Florian Heitz1, Frederic Amant, Christina Fotopoulou, Marco J Battista, Pauline Wimberger, Alexander Traut, Annette Fisseler-Eckhoff, Philipp Harter, Ingrid Vandenput, Jalid Sehouli, Marcus Schmidt, Rainer Kimmig, Rabea du Bois, Andreas du Bois. 1. *Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung/Knappschaft GmbH, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen; and †Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Dr. Horst-Schmidt Klinik, Wiesbaden, Germany; ‡Department of Gynecologic Oncology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven Belgium; §Department of Gynecology, Charité, Campus Virchow Clinic-University Hospital, Berlin; ∥Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz; ¶Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen; #Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Carl Gustav Carus University of Dresden, Dresden; and **Department of Pathology, Dr. Horst-Schmidt Kliniken, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the prognosis of patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer (SEOC) to matched controls with either endometrial cancer (EC) or ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A retrospective case-control study including all patients with SEOC who had been treated at 5 European tertiary gynecologic oncology centers between 1996 and 2011 and patients with either EC or OC matched for age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, histology, year of diagnosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 77, 132, and 126 patients with SEOC, EC, and OC, respectively. The patient characteristics confirmed an equal distribution of matching factors, and the median follow-up did not differ (P = 0.44). 48.1% of the patients with SEOC showed early FIGO stage I for both EC and OC. The 5-year PFS rates differed between SEOC and EC (76.3% vs 86.3%; P = 0.047) but not the 5-year overall survival rates (71.6% vs 79.8%; P = 0.12) and did not differ between SEOC and OC (76.3% vs 63.8%; P = 0.19 and 71.6% vs 69.3%; P = 0.61, respectively). After the adjustment for the FIGO stage of the 2 components of SEOC, neither PFS nor overall survival rates were different. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis of patients with SEOC tended to be the same in comparison with matched controls with either one EC or OC. Therefore, it could be considered that patients with SEOC may be eligible for clinical trials of the advanced tumor component if no additional therapy is indicated for the other component.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the prognosis of patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer (SEOC) to matched controls with either endometrial cancer (EC) or ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A retrospective case-control study including all patients with SEOC who had been treated at 5 European tertiary gynecologic oncology centers between 1996 and 2011 and patients with either EC or OC matched for age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, histology, year of diagnosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 77, 132, and 126 patients with SEOC, EC, and OC, respectively. The patient characteristics confirmed an equal distribution of matching factors, and the median follow-up did not differ (P = 0.44). 48.1% of the patients with SEOC showed early FIGO stage I for both EC and OC. The 5-year PFS rates differed between SEOC and EC (76.3% vs 86.3%; P = 0.047) but not the 5-year overall survival rates (71.6% vs 79.8%; P = 0.12) and did not differ between SEOC and OC (76.3% vs 63.8%; P = 0.19 and 71.6% vs 69.3%; P = 0.61, respectively). After the adjustment for the FIGO stage of the 2 components of SEOC, neither PFS nor overall survival rates were different. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis of patients with SEOC tended to be the same in comparison with matched controls with either one EC or OC. Therefore, it could be considered that patients with SEOC may be eligible for clinical trials of the advanced tumor component if no additional therapy is indicated for the other component.
Authors: Casper Reijnen; Heidi V N Küsters-Vandevelde; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Johan Bulten; Marloes Oosterwegel; Marc P L M Snijders; Sanne Sweegers; Joanne A de Hullu; Maria C Vos; Anneke A M van der Wurff; Anne M van Altena; Astrid Eijkelenboom; Johanna M A Pijnenborg Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anna Myriam Perrone; Giulia Girolimetti; Martina Procaccini; Lorena Marchio; Alessandra Livi; Giulia Borghese; Anna Maria Porcelli; Pierandrea De Iaco; Giuseppe Gasparre Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 5.923