The Prognostic Significance of ‘Stage, Tumor Size, Cellular Atypia and DNA Ploidy in Uterine Leiomyosarcoma

References

• Hannigan E V, Gomez G. Uterine leiomyosarcoma. A review of prognostic clinical and pathologic features. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134: 557–64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burns B, Curry R H, Bell M E A. Morphologic features of prognostic significance in uterine smooth muscle tumors. A review of 84 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135: 109–14
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vardi J R, Tovell H M M. Leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. Clinicopathologic study. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 428–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartner J F, Smith E B, Szpak C A, Hinshaw W. Clarke‐Pearson DL, Creasman WT. Leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: Clinicopathologic study of 21 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1985; 21: 220–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahanpaa K V, Wahlström T, Gröhn P, Heinonen E, Nieminen U, Windholm O. Sarcomas of the uterus. A clinicopathologic study of 119 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 417–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berchuck A, Rubin S C, Hoskins W J, Saigo P E, Pierce V K, Lewis J L. Treatment of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 845–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson B, Silfverswärd C, Nilsson B, Petterson F. Prognostic factors in uterine leiomyosarcoma. Acta Oncol 1990; 29: 185–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordal R R, Kjørstad K E, Stenwig A E, Troé C T. Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) of the uterus. A survey of patients treated in the Norwegian Radium Hospital 1976–1985. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1993; 3: 110–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor H B, Norris H J. Mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. IV Diagnosis and prognosis of leiomyosarcomas. Arch Pathol 1966; 82: 40–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kempsen R L, Bari W. Uterine sarcomas. Classification, diagnosis and prognosis. Hum Pathol 1970; 1: 331–49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christopherson W M, Williamson E O, Gray L A. Leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. Cancer 1972; 29: 1512–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart R W, Billmann J K. A reassessment of uterine neoplasm originally diagnosed as leiomyosarcomas. Cancer 1978; 41: 1902–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverberg S G. Leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. A clinico‐pathologic study. Obstet Gynecol 1971; 38: 613–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempson R L, Hendrickson M R. Pure mesenchymal tumors the uterine corpus. Selected problems. Semin Diagn Pathol 1988; 5: 172–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsushima K, Stanhope C R, Gaffey T A, Lieber M M. Uterine leiomyosarcomas and benign smooth muscle tumors: Usefulness of nuclear DNA patterns studied by flow cytometry. Mayo Clin Proc 1988; 63: 248–55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters W A, Howard D R, Andersen W A, Figge D C. Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis by flow cytometry of uterine leiomyosarcomas and smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1646–54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malmström H, Schmidt H, Persson P G, Carstensen J, Nordenskjöld B, Simonsen E. Flow cytometric analysis of uterine sarcomas: Ploidy and S‐phase rate as prognostic indicators. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 44: 172–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolfsen A H, Wolfsen D J, Sittler S Y, et al. A multivariate analysis of clinicopathologic factors for predicting outcome in uterine sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 52: 56–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kjellberg L, Boquist L, Stendahl U, Tribukait B. Flow cytometric analysis of uterine sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55: 339–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Annual Report on the Treatment in Gynecologic Cancer. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Stockholm 1985; Vol 19
   Google Scholar
• Hedley D W, Friedlander M L, Taylor I W, Rugg C A, Mugsgrove E A. Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin‐embedded pathological material using flow cytometry. J Histochem Cytochem 1983; 31: 1333–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaern J, Tropé C, Kjørstad K E, Abeler V, Pettersen E O. Cellular DNA content as a new prognostic tool in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38: 452–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hiddemann W, Schumann J, Andreeff M, et al. Convention on nomenclature for DNA cytometry. Cytometry 1984; 5: 44–6
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan E L, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox D R. Regression models and life‐tables (with discussion). J R Statist Soc B 1972; 34: 187–220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng E H, Pollock R E, Munsell M F, Atkinson E N, Romsdahl M M. Prognostic factors influencing survival in gastrointestinal leiomyosarcomas. Implications for surgical management and staging. Ann Surg 1992; 1: 68–77
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor D M, Norris H J. Mitotically active leiomyomas of the uterus. Hum Pathol 1990; 21: 223–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar