Irina Usach1, Kevin Blansit2, Lee May Chen1, Stefanie Ueda1, Rebecca Brooks1, Daniel S Kapp3, John K Chan4. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, California Pacific & Palo Alto Medical Foundation Sutter Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, California Pacific & Palo Alto Medical Foundation Sutter Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Electronic address: chanjohn@sutterhealth.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The fallopian tube has been implicated as the primary origin of pelvic serous cancers. We proposed to determine the survival outcomes of serous tubal, ovarian, peritoneal, and uterine cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute between 2004 and 2009. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 12,336 high-grade serous cancer patients, 563 were tubal (TC), 8560 ovarian (OC), 1037 primary peritoneal (PPC), and 2176 uterine cancer (USC). The median ages of these patients were 63 vs 62 vs 67 vs 68 years, respectively. The majority were white (89% vs 88% vs 91% vs 74%). The overall 5 year, disease-specific survival was 37%. The survivals of those with TC, OC, PPC, and USC were 50%, 37%, 26%, and 40% (P < .01). There was no detailed staging on PPC cancers. Adjusted for stage, the survival of those with stage I, II, III, and IV TC were 73%, 62%, 44%, and 22% (P < .01), OC were 83%, 64%, 34%, and 15% (P < .01), and USC were 88%, 72%, 55%, and 17% (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, younger age, white race, earlier stage, and tubal origin were independent predictors for improved survival. CONCLUSION: In advanced-staged serous cancer patients, tubal cancer patients have better survivals compared with ovarian, peritoneal, and uterine cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The fallopian tube has been implicated as the primary origin of pelvic serous cancers. We proposed to determine the survival outcomes of serous tubal, ovarian, peritoneal, and uterine cancerpatients. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute between 2004 and 2009. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 12,336 high-grade serous cancerpatients, 563 were tubal (TC), 8560 ovarian (OC), 1037 primary peritoneal (PPC), and 2176 uterine cancer (USC). The median ages of these patients were 63 vs 62 vs 67 vs 68 years, respectively. The majority were white (89% vs 88% vs 91% vs 74%). The overall 5 year, disease-specific survival was 37%. The survivals of those with TC, OC, PPC, and USC were 50%, 37%, 26%, and 40% (P < .01). There was no detailed staging on PPC cancers. Adjusted for stage, the survival of those with stage I, II, III, and IV TC were 73%, 62%, 44%, and 22% (P < .01), OC were 83%, 64%, 34%, and 15% (P < .01), and USC were 88%, 72%, 55%, and 17% (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, younger age, white race, earlier stage, and tubal origin were independent predictors for improved survival. CONCLUSION: In advanced-staged serous cancerpatients, tubal cancerpatients have better survivals compared with ovarian, peritoneal, and uterine cancer.
Authors: Nina A Bickell; Natalia Egorova; Monica Prasad-Hayes; Rebeca Franco; Elizabeth A Howell; Juan Wisnivesky; Partha Deb Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Miriam Rottmann; A Burges; S Mahner; C Anthuber; T Beck; D Grab; A Schnelzer; M Kiechle; D Mayr; M Pölcher; G Schubert-Fritschle; J Engel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: N M de Lange; N P M Ezendam; J S Kwon; I Vandenput; D Mirchandani; F Amant; L J M van der Putten; J M A Pijnenborg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: David M Gershenson; Diane C Bodurka; Karen H Lu; Lisa C Nathan; Ljiljana Milojevic; Kwong K Wong; Anais Malpica; Charlotte C Sun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francis Jacob; Rosa Lina Marchetti; André B Kind; Kenneth Russell; Andreas Schoetzau; Viola A Heinzelmann-Schwarz Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 6.603