BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the carboxyterminal telopeptide of type I (ICTP) as a predictor of prognosis is insufficiently known in ovarian cancer. Therefore, we compared the prognostic accuracy of ICTP and CA 125 and their combination with each other and with the aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP) and clinical prognosticators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five epithelial ovarian cancer patients treated in Oulu University Hospital, Finland, from 1989-1995, were enrolled in this study. Cytoreduction was performed as completely as possible. The preoperative serum concentrations of the biochemical markers were determined using commercial kits. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, each biochemical marker and all conventional prognostic indicators, with the exception of histological subtype, correlated significantly with survival. In multivariate Cox analysis on biochemical and clinical markers, ICTP alone and ICTP + CA 125, but not CA 125 alone, proved useful indicators of overall survival. The combination of ICTP and CA 125, however, added no essential information compared to that obtained with ICTP alone. CONCLUSION: The ICTP test seems to be a clinically useful predictor of the clinical behavior of ovarian cancer. An increased serum ICTP concentration may reflect the spreading and aggressiveness of invasively growing ovarian cancer.
BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the carboxyterminal telopeptide of type I (ICTP) as a predictor of prognosis is insufficiently known in ovarian cancer. Therefore, we compared the prognostic accuracy of ICTP and CA 125 and their combination with each other and with the aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP) and clinical prognosticators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five epithelial ovarian cancerpatients treated in Oulu University Hospital, Finland, from 1989-1995, were enrolled in this study. Cytoreduction was performed as completely as possible. The preoperative serum concentrations of the biochemical markers were determined using commercial kits. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, each biochemical marker and all conventional prognostic indicators, with the exception of histological subtype, correlated significantly with survival. In multivariate Cox analysis on biochemical and clinical markers, ICTP alone and ICTP + CA 125, but not CA 125 alone, proved useful indicators of overall survival. The combination of ICTP and CA 125, however, added no essential information compared to that obtained with ICTP alone. CONCLUSION: The ICTP test seems to be a clinically useful predictor of the clinical behavior of ovarian cancer. An increased serum ICTP concentration may reflect the spreading and aggressiveness of invasively growing ovarian cancer.