Taylan, E, et al. Fertility preservation in gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:522–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oktay, K, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1994–2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oktay, K, et al. Robot-assisted orthotopic and heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation techniques: surgical advances since our first success in 2000. Fertil Steril 2019;111:604–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Azim, A et al. Letrozole for ovulation induction and fertility preservation by embryo cryopreservation in young women with endometrial carcinoma. Fertil Steril 2007;88:657–664.Google Scholar

Sonmezer, M, et al. Random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for emergency fertility preservation in letrozole cycles. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2125.e9–2125.e11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Neoplasms (Version 2.2020). Available from: www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf [last accessed September 19, 2020].Google Scholar

Gunderson, CC, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade 1 adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:477–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Son, J, et al. Endometrial cancer in young women: prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in women aged <40 years. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:631–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Acosta-Torres, S, et al. The addition of metformin to progestin therapy in the fertility-sparing treatment of women with atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or endometrial cancer: little impact on response and low live-birth rates. Gynecol Oncol 2020;157(2):348–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Walsh, C, et al. Coexisting ovarian malignancy in young women with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106(4):693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Holloway, RW, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: a society of gynecologic oncology literature review with consensus recommendations, Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Soliman, PT, et al. A prospective validation study of sentinel lymph node mapping for high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rossi, EC, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective cohort study, Lancet Oncol 2017;18:384–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30068-2Google Scholar

Schlappe, BA, et al. Multicenter study comparing oncologic outcomes after lymph node assessment via a sentinel lymph node algorithm versus comprehensive pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with serous and clear cell endometrial carcinoma, Gynecol Oncol 2020;156:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.002Google Scholar

Multinu, F, et al. Role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer with nonbulky lymph node metastasis: comparison of comprehensive surgical staging and sentinel lymph node algorithm. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.09.011Google Scholar

Mariani, A, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109(1):11–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Eriksson, AGZ, et al. Comparison of a sentinel lymph node and a selective lymphadenectomy algorithm in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and limited myometrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140(3):394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buda, A, et al. Lymph node evaluation in high-risk early-stage endometrial cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis comparing the sentinel lymph node (SLN) algorithm and SLN with selective lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2018;150(2):261–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rossi, EC, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18(3):384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tanner, EJ, et al. The utility of sentinel lymph node mapping in high-grade endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27(7):1416–1421.Google Scholar

Cusimano, MC, et al. Assessment of sentinel lymph node biopsy vs lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-grade endometrial cancer staging. JAMA Surg 2021; 156(2):157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Petrelli, F, et al. Axillary dissection compared to sentinel node biopsy for the treatment of pathologically node-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials with long-term follow up. Oncol Rev 2012;6(2):e20.Google Scholar

Morton, DL, et al. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. New Engl J Med 2014;370(7):599–609.Google Scholar

Todo, Y, et al. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010;375:1165–1172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frost, JA, et al. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015(9):CD007585.Google Scholar

Buskwofie, A, et al. Role of paraaortic nodal evaluation in women with uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019;154:105–106.Google Scholar

de Boer, SM, et al; for PORTEC Study Group. Clinical consequences of upfront pathology review in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2018;29(2):424–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx753CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Kandoth, C, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497(7447):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12113. Erratum in: Nature 2013;500(7461):242.Google Scholar

DeLair, DF, et al. The genetic landscape of endometrial clear cell carcinomas. J Pathol 2017;243(2):230–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4947CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stelloo, E, et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer: combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22(16):4215–4224. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Salvador, MU, et al. Comprehensive paired tumor/germline testing for lynch syndrome: bringing resolution to the diagnostic process. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(8):647–657. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00696CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bokhman, JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1983;15(1):10–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO Classification of Tumours. Female Genital Tumours (5th edn.). 2020.Google Scholar

León-Castillo, A, et al. Molecular classification of the PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer: impact on prognosis and benefit from adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(29):3388–3397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Buus, R, et al. Molecular drivers of oncotype DX, prosigna, endopredict, and the breast cancer index: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2020;2020:Jco2000853.Google Scholar

van den Heerik, A, et al. PORTEC-4a: international randomized trial of molecular profile-based adjuvant treatment for women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30(12):2002–2007.Google Scholar

