OBJECTIVE: BRCA-associated and sporadic ovarian cancers have different pathologic and clinical features. Our goal was to determine if BRCA mutation status is an independent predictor of residual tumor volume following primary surgical cytoreduction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with FIGO stage IIIC-IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer classified for the presence or absence of germline BRCA mutations. The primary outcome was tumor-debulking status categorized as complete gross resection (0mm), optimal but visible disease (1-10 mm), or suboptimal debulking (>10 mm) following primary surgical cytoreduction. Overall survival by residual tumor size and BRCA status was also assessed as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Data from 367 patients (69 BRCA mutated, 298 BRCA wild-type) were analyzed. Rate of optimal tumor debulking (0-10 mm) in BRCA wild-type and BRCA-mutated patients were 70.1% and 84.1%, respectively (P=0.02). On univariate analysis, increasing age (10-year OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.65; P=0.01) and wild-type BRCA status (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94, P=0.03) were both significantly associated with suboptimal surgical outcome. On multivariate analysis, BRCA mutation status was no longer associated with residual tumor volume (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-1.29; P=0.21) while age remained a borderline significant predictor (10-year OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.56; P=0.05). Both smaller residual tumor volume and mutant BRCA status were significantly associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSION: BRCA mutation status is not associated with the rate of optimal tumor debulking at primary surgery after accounting for differences in patient age. Improved survival of BRCA carriers is unlikely the result of better surgical outcomes but instead intrinsic tumor biology.
OBJECTIVE: BRCA-associated and sporadic ovarian cancers have different pathologic and clinical features. Our goal was to determine if BRCA mutation status is an independent predictor of residual tumor volume following primary surgical cytoreduction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with FIGO stage IIIC-IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer classified for the presence or absence of germline BRCA mutations. The primary outcome was tumor-debulking status categorized as complete gross resection (0mm), optimal but visible disease (1-10 mm), or suboptimal debulking (>10 mm) following primary surgical cytoreduction. Overall survival by residual tumor size and BRCA status was also assessed as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Data from 367 patients (69 BRCA mutated, 298 BRCA wild-type) were analyzed. Rate of optimal tumor debulking (0-10 mm) in BRCA wild-type and BRCA-mutated patients were 70.1% and 84.1%, respectively (P=0.02). On univariate analysis, increasing age (10-year OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.65; P=0.01) and wild-type BRCA status (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94, P=0.03) were both significantly associated with suboptimal surgical outcome. On multivariate analysis, BRCA mutation status was no longer associated with residual tumor volume (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-1.29; P=0.21) while age remained a borderline significant predictor (10-year OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.56; P=0.05). Both smaller residual tumor volume and mutant BRCA status were significantly associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSION:BRCA mutation status is not associated with the rate of optimal tumor debulking at primary surgery after accounting for differences in patient age. Improved survival of BRCA carriers is unlikely the result of better surgical outcomes but instead intrinsic tumor biology.
Authors: J Boyd; Y Sonoda; M G Federici; F Bogomolniy; E Rhei; D L Maresco; P E Saigo; L A Almadrones; R R Barakat; C L Brown; D S Chi; J P Curtin; E A Poynor; W J Hoskins Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-05-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David M Hyman; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Rachel N Grisham; Angela G Arnold; Mary F Phillips; Jasmine Bhatia; Douglas A Levine; Carol Aghajanian; Kenneth Offit; Richard R Barakat; David R Spriggs; Noah D Kauff Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert A Soslow; Guangming Han; Kay J Park; Karuna Garg; Narciso Olvera; David R Spriggs; Noah D Kauff; Douglas A Levine Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: D J Gallagher; J A Konner; K M Bell-McGuinn; J Bhatia; P Sabbatini; C A Aghajanian; K Offit; R R Barakat; D R Spriggs; N D Kauff Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Rafael S Tomacruz; Deborah K Armstrong; Edward L Trimble; F J Montz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H A Risch; J R McLaughlin; D E Cole; B Rosen; L Bradley; E Kwan; E Jack; D J Vesprini; G Kuperstein; J L Abrahamson; I Fan; B Wong; S A Narod Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Barbara M Norquist; Kathryn P Pennington; Kathy J Agnew; Maria I Harrell; Christopher C Pennil; Ming K Lee; Silvia Casadei; Anne M Thornton; Rochelle L Garcia; Tom Walsh; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Yaser R Hussein; Jennifer A Ducie; Angela G Arnold; Noah D Kauff; Hebert A Vargas-Alvarez; Evis Sala; Douglas A Levine; Robert A Soslow Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Felipe Leonardo Estati; Rafaela Pirolli; Viviane Teixeira Loiola de Alencar; Adriana Regina Gonçalves Ribeiro; Maria Nirvana Formiga; Giovana Tardin Torrezan; Dirce Maria Carraro; Andrea Paiva Gadelha Guimarães; Glauco Baiocchi; Alexandre André Balieiro Anastácio da Costa Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Adam N Rosenthal; Lindsay S M Fraser; Susan Philpott; Ranjit Manchanda; Matthew Burnell; Philip Badman; Richard Hadwin; Ivana Rizzuto; Elizabeth Benjamin; Naveena Singh; D Gareth Evans; Diana M Eccles; Andy Ryan; Robert Liston; Anne Dawnay; Jeremy Ford; Richard Gunu; James Mackay; Steven J Skates; Usha Menon; Ian J Jacobs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracy W Liu; Jocelyn M Stewart; Thomas D Macdonald; Juan Chen; Blaise Clarke; Jiyun Shi; Brian C Wilson; Benjamin G Neel; Gang Zheng Journal: Theranostics Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 11.556