Objective: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS). While adjuvant hormone therapy is recommended for patients with advanced/ recurrent disease, no consensus regarding its use among early-stage patients exists. We aimed to identify correlates of adjuvant hormone therapy use and associations of adjuvant hormone therapy and overall survival (OS) in stage I LG-ESS patients. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I LG-ESS who underwent hysterectomy from 2004-2019 using data from the National Cancer Database. Categorical data were compared using χ 2 tests. Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests were used to compare OS according to adjuvant hormone use. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between adjuvant hormone use and OS were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of 2,386 patients included, 20.2% were treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy.Use of hormone therapy increased over time, with rates approximately doubling from 2004 to 2019 (12.6% to 24.6%). Age, tumor size, lymphovascular space invasion and adjuvant radiation were associated with adjuvant hormone therapy use. There was no association between adjuvant hormone therapy and OS (log-rank p=0.73; HR=1.05; 95% CI=0.76–1.46) for patients with LG-ESS. Conclusion Use of adjuvant hormone therapy for stage I LG-ESS has increased over time though is not associated with OS in this cohort of patients. Additional evaluation is needed to understand the impact of adjuvant hormone therapy on recurrence rates, progression rates, and quality of life to fully understand its value.

Objective: The management of stage II endometrial cancer (EC) is challenging due to the wide variation in surgical practice and adjuvant treatment recommendations. We sought to describe the treatment patterns for patients with stage II EC and to evaluate the association between surgical management and adjuvant therapy on survival outcomes in a large cohort of patients with stage II EC. Methods: Using data from the National Cancer Database, we identified 9,690 women with stage II EC. We used logistic regression to identify association of sociodemographic and tumor characteristics with surgery type and receipt of adjuvant therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between adjuvant therapy, hysterectomy type, and overall survival. Results: Almost 11% of the cohort underwent radical hysterectomy; however, there was no difference in survival between surgical types even when adjusted for adjuvant therapy (HR=0.94; 95% CI=0.82–1.07). Compared to no adjuvant treatment, radiation only (HR=0.66; 95% CI=0.61–0.73) and combination radiation and chemotherapy (HR=0.53;95% CI=0.45–0.62) were associated with lower risk of death. There was no survival benefit of chemotherapy alone even when separated by histologic subtype (HR range, 0.55–1.46). Conclusions Women with stage II EC do not appear to benefit from routine radical hysterectomy though all patients appear to benefit from receipt of radiation therapy (RT), regardless of modality. Additionally, there may be an added survival benefit with the combination of computed tomography and RT in patients with non-endometrioid, high-risk histologies.