Randall, ME, et al. Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:36–44.Google Scholar

Homesley, HD, et al. A randomized phase III trial in advanced endometrial carcinoma of surgery and volume directed radiation followed by cisplatin and doxorubicin with or without paclitaxel: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:543–552.Google Scholar

de Boer, SM, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(3):295–309.Google Scholar

de Boer, SM, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1273–1285.Google Scholar

Matei, D, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation for locally advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:2317–2326.Google Scholar

de Boer, SM, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20(9):1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

de Boer, SM, et al. Toxicity and quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17(8):1114–1126.Google Scholar

Matei, D, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation for locally advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380(24):2317–2326.Google Scholar

Kandoth, C, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497(7447):67–73.Google ScholarPubMed

León-Castillo, A, et al. Molecular classification of the PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer: impact on prognosis and benefit from adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(29):3388–3397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

del Carmen, MG, et al. Uterine papillary serous cancer: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2012;127(3):651–661.Google Scholar

Abu-Rustum, NR, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Uterine Neoplasms, Version 3.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(8):888–895.Google Scholar

van der Putten, LJ, et al. Population-based treatment and outcomes of stage I uterine serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132(1):61–64.Google Scholar

Velker, V, et al. Role of adjuvant therapy for stage ia serous and clear cell uterine cancer: is observation a valid strategy? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26(3):491–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mysona, DP, et al. Clinical calculator predictive of chemotherapy benefit in stage 1 A uterine papillary serous cancers. Gynecol Oncol 2020;156(1):77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boruta, DM, et al.Management of women with uterine papillary serous cancer: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) review. Gynecol Oncol 2009;115:142–153.Google Scholar

Viswanathan, AN, et al. The importance of chemotherapy and radiation in uterine papillary serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2011;123:542–547.Google Scholar

Hogberg, T, et al. Sequential adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in endometrial cancer – results from two randomised studies. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2422–2431.Google Scholar

Nasioudis, D, et al. Adjuvant treatment for patients with FIGO stage I uterine serous carcinoma confined to the endometrium. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30(8):1089–1094.Google Scholar

Welp, A, et al. Distant recurrence in a patient with polyp-confined stage IA serous endometrial carcinoma treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: a case report and review of literature. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2019;31:100512.Google Scholar

Mahdi, H, et al. Adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy decreases the risk of vaginal recurrence in patients with stage I non-invasive uterine papillary serous carcinoma. A multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol 2015;136(3):529–533.Google Scholar

de Boer, SM, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(3):295–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Secord, AA, et al. A multicenter evaluation of adjuvant therapy in women with optimally resected stage IIIC endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128(1):65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Geller, MA, et al. A phase II trial of carboplatin and docetaxel followed by radiotherapy given in a “sandwich” method for stage III, IV, and recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121(1):112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glasgow, M, et al. Long-term follow-up of a phase II trial of multimodal therapy given in a “sandwich” method for stage III, IV, and recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 2016;3:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frimer, M, et al. Adjuvant pelvic radiation “sandwiched” between paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy in women with completely resected uterine serous carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a prospective phase 2 trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28(9):1781–1788.Google Scholar

Goodman, CR, et al. Association of chemotherapy and radiotherapy sequence with overall survival in locoregionally advanced endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019;153(1):41–48.Google Scholar

Bogani, G, et al. Role of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30(8):1169–1176.Google Scholar

Latham, AH, et al. Sequencing of therapy in women with stage III endometrial carcinoma receiving adjuvant combination chemotherapy and radiation. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155(1):13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lu, SM, et al. Sequential versus “sandwich” sequencing of adjuvant chemoradiation for the treatment of stage III uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2015;137(1):28–33.Google Scholar

Dogan, NU, et al. Comparison of “sandwich chemo-radiotherapy” and six cycles of chemotherapy followed by adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer: a single center experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;288(4):845–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barlin, JN, et al. Cytoreductive surgery for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:14–18.Google Scholar

Bristow, RE, et al. Stage IVB endometrial carcinoma: the role of cytoreductive surgery and determinants of survival. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85–91.Google Scholar

Shih, KK, et al. Surgical cytoreduction in stage IV endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2011;122(3):608–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Du Bois, AA, et al. Randomized phase III study to evaluate the impact of secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: final analysis of AGO DESKTOP III/ENGOT-ov20. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:6000).Google Scholar

