INTRODUCTION: Despite radical surgery and chemotherapy, most patients with ovarian cancer develop recurrence and die due to progressive disease. To stratify patients for optimal therapy, prognostic and predictive factors are needed. We examined the role of pre- and postoperative CA-125 in this context. METHODS: A total of 231 patients with primary ovarian cancer who presented for surgery at our institution between 1996 and 2004 were included in this study (25% FIGO stage I/II and 75% FIGO stage III/IV). The prognostic and predictive values of CA-125 serum concentrations before and after surgery as well as their correlation with clinicopathological variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Median preoperative CA-125 was 61.6 kU/l (9-1,867 kU/l) in stage I/II patients and 533.15 kU/l (10-22,617 kU/l) in stage III/IV patients. Before surgery, 67% of stage I/II patients and 96% of stage III/IV patients had elevated CA-125 (>35 kU/l). There was a significant decrease in CA-125 after surgery in both patient cohorts (61.6-43.4 kU/l, P = 0.001 and 533.15-92.3 kU/l, P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, in stage III/IV patients with complete or so-called optimal (<1 cm residual disease) debulking, preoperative CA-125 levels were significantly lower than in patients with residual disease >1 cm (P = 0.01, P = 0.009, respectively). Neither CA-125 concentration before surgery nor its decrease was prognostically relevant for recurrence and survival at any stage. However, in stage III/IV patients, a high postoperative CA-125 was associated with shorter progression-free survival (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Although CA-125 serum levels differ significantly before and after surgery in early and advanced-stage ovarian cancer and preoperative CA-125 values correlate with surgical outcome in advanced-stage disease, we could not determine a preoperative cutoff value for prediction of the surgical result. A prognostic relevance was only observed for postoperative CA-125 in stage III/IV patients.
INTRODUCTION: Despite radical surgery and chemotherapy, most patients with ovarian cancer develop recurrence and die due to progressive disease. To stratify patients for optimal therapy, prognostic and predictive factors are needed. We examined the role of pre- and postoperative CA-125 in this context. METHODS: A total of 231 patients with primary ovarian cancer who presented for surgery at our institution between 1996 and 2004 were included in this study (25% FIGO stage I/II and 75% FIGO stage III/IV). The prognostic and predictive values of CA-125 serum concentrations before and after surgery as well as their correlation with clinicopathological variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Median preoperative CA-125 was 61.6 kU/l (9-1,867 kU/l) in stage I/II patients and 533.15 kU/l (10-22,617 kU/l) in stage III/IV patients. Before surgery, 67% of stage I/II patients and 96% of stage III/IV patients had elevated CA-125 (>35 kU/l). There was a significant decrease in CA-125 after surgery in both patient cohorts (61.6-43.4 kU/l, P = 0.001 and 533.15-92.3 kU/l, P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, in stage III/IV patients with complete or so-called optimal (<1 cm residual disease) debulking, preoperative CA-125 levels were significantly lower than in patients with residual disease >1 cm (P = 0.01, P = 0.009, respectively). Neither CA-125 concentration before surgery nor its decrease was prognostically relevant for recurrence and survival at any stage. However, in stage III/IV patients, a high postoperative CA-125 was associated with shorter progression-free survival (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Although CA-125 serum levels differ significantly before and after surgery in early and advanced-stage ovarian cancer and preoperative CA-125 values correlate with surgical outcome in advanced-stage disease, we could not determine a preoperative cutoff value for prediction of the surgical result. A prognostic relevance was only observed for postoperative CA-125 in stage III/IV patients.
Authors: Stephen A Cannistra; Robert C Bast; Jonathan S Berek; Michael A Bookman; Christopher P Crum; Paul D DePriest; Judy E Garber; Wui-Jin Koh; Maurie Markman; William P McGuire; Peter G Rose; Eric K Rowinsky; Gordon J S Rustin; Steven J Skates; Paul A Vasey; Laura King Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S Mahner; S Schirrmacher; W Brenner; L Jenicke; C R Habermann; N Avril; J Dose-Schwarz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Arthur Cho; Jae-Hoon Lee; Mijin Yun; Jong Doo Lee; Young Tae Kim; Won Jun Kang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Iván Díaz-Padilla; Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak; Lucas Minig; Marcus Q Bernardini; Josep María Del Campo Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Xiaoxiang Chen; Jing Zhang; Wenjun Cheng; Doo Young Chang; Jianfei Huang; Xuan Wang; Lizhou Jia; Daniel G Rosen; Wei Zhang; Da Yang; David M Gershenson; Anil K Sood; Robert C Bast; Jinsong Liu Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Wan Kyu Eo; Hye Jung Chang; Sang Hoon Kwon; Suk Bong Koh; Young Ok Kim; Yong Il Ji; Hong-Bae Kim; Ji Young Lee; Dong Soo Suh; Ki Hyung Kim; Ik Jin Chang; Heung Yeol Kim; Suk Choo Chang Journal: J Cancer Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 4.207