherginsky M, et al. Stage I uterine carcinosarcoma: Matched cohort analyses for lymphadenectomy, chemotherapy, and brachytherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 145(1): 71–77.