Eto, T, et al. Status of treatment for the overall population of patients with stage IVB endometrial cancer, and evaluation of the role of preoperative chemotherapy: a retrospective multi-institutional study of 426 patients in Japan. Gynecol Oncol 2013;131(3):574–580.Google Scholar

Barlin JN, et al. Cytoreductive surgery for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.04.005Google ScholarPubMed

Coleman RL, et al. Secondary surgical cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1929–1939. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1902626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Landrum LM, et al. Stage IVB endometrial cancer: does applying an ovarian cancer treatment paradigm result in similar outcomes? A case-control analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:337–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.009Google Scholar

Lambrou NC, et al. Optimal surgical cytoreduction in patients with stage III and stage IV endometrial carcinoma: a study of morbidity and survival. Gynecol Oncol 2004;93:653–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.03.015Google Scholar

Legge, F, et al. Clinical outcome of recurrent endometrial cancer: analysis of post-relapse survival by pattern of recurrence and secondary treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30(2):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000822CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moukarzel, LA, et al. Non-exenterative surgical management of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2021;162(2):268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.020Google Scholar

Barlin, JN, et al. Cytoreductive surgery for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118(1):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.04.005Google Scholar

Hardarson, HA, et al. Vaginal vault recurrences of endometrial cancer in non-irradiated patients – radiotherapy or surgery. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2015;11:26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2015.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tangjitgamol, S, et al. Role of surgical resection for lung, liver, and central nervous system metastases in patients with gynecological cancer: a literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004;14(3):399–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1048-891x.2004.14326.xGoogle Scholar

del Carmen, MG, et al. Recurrent endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011;54(2):266–277.Google Scholar

Scarabelli, C, et al. Maximal cytoreductive surgery as a reasonable therapeutic alternative for recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1998;70(1):90–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Campagnutta, E, et al. Surgical treatment of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100(1): 89–96.Google Scholar

Bristow, RE, et al. Salvage cytoreductive surgery for recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103(1):281–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Awtrey, CS, et al. Surgical resection of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102:480–488.Google Scholar

Lincoln, S, et al. Activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2003;88:277–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(02)00068-9Google Scholar

Ethier, J-L, et al. Is hormonal therapy effective in advanced endometrial cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.002Google Scholar

Decruze, SB, et al. Hormone therapy in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer: a systematic review, Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:964–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00897.xGoogle Scholar

Kokka, F, et al. Hormonal therapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (online). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007926.pub2Google Scholar

Slomovitz, BM, et al. Phase II study of everolimus and letrozole in patients with recurrent endometrial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Soliman, PT, et al. Metformin in women with advanced or recurrent endometrioid endometrial cancer: a multi-center, single arm, phase II study. Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0471Google Scholar

Mirza, MR, et al. LBA28 A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial of palbociclib combined with letrozole (L) in patients (pts) with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC): NSGO-PALEO / ENGOT-EN3 trial. Ann Oncol 2020;31:S1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, DS, et al. Carboplatin and paclitaxel for advanced endometrial cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a phase III trial (NRG Oncology/GOG0209). J Clin Oncol 2020;38(33):3841–3850.Google Scholar

Concin, N, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31(1):12–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ethier, JL, et al. Is hormonal therapy effective in advanced endometrial cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147(1):158–166.Google Scholar

Mileshkin, L, et al. Phase 2 study of anastrozole in recurrent estrogen (ER)/progesterone (PR) positive endometrial cancer: The PARAGON trial–ANZGOG 0903. Gynecol Oncol 2019;154(1):29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mirza, MR, et al. A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial of palbociclib combined with letrozole (L) in patients (pts) with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER plus) advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC): NSGO- PALEO/ENGOT-EN3 trial. Ann Oncol 2020;31(Suppl. 4):S1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/annonc/annonc325Google Scholar

Leon-Castillo, A, et al. Molecular classification of the PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer: impact on prognosis and benefit from adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:3388e3397. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oaknin, A, et al. Clinical activity and safety of the anti-programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody dostarlimab for patients with recurrent or advanced mismatch repaire-deficient endometrial cancer: a nonrandomized phase 1 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020;6v11:1766e1772. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fader, AN, et al. Randomized phase II trial of carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab in advanced (stage III-IV) or recurrent uterine serous carcinomas that overexpress Her2/Neu (NCT01367002): updated overall survival analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(15):3928e3935.Google Scholar

