Literature DB >> 22367323

The prognostic significance of multiple pelvic node metastases in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Mika Okazawa1, Seiji Mabuchi, Fumiaki Isohashi, Osamu Suzuki, Yukinobu Ohta, Masami Fujita, Kiyoshi Yoshino, Takayuki Enomoto, Shoji Kamiura, Tadashi Kimura.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prognostic significance of multiple pelvic node metastases in cervical cancer patients who were treated with radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 311 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer who had been treated with radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) between January 1998 and December 2008. Of these, 119 received adjuvant RT and 192 received adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) postoperatively. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival (PFS) was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model to investigate the prognostic significance of pelvic node metastases in the 2 treatment groups. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.
RESULTS: Multivariate analysis demonstrated pelvic node metastasis to be an independent prognostic factor for shorter PFS in both treatment groups. When the node-positive patients were analyzed according to the number of positive pelvic nodes, we found that the patients with multiple pelvic node metastases (≥3) displayed significantly shorter PFS than those with 1 or 2 pelvic node metastases in the RT group. In contrast, in the CCRT group, the PFS of the patients with multiple pelvic node metastases (≥3) was similar to that observed of the patients with 1 or 2 pelvic node metastases.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of multiple pelvic node metastases was not an independent predictor of shorter PFS in the CCRT group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22367323     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31823c369b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  11 in total

1.  A low preoperative albumin-to-globulin ratio is a negative prognostic factor in patients with surgically treated cervical cancer.

Authors:  Akira Kawata; Ayumi Taguchi; Satoshi Baba; Yuichiro Miyamoto; Michihiro Tanikawa; Kenbun Sone; Tetsushi Tsuruga; Mayuyo Mori; Katsutoshi Oda; Kei Kawana; Yutaka Osuga; Tomoyuki Fujii
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Prognostic Significance of Clinicopathological Factors Influencing Overall Survival and Event-Free Survival of Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shengwei Kang; Junxiang Wu; Jie Li; Qing Hou; Bin Tang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-03-09

3.  Distribution pattern of lymph node metastases and its implication in individualized radiotherapeutic clinical target volume delineation of regional lymph nodes in patients with stage IA to IIA cervical cancer.

Authors:  Xinglan Li; Yueju Yin; Xuigui Sheng; Xiaoyun Han; Li Sun; Chunhua Lu; Xiang Wang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-02-15       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Incorporation of the number of positive lymph nodes leads to better prognostic discrimination of node-positive early stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Juan Zhou; San-Gang Wu; Jia-Yuan Sun; Xu-Lin Liao; Feng-Yan Li; Huan-Xin Lin; Li-Chao Yang; Zhen-Yu He
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-04-18

5.  Diagnostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for Revised 2018 FIGO Staging in Patients with Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Hideaki Tsuyoshi; Tetsuya Tsujikawa; Shizuka Yamada; Hidehiko Okazawa; Yoshio Yoshida
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-29

6.  Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Li; Hui Duan; Jianxin Guo; Ying Yang; Wuliang Wang; Min Hao; Weili Li; Pengfei Li; Xiaonong Bin; Jinghe Lang; Ping Liu; Chunlin Chen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-01

7.  Utility of risk-weighted surgical-pathological factors in early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  K Matsuo; S Mabuchi; M Okazawa; Y Matsumoto; T Tsutsui; M Fujita; S Kamiura; K Ogawa; C P Morrow; T Kimura
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Clinical implication of surgically treated early-stage cervical cancer with multiple high-risk factors.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Seiji Mabuchi; Mika Okazawa; Mahiru Kawano; Hiromasa Kuroda; Shoji Kamiura; Tadashi Kimura
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.401

9.  Should the Number of Metastatic Pelvic Lymph Nodes be Integrated into the 2018 Figo Staging Classification of Early Stage Cervical Cancer?

Authors:  Luigi Pedone Anchora; Vittoria Carbone; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Fanfani; Francesco Cosentino; Luigi Carlo Turco; Camilla Fedele; Nicolò Bizzarri; Giovanni Scambia; Gabriella Ferrandina
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  A Risk Stratification for Patients with Cervical Cancer in Stage IIIC1 of the 2018 FIGO Staging System.

Authors:  Xiaoliang Liu; Weiping Wang; Ke Hu; Fuquan Zhang; Xiaorong Hou; Junfang Yan; Qingyu Meng; Ziqi Zhou; Zheng Miao; Hui Guan; Jiabin Ma; Jing Shen; Hongnan Zhen; Wenhui Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.