Kira Philipsen Prahm1, Mona Aarenstrup Karlsen2, Estrid Høgdall2, Nikolai Madrid Scheller3, Lene Lundvall4, Lotte Nedergaard5, Ib Jarle Christensen6, Claus Høgdall4. 1. Dept. of Gynecology, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: kira@prahm.dk. 2. Molecular Unit, Dept. of Pathology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Dept. of Epidemiologic Research, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Dept. of Gynecology, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Dept. of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Finsen Laboratory, Copenhagen Biocenter, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic significance of dividing epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in type I and type II tumors based on pathologic variables. METHODS: We used the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database to identify all patients diagnosed with EOC from 2005 to 2012. Information on histologic type and grade were used to classify tumors as either type I or type II. Death, and several prognostic factors were used in the multivariate Cox regression, and Landmark analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 2660 patients diagnosed with EOC, 735 were categorized as type I tumors, and 1925 as type II tumors. Patients with type II EOC were more frequently diagnosed in late FIGO stages (stages III-IV) than patients with type I EOC (78.1% vs. 32.1% respectively; P<0.001). Time dependent multivariate Cox analysis, adjusted for known prognostic variables, showed no significant difference in survival within the first two years after diagnosis, however, after 730days of follow-up a significantly increased overall survival for type I tumors was observed (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval: 1.28-2.31, P<0.001). Similarly the Landmark analysis for survival confirmed the increased overall survival for type I tumors after two years of follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-2.54, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Classification of EOC in type I and type II tumors based on pathologic variables was associated with an increased risk of death for type II tumors after two years of follow-up, while no increased risk was seen during the first two years of follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic significance of dividing epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in type I and type II tumors based on pathologic variables. METHODS: We used the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database to identify all patients diagnosed with EOC from 2005 to 2012. Information on histologic type and grade were used to classify tumors as either type I or type II. Death, and several prognostic factors were used in the multivariate Cox regression, and Landmark analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 2660 patients diagnosed with EOC, 735 were categorized as type I tumors, and 1925 as type II tumors. Patients with type II EOC were more frequently diagnosed in late FIGO stages (stages III-IV) than patients with type I EOC (78.1% vs. 32.1% respectively; P<0.001). Time dependent multivariate Cox analysis, adjusted for known prognostic variables, showed no significant difference in survival within the first two years after diagnosis, however, after 730days of follow-up a significantly increased overall survival for type I tumors was observed (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval: 1.28-2.31, P<0.001). Similarly the Landmark analysis for survival confirmed the increased overall survival for type I tumors after two years of follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-2.54, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Classification of EOC in type I and type II tumors based on pathologic variables was associated with an increased risk of death for type II tumors after two years of follow-up, while no increased risk was seen during the first two years of follow-up.
Authors: Renée T Fortner; Elizabeth M Poole; Nicolas A Wentzensen; Britton Trabert; Emily White; Alan A Arslan; Alpa V Patel; V Wendy Setiawan; Kala Visvanathan; Elisabete Weiderpass; Hans-Olov Adami; Amanda Black; Leslie Bernstein; Louise A Brinton; Julie Buring; Tess V Clendenen; Agnès Fournier; Gary Fraser; Susan M Gapstur; Mia M Gaudet; Graham G Giles; Inger T Gram; Patricia Hartge; Judith Hoffman-Bolton; Annika Idahl; Rudolf Kaaks; Victoria A Kirsh; Synnove Knutsen; Woon-Puay Koh; James V Lacey; I-Min Lee; Eva Lundin; Melissa A Merritt; Roger L Milne; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Ulrike Peters; Jenny N Poynter; Sabina Rinaldi; Kim Robien; Thomas Rohan; Maria-José Sánchez; Catherine Schairer; Leo J Schouten; Anne Tjonneland; Mary K Townsend; Ruth C Travis; Antonia Trichopoulou; Piet A van den Brandt; Paolo Vineis; Lynne Wilkens; Alicja Wolk; Hannah P Yang; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Aww Lim; D Mesher; A Gentry-Maharaj; N Balogun; M Widschwendter; I Jacobs; P Sasieni; U Menon Journal: BJOG Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Batoul Farran; Samet Albayrak; Judith Abrams; Michael A Tainsky; Nancy K Levin; Robert Morris; Larry H Matherly; Manohar Ratnam; Ira Winer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Parsa Charkhchi; Cezary Cybulski; Jacek Gronwald; Fabian Oliver Wong; Steven A Narod; Mohammad R Akbari Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Andrew J Wilson; Spencer Keene; Meral El Ramahi; Shu Xu; Lawrence J Marnett; Oluwole Fadare; Marta A Crispens; Dineo Khabele Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 4.234