Omalley, D, et al. KEYNOTE 158. Ann Oncol 2019;30(Suppl. 5):v403ev404. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz25Google Scholar

Oaknin, A, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or proficient (MMRp) endometrial cancer (EC): results from GARNET. Ann Oncol 2020;31(Suppl. 4):S1142–S1215. 10.1016/annonc/annonc325Google Scholar

Makker, V, et al. Study 309–KEYNOTE-775 Investigators. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med 2022;386(5):437–448.Google Scholar

Colombo, N, et al. Outcomes by histology and prior therapy with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (Study 309/KEYNOTE-775). Ann Oncol 2021;32(Suppl. 5):S725–S772. https://doi.org/10.1016/annonc/annonc703CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kandoth, C, et al. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network,Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497(7447):67–73.Google Scholar

Talhouk, A, et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer 2017; 123(5):802–813.Google Scholar

O’Malley, DM, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high advanced endometrial cancer: results from the KEYNOTE-158 Study. J Clin Oncol 2022;40(7):752–761.Google Scholar

Oaknin, A, et al. Clinical activity and safety of the anti-programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody dostarlimab for patients with recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer: a nonrandomized phase 1 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020;6(11):1766–1772.Google Scholar

Makker, V, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med 2022;386(5):437–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cortes-Ciriano, I, et al. A molecular portrait of microsatellite instability across multiple cancers. Nat Commun 2017;8:15180.Google Scholar

Marabelle, A, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oaknin, A, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients (pts) with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or proficient (MMRp) endometrial cancer (EC): results from GARNET. J Immunother Cancer 2022 (online). https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-003777Google Scholar

Antill, Y, et al. Clinical activity of durvalumab for patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient and repair-proficient endometrial cancer. A nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer 2021;9(6):e002255.Google Scholar

Konstantinopoulos, PA, et al. Phase II study of avelumab in patients with mismatch repair deficient and mismatch repair proficient recurrent/persistent endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(30):2786–2794.Google Scholar

Makker, V, et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab vs treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2021 Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. Abstract 37/ID 11512. Presented March 19, 2021.Google Scholar

Denschlag, D, et al. Uterine carcinosarcomas – diagnosis and management. Oncol Res Treat 2018;41(11):675–679.Google Scholar

Menczer, J. Review of recommended treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2015;16(11):53Google Scholar

Berton-Rigaud, D, et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for uterine and ovarian carcinosarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24(9 Suppl. 3):S55–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lorusso, D, et al. Carboplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-ifosfamide in the treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24(7):1256–1261.Google Scholar

Powell, MA, et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of paclitaxel (P) plus carboplatin (C) versus paclitaxel plus ifosfamide (I) in chemotherapy-naive patients with stage I–IV, persistent or recurrent carcinosarcoma of the uterus or ovary: an NRG Oncology trial. JCO 2019;37(15):5500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Powell, MA, et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of paclitaxel (P) plus carboplatin (C) versus paclitaxel plus ifosfamide (I) in chemotherapy-naive patients with s-IV, persistent or recurrent carcinosarcoma of the uterus or ovary: an NRG Oncology trial. J Clin Oncol 2022;40(9):968–977.Google Scholar

Berton-Rigaud, D, et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for uterine and ovarian carcinosarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24(9 Suppl. 3): S55–60.Google Scholar

Cherniack, AD, et al. Integrated molecular characterization of uterine carcinosarcoma. Cancer Cell 2017;31(3):411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2017.02.010Google Scholar

Zhao, S, et al. Mutational landscape of uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas implicates histone genes in epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113(43):12238–12243. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614120113Google Scholar

Hensley, ML, et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review: uterine and ovarian leiomyosarcomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;9(Suppl. 3):S61–66.Google Scholar

Zivanovic O, , et al. A nomogram to predict post resection 5-year overall survival for patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma. Cancer 2012;118:660–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leitao, MM, et al. Tissue microarray immunohistochemical expression of estrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors in uterine leiomyomata and leiomyosarcoma. Cancer 2004;101:1455.Google Scholar

