Literature DB >> 24681743

Stage IIIC ovarian/peritoneal serous carcinoma: a heterogeneous group of patients with different prognoses.

Rania Bakkar1, David Gershenson, Patricia Fox, Kim Vu, Maryam Zenali, Elvio Silva.   

Abstract

Primary ovarian serous carcinoma patients presenting with regional lymph node metastasis without extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis are considered International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage IIIC. We studied their controversial survival compared with patients with extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis in same Stage IIIC. We included primary peritoneal carcinoma patients with lymph node metastasis to investigate whether primary site of tumor has a prognostic role. Charts of patients treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX; from 1992 to 2010 were reviewed. Primary ovarian serous carcinoma patients were grouped into patients with lymph node metastasis without extrapelvic involvement (Group 1, n=13) and patients with additional extrapelvic peritoneal involvement (Group 2, n=43). Group 3 patients (n=38) were selected using similar criteria as Group 2 but with negative lymph nodes. Group 4 patients were those with primary peritoneal serous carcinoma with lymph node metastasis (n=13). Group 1 patients had statistically significant better overall survival compared with the rest of the groups. Overall survival was significantly better in Groups 4 versus 2 and Groups 3 versus 2. Primary ovarian serous carcinoma patients with lymph node metastasis without extrapelvic peritoneal involvement have better survival than those with additional extrapelvic peritoneal involvement. Primary peritoneal serous carcinoma patients with lymph node metastasis have better survival than those with primary ovarian serous carcinoma with peritoneal and lymph node metastasis. Ovarian serous carcinoma patients with extrapelvic peritoneal involvement alone have better survival than those with extrapelvic peritoneal involvement and lymph node metastasis. These findings support the proposition to revise the FIGO staging system, especially for Stage IIIC patients, in order to reflect these prognostic differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24681743     DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3182988dfd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol        ISSN: 0277-1691            Impact factor:   2.762


  11 in total

1.  Prevalence and distribution pattern of nodal metastases in advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Cornelia Bachmann; Robert Bachmann; Bernhard Kraemer; Sara Yvonne Brucker; Anette Staebler; Falko Fend; Ralf Rothmund; Diethelm Wallwiener
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-08-05

2.  The prognostic relevance of node metastases in optimally cytoreduced advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Cornelia Bachmann; Sara Y Brucker; Bernhard Kraemer; Ralf Rothmund; Anette Staebler; Falko Fend; Diethelm Wallwiener; Eva-Maria Grischke
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 3.  Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

Authors:  W Glenn McCluggage; Meagan J Judge; Blaise A Clarke; Ben Davidson; C Blake Gilks; Harry Hollema; Jonathan A Ledermann; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Yoshiki Mikami; Colin J R Stewart; Russell Vang; Lynn Hirschowitz
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  Survival analysis of revised 2013 FIGO staging classification of epithelial ovarian cancer and comparison with previous FIGO staging classification.

Authors:  E Sun Paik; Yoo-Young Lee; Eun-Jung Lee; Chel Hun Choi; Tae-Joong Kim; Jeong-Won Lee; Duk-Soo Bae; Byoung-Gie Kim
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2015-03-16

Review 5.  FIGO's staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication.

Authors:  Jaime Prat
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.401

6.  Incidence and Impact of Lymph Node Metastases in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Surgical Treatment.

Authors:  Cornelia Bachmann; Robert Bachmann; Falko Fend; Diethelm Wallwiener
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?

Authors:  Hanifi Sahin; Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli; Mustafa Erkan Sari; Ibrahim Yalcin; Gonca Çoban; Nazlı Topfedaisi Ozkan; Zeliha Firat Cuylan; Baki Erdem; Kemal Gungorduk; Özgür Akbayir; Murat Dede; Mustafa Coşkun Salman; Tayfun Güngör; Ali Ayhan
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 4.234

8.  Comparison between multi-slice spiral CT and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of peritoneal metastasis in primary ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Hong-Lei Guo; Ling He; Yan-Cui Zhu; Kun Wu; Feng Yuan
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Seven Genes Based Novel Signature Predicts Clinical Outcome and Platinum Sensitivity of High Grade IIIc Serous Ovarian Carcinoma.

Authors:  Gang Liu; Lihua Chen; He Ren; Fei Liu; Chuanpeng Dong; Aosen Wu; Zhenhao Liu; Yu Zheng; Xi Cheng; Lei Liu
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 6.580

10.  Prognostic significance of elevated pretreatment systemic inflammatory markers for patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hao Peng; Xiaogang Luo
Journal:  Cancer Cell Int       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 5.722

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.