OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to characterize primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC) compared with ovarian carcinoma (OvC). STUDY DESIGN: Within the framework of a nationwide epidemiologic Israeli study, 95 PPC patients were identified and compared with 117 FIGO stage III-IV epithelial OvC patients matched by age and continent of birth. Data were abstracted from medical records and personal interviews. RESULTS: Our data confirm the similarities between PPC and OvC. A higher rate of abdominal distention, volume of ascites, and malignant cells in ascitic fluid and lower rate of pelvic palpable mass and personal breast cancer history were found in the PPC compared with the OvC group. The overall survival was similar in both groups (30-33 months). In optimally cytoreduced patients, survival was better in the OvC group. Diameter of residual disease was associated with better survival only in the OvC group. CONCLUSION: The clinical differences do not enable a preoperative distinction between the neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to characterize primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC) compared with ovarian carcinoma (OvC). STUDY DESIGN: Within the framework of a nationwide epidemiologic Israeli study, 95 PPC patients were identified and compared with 117 FIGO stage III-IV epithelial OvC patients matched by age and continent of birth. Data were abstracted from medical records and personal interviews. RESULTS: Our data confirm the similarities between PPC and OvC. A higher rate of abdominal distention, volume of ascites, and malignant cells in ascitic fluid and lower rate of pelvic palpable mass and personal breast cancer history were found in the PPC compared with the OvC group. The overall survival was similar in both groups (30-33 months). In optimally cytoreduced patients, survival was better in the OvC group. Diameter of residual disease was associated with better survival only in the OvC group. CONCLUSION: The clinical differences do not enable a preoperative distinction between the neoplasms.
Authors: S John Weroha; Marc A Becker; Sergio Enderica-Gonzalez; Sean C Harrington; Ann L Oberg; Matthew J Maurer; Sarah E Perkins; Mariam AlHilli; Kristina A Butler; Sarah McKinstry; Stephanie Fink; Robert B Jenkins; Xiaonan Hou; Kimberly R Kalli; Karin M Goodman; Jann N Sarkaria; Beth Y Karlan; Amanika Kumar; Scott H Kaufmann; Lynn C Hartmann; Paul Haluska Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sang Young Roh; Sook Hee Hong; Yoon Ho Ko; Tae Hee Kim; Myung Ah Lee; Byoung Yong Shim; Jae Ho Byun; In Sook Woo; Jin Hyoung Kang; Young Seon Hong; Kyung Shik Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-06-30 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Joseph W Carlson; Alexander Miron; Elke A Jarboe; Mana M Parast; Michelle S Hirsch; Yonghee Lee; Michael G Muto; David Kindelberger; Christopher P Crum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shelley S Tworoger; Leo J Schouten; Renée T Fortner; Megan S Rice; Synnove F Knutsen; Michael J Orlich; Kala Visvanathan; Alpa V Patel; Mia M Gaudet; Anne Tjønneland; Marina Kvaskoff; Rudolf Kaaks; Antonia Trichopolou; Valeria Pala; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Inger T Gram; Pilar Amiano; Annika Idahl; Naomi E Allen; Elisabete Weiderpass; Jenny N Poynter; Kim Robien; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Veronica W Setiawan; Melissa A Merritt; Piet A van den Brandt; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Alan A Arslan; Katie M O'Brien; Dale P Sandler; Alicja Wolk; Niclas Håkansson; Holly R Harris; Britton Trabert; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.254