Leitao, MM, et al. O outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed uterine leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:558–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kapp, DS, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in 1396 patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas: emphasis on impact of lymphadenectomy and oophorectomy. Cancer 2008;112:820–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nasioudis, D, et al. Safety of ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with stage I uterine sarcoma. J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28(4):e46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Seagle, BL, et al. Prognosis and treatment of uterine leiomyosarcoma: a National Cancer Database study. Gynecol Oncol 2017;145(1):61–70.Google Scholar

Bodner, K, et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptor expression in patients with uterine smooth muscle tumors. Fertil Steril 2004;81(4):1062–1066.Google Scholar

Giuntoli, RL, et al. Retrospective review of 208 patients with leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: prognostic indicators, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89(3):460–469.Google Scholar

Nasioudis, D, et al. Safety of ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with stage I uterine sarcoma. J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28(4):e46. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e46Google Scholar

ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25(Suppl. 3):iii102–112.Google Scholar

Hensley, ML, et al. Adjuvant gemcitabine plus docetaxel for completely resected stages I–IV high-grade uterine leiomyosarcoma: results of a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:563.Google Scholar

Dinh, TA, et al. The treatment of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Results from a 10-year experience (1990–1999) at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Gynecol Oncol 2004;92:648–652.Google ScholarPubMed

Leitao, MM Jr, et al. Surgical cytoreduction in patients with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma at the time of initial diagnosis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125(2):409–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friedman, CF, et al. Options for adjuvant therapy for uterine leiomyosarcoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2018;19(2):7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Reed, NS, et al. Phase III randomized study to evaluate the role of adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy in the treatment of uterine sarcomas stage I and II: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gynaecological Cancer Group Study (protocol 55874). Eur J Cancer 2008;44:808–818.Google Scholar

Burt, BM, et al. Repeated and aggressive pulmonary resections for leiomyosarcoma metastases extends survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:1207.Google Scholar

Francis, M, et al. Incidence and survival of gynecologic sarcomas in England. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25(5):850–857.Google Scholar

Kapp, DS, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in 1396 patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas: emphasis on impact of lymphadenectomy and oophorectomy. Cancer 2008;112(4):820–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ghirardi, V, et al. Role of surgery in gynaecological sarcomas. Oncotarget 2019;10(26):2561–2575.Google Scholar

Leitao, MM Jr., et al. Surgical cytoreduction in patients with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma at the time of initial diagnosis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125(2):409–413.Google Scholar

George, S, et al. Soft tissue and uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(2):144–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burt, BM, et al. Repeated and aggressive pulmonary resections for leiomyosarcoma metastases extends survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:1202–1207.Google Scholar

Leitao, MM, et al. Surgical resection of pulmonary and extrapulmonary recurrences of uterine leiomyosarcoma, Gynecol Oncol 2002;87:287–294.Google Scholar

Giuntoli, RL, et al. Secondary cytoreduction in the management of recurrent uterine leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:82–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cybulska, P, et al. Secondary surgical resection for patients with recurrent uterine leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2019;154(2):333–337.Google Scholar

Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Management of recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: a consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23(11):3531–3540.Google Scholar

van Geel, AN, et al. Surgical treatment of lung metastases: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group study of 255 patients. Cancer 1996;77:675–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19960215)77:4<675::aid-cncr13>3.3.co;2-h3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leitao, MM, et al. Surgical resection of pulmonary and extrapulmonary recurrences of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87:287–294. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2002.6840CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hoang, HLT, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in patients treated surgically for recurrent metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma. Int J Surg Oncol 2014;2014:919323. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/919323Google Scholar

Bonvalot, S, et al. Randomized trial of cytoreduction followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreduction alone in patients with peritoneal sarcomatosis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31(8):917–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2005.04.010. PMID: 15975759Google Scholar

Díaz-Montes, TP, et al. Efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery in the treatment of recurrent uterine sarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:1130–1137. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001289Google Scholar

Aalders, J, et al. Postoperative external irradiation and prognostic parameters in stage I endometrial carcinoma: clinical and histopathologic study of 540 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1980;56:419–427.Google Scholar