Literature DB >> 23127971

Impact of tubal ligation on routes of dissemination and overall survival in uterine serous carcinoma.

Tina A Ayeni1, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez1, Andrea Mariani1, Michaela E McGree2, Amy L Weaver2, Mariam M AlHilli1, Janice R Martin1, Gary L Keeney3, Sean C Dowdy1, Karl C Podratz4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal peritoneal implants are characteristic of uterine serous carcinoma (USC). The presumed mechanism of dissemination is retrograde transit via the fallopian tube. We assessed the impact of tubal ligation (TL) on the metastatic profile and survival of USC patients.
METHODS: Patient risk factors, process-of-care variables, and disease-specific parameters were annotated. Categorical variables were compared using the χ(2) test. Overall survival (OS) was estimated via the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: Among 211 USC patients, fallopian tube status was documented in 142 patients; 35 had a history of TL and 107 did not. When comparing patients with and without TL, positive peritoneal cytology was present, respectively, in 18.8% vs 45.0% (P=.01) and stage IV disease in 14.3% vs 34.6% (P=.02). Using Cox models, age was the sole significant determinant of OS in stage I/II USC. By contrast, age, lymphovascular space involvement, positive cytology, and TL independently and adversely affected survival in stage III/IV USC. Adjusting for these factors in a multivariable model, the association between TL and OS among patients with advanced disease yielded a hazard ratio of 8.61 (95% CI, 3.08-24.03; P<.001). The prevalence of lymphatic metastasis and nodal tumor burden was significantly greater in patients who underwent ligation.
CONCLUSION: Patients with TL had significantly lower rates of positive cytology and stage IV disease than patients without TL. The lymphatic system appeared to be the dominant mode of spread after TL and was associated with a paradoxic worsening of OS, perhaps reflecting a delay in diagnosis.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23127971     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  4 in total

1.  Tubal Ligation and Risk of Endometrial Cancer: Findings From the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Ira Winer; Amy Lehman; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Randal Robinson; Michael Simon; Michele Cote
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.437

2.  Prior Tubal Ligation Might Influence Metastatic Spread of Nonendometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Mingxia Li; Mingzhu Li; Lijun Zhao; Zhiqi Wang; Yue Wang; Danhua Shen; Jianliu Wang; Lihui Wei
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Does hysteroscopy worsen prognosis in women with type II endometrial carcinoma?

Authors:  Jiao Chen; Leslie H Clark; Wei-Min Kong; Zhen Yan; Chao Han; Hui Zhao; Ting-Ting Liu; Tong-Qing Zhang; Dan Song; Si-Meng Jiao; Chunxiao Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Relationships of Tubal Ligation to Endometrial Carcinoma Stage and Mortality in the NRG Oncology/ Gynecologic Oncology Group 210 Trial.

Authors:  Ashley S Felix; Louise A Brinton; D Scott McMeekin; William T Creasman; David Mutch; David E Cohn; Joan L Walker; Richard G Moore; Levi S Downs; Robert A Soslow; Richard Zaino; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 13.506

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.