Outcomes of patients with pelvic leiomyosarcoma treated by surgery and relevant auxiliary diagnosis
Mots clés
Abstrait
Background: Leiomyosarcoma is a subtype of soft tissue sarcoma with adverse outcomes. Leiomyosarcoma accounts for nearly 70% of all uterine sarcomas and is responsible for a considerable proportion of deaths because of uterine cancer. Clinical characteristics and relevant diagnosis of pelvic leiomyosarcoma should be further explored.
Aim: To identify the outcome and relevant perioperative evaluation of patients with pelvic leiomyosarcoma.
Methods: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine progression-free survival and overall survival rates. Factors predictive of outcomes were identified using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
Results: Fifty-one patients with pelvic leiomyosarcoma were enrolled and divided into two groups including uterine leiomyosarcoma and non-uterine leiomyosarcoma. Overall, 28.6% and 45.5% of uterine leiomyosarcoma and non-uterine leiomyosarcoma patients, respectively, had elevated carbohydrate antigen 125 levels, whereas 45.7% and 68.8%, respectively, underwent ultrasonography. Although 68.8% of uterine leiomyosarcoma patients were initially diagnosed with hysteromyoma, 72.7% of non-uterine leiomyosarcoma patients had pelvic and abdominal masses. Moreover, 93.3% of the recurrent lesions were detected using ultrasonography. Patients with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages III-IV disease had poorer progression-free survival values than those with FIGO stages I-II (P = 0.027) disease. FIGO stage was significantly associated with poor progression-free survival in the univariate (hazard ratio = 2.64, P = 0.03) and multivariate (hazard ratio = 2.49, P = 0.048) analyses.
Conclusion: Serum tumour biomarkers cannot be used for pelvic leiomyosarcoma diagnosis. FIGO stage is critical to predict the outcome of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Ultrasonography is more reliable for postoperative follow-up than preoperative diagnosis.
Keywords: Non-uterine leiomyosarcoma; Prognosis; Serum biomarker; Ultrasonography; Uterine leiomyosarcoma.