Uterine and Cervical Adenosarcoma: A Retrospective Study of Overall Oncologic Outcomes and Fertility Preservation in Early-Stage Disease

Abstract

Abstract Background The management of adenosarcoma is based on the limited available data. This study aimed to explore the characteristics and oncologic outcomes of patients with uterine and cervical adenosarcoma. Materials and Methods A total of 21 and 32 cases of cervical and uterine adenosarcoma, respectively, were retrospectively reviewed in Peking Union Medical College Hospital between April 2006 and March 2019. Results The median follow-up time was 37.5 months (range, 1–153 months). The disease progression rate (DPR) was significantly higher in patients with uterine adenosarcoma compared with those with cervical adenosarcoma (28.1% vs. 4.8%). The curve of progression-free survival significantly differed. For those with cervical adenosarcoma, the presence of a tumor stalk was a protective factor, whereas heterologous elements (HE) presented a risk factor for disease progression. For those with uterine adenosarcoma, the presence of a tumor stalk was an independent protective factor, whereas lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) was an independent risk factor for disease progression. Moreover, HE was an independent risk factor for mortality. Fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) was performed in four and five patients with cervical and uterine adenosarcoma, respectively. Regarding FSS, combined with cases in previous studies, the DPR of patients with uterine adenosarcoma was relatively higher compared with those with cervical adenosarcoma. Conclusion We found that cervical adenosarcoma had a better prognosis than uterine adenosarcoma. The presence of a tumor stalk was a protective factor, whereas HE and LVSI were risk factors for prognosis. For those with uterine adenosarcoma, if FSS was administered, robust evaluation would be necessary. The small sample size limits the ability to make any strong conclusions about FSS. Implications for Practice Uterine cervical adenosarcoma had a better prognosis than uterine adenosarcoma. For patients with cervical adenosarcoma, the presence of a tumor stalk was a protective factor and the presence of heterologous elements (HE) was a risk factor for disease progression. For those with uterine adenosarcoma, the presence of a tumor stalk was a protective factor and lymphovascular space invasion was a risk factor for disease progression. Moreover, HE was a risk factor for mortality. Regarding fertility-sparing surgery (FSS), the disease progression rate was higher in patients with uterine adenosarcoma compared with those with cervical adenosarcoma. For patients with uterine adenosarcoma, if FSS was administered, hysteroscopy and robust imaging evaluation would be necessary.