OBJECTIVES: To estimate the long-term clinical outcome of patients with recurrent clear cell carcinoma (RCCC) of the ovary in comparison with those with recurrent serous adenocarcinoma (RSAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 113 patients with RCCC and 365 patients with RSAC were analyzed. The pathological slides were evaluated under central pathological review. End points were the overall survival (OS), postrecurrence survival (PRS), and timing of death of mortality cases. RESULTS: The 5-year OS and PRS rates of patients with RCCC were 22.5 and 13.2%, respectively. In both OS and PRS, the prognosis of patients with RCCC was significantly poorer than that of the patients with RSAC (OS: P = 0.0007; PRS: P < 0.0001). Moreover, regardless of the status of the residual tumor (RT) at the initial surgery, the OS and PRS of the patients with RCCC were markedly shorter than those with RSAC (RT [-]: OS, P = 0.0005: PRS, P = 0.0002: RT [+]: OS, P < 0.0001: PRS, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the histological type was a significantly poorer prognostic indicator for OS and PRS (OS [RCCC vs RSAC]: hazard ratio, 2.302: 95% confidence interval, 1.723-3.076; P < 0.0001: PRS [RCCC vs RSAC]; hazard ratio, 2.353: 95% confidence interval, 1.756-3.155; P < 0.0001). Even in the deceased patients (n = 350), the rate of patients with RCCC dying within 12 months of recurrence was higher than that of RSAC (RCCC, 67.8%; RSAC, 40.7%; [P < 0.0001]). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term clinical outcome of patients with RCCC was extremely poor. We confirmed that RCCC should be investigated as a different malignancy compared with RSAC.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the long-term clinical outcome of patients with recurrent clear cell carcinoma (RCCC) of the ovary in comparison with those with recurrent serous adenocarcinoma (RSAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 113 patients with RCCC and 365 patients with RSAC were analyzed. The pathological slides were evaluated under central pathological review. End points were the overall survival (OS), postrecurrence survival (PRS), and timing of death of mortality cases. RESULTS: The 5-year OS and PRS rates of patients with RCCC were 22.5 and 13.2%, respectively. In both OS and PRS, the prognosis of patients with RCCC was significantly poorer than that of the patients with RSAC (OS: P = 0.0007; PRS: P < 0.0001). Moreover, regardless of the status of the residual tumor (RT) at the initial surgery, the OS and PRS of the patients with RCCC were markedly shorter than those with RSAC (RT [-]: OS, P = 0.0005: PRS, P = 0.0002: RT [+]: OS, P < 0.0001: PRS, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the histological type was a significantly poorer prognostic indicator for OS and PRS (OS [RCCC vs RSAC]: hazard ratio, 2.302: 95% confidence interval, 1.723-3.076; P < 0.0001: PRS [RCCC vs RSAC]; hazard ratio, 2.353: 95% confidence interval, 1.756-3.155; P < 0.0001). Even in the deceased patients (n = 350), the rate of patients with RCCC dying within 12 months of recurrence was higher than that of RSAC (RCCC, 67.8%; RSAC, 40.7%; [P < 0.0001]). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term clinical outcome of patients with RCCC was extremely poor. We confirmed that RCCC should be investigated as a different malignancy compared with RSAC.