| Literature DB >> 15606922 |
Xi Cheng1, Shumo Cai, Ziting Li, Meiqin Tang, Muquan Xue, Rongyu Zang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymph nodes metastasis is an important prognostic factor for patients with cervical carcinoma. However, the relationships between the number of positive nodes, site of metastases nodes, adjuvant therapy and the prognosis is controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of positive lymph nodes on the prognosis of Chinese women with stage IB1-IIB cervical carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1992 and December 1997, 398 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIB cervical carcinoma underwent radical surgery in Cancer Hospital, Fudan University. Of these sixty-six patients (16.6%) who were histologically confirmed to have positive pelvic lymph nodes were analyzed retrospectively. The survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. The differences in survival were compared with Log-rank test. Multivariate analyses were performed with the Cox proportional hazard model.Entities:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15606922 PMCID: PMC546224 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-2-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Clinico-pathologic characteristics of patients with node-positive cervical carcinoma after radical surgery
| Age(yrs) | ||
| <40 | 15 | 22.7 |
| ≥40 | 51 | 77.3 |
| Stage | ||
| IB | 8 | 12.1 |
| IIA | 37 | 56.1 |
| IIB | 21 | 31.8 |
| Tumor size(cm) | ||
| <4 | 31 | 47.0 |
| ≥4 | 35 | 53.0 |
| Histology | ||
| Squamous | 41 | 62.1 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 20 | 30.3 |
| Adenosquamous | 4 | 6.1 |
| Others | 1 | 1.5 |
| Differentiation | ||
| Poor | 16 | 24.2 |
| Moderate | 46 | 69.7 |
| Well | 4 | 6.1 |
| Pelvic lymph node metastases | ||
| 1 | 17 | 25.8 |
| ≥2 | 49 | 74.2 |
| Parametrial extension | ||
| Negative | 58 | 87.9 |
| Positive | 8 | 12.1 |
| Vaginal margin involved | ||
| Negative | 64 | 97.0 |
| Positive | 2 | 3.0 |
| Depth of stromal invasion | ||
| ≤2/3 | 19 | 28.8 |
| ≤2/3 | 47 | 71.2 |
| Lymphvascular permeation | ||
| Negative | 47 | 71.2 |
| Positive | 19 | 28.8 |
Relationship between the number of positive nodes and prognosis
| 1 | 17 | 56.5 | 0.033 | 23.5 | 0.807 | 5.9 | 0.050 |
| ≥2 | 49 | 36.4 | 26.5 | 32.7 |
Figure 1Overall survival according to one vs. two or more positive lymph nodes.
Relationship between the site of positive nodes and prognosis
| Common iliac or above | 15 | 33.3 | 0.086 | 13.3 | 0.318 | 53.3 | 0.005 |
| Lower than common iliac | 51 | 43.1 | 29.4 | 17.6 |
Relationship between adjuvant therapy and prognosis
| No adjuvant therapy | 19 | 12.6 | 42.1 | 31.6 |
| Radiotherapy | 18 | 53.5 | 22.2 | 22.2 |
| Chemotherapy | 10 | 49.2 | 20.0 | 10.0 |
| Radiochemotherapy | 19 | 56.1 | 15.8 | 21.1 |
Figure 2Overall survival according to adjuvant therapy [radiotherapy (RT) vs. chemotherapy (CT) vs. radiochemotherapy (RT+CT) vs. no adjuvant therapy (No)].
Cox proportional hazard model analysis of variables in predicting overall survival
| Factors | Coefficient | RR | 95%CI | P |
| Age | -0.031 | 0.970 | 0.932~1.010 | 0.136 |
| Stage | 0.283 | 1.327 | 0.379~4.644 | 0.658 |
| Tumor size | 0.332 | 1.394 | 0.984~1.975 | 0.061 |
| Histology | -0.035 | 0.966 | 0.563~1.659 | 0.900 |
| Differentiation | 0.787 | 2.196 | 1.104~4.370 | 0.025* |
| Number of positive nodes | 0.076 | 1.079 | 1.006~1.158 | 0.034* |
| Parametrial extension | 0.484 | 1.623 | 0.584~4.508 | 0.353 |
| Vaginal margin involved | -1.007 | 0.365 | 0.029~4.655 | 0.438 |
| Depth of stromal invasion | 0.423 | 1.526 | 0.856~2.722 | 0.152 |
| Lymphvascular permeation | 0.270 | 1.311 | 0.500~3.437 | 0.582 |
| Nerve invasion | 0.101 | 1.106 | 0.092~13.337 | 0.937 |
| Adjuvant therapy | -1.684 | 0.186 | 0.075~0.459 | 0.000* |
* P < 0.05