Rie D Sørensen1, Tine H Schnack2, Mona A Karlsen3, Claus K Høgdall4. 1. Gynaecological Clinic, The Juliane Marie Center, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 København Ø, Denmark. Electronic address: riedahlsorensen@dadlnet.dk. 2. Gynaecologic and Obstetric Clinic, Roskilde Sygehus, Køgevej 7-13, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark. Electronic address: tihsc@regionsjaelland.dk. 3. Molecular Unit, Department of Pathology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730 Herlev, Denmark. Electronic address: mona.aarenstrup.karlsen@regionh.dk. 4. Gynaecological Clinic, The Juliane Marie Center, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 København Ø, Denmark. Electronic address: Claus.Hogdall@regionh.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze data on risk factors, epidemiology, clinicopathology and molecular biology from studies comparing primary peritoneal cancer, fallopian tube cancer and ovarian cancer of serous histology, in order to achieve a greater understanding of whether or not these disorders should be considered as separate entities. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE. Case-control studies comparing primary serous peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinomas with primary serous ovarian carcinomas or a control group were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were found eligible. Primary peritoneal cancer patients were older, had higher parity, were more often obese and had poorer survival compared to ovarian cancer patients. Differences in protein expression patterns of Her2/neu, estrogen and progestin receptors and frequency of loss of heterozygosity differed between primary peritoneal cancer and primary ovarian cancer patients. No major differences were found between primary fallopian tube cancer and primary ovarian cancer. The proportion of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC) was lower in primary peritoneal cancer and primary ovarian cancer compared to primary fallopian tube cancer. CONCLUSION: Except from differences in the proportion of STIC only few differences between primary fallopian tube cancer and primary ovarian cancer have been found. In contrast, observed differences in risk factor profile, clinicopathologic and prognostic factors, as well as in the molecular patterns, indicate that peritoneal cancer and ovarian cancer may be linked to different carcinogenic pathways.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze data on risk factors, epidemiology, clinicopathology and molecular biology from studies comparing primary peritoneal cancer, fallopian tube cancer and ovarian cancer of serous histology, in order to achieve a greater understanding of whether or not these disorders should be considered as separate entities. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE. Case-control studies comparing primary serous peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinomas with primary serous ovarian carcinomas or a control group were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were found eligible. Primary peritoneal cancerpatients were older, had higher parity, were more often obese and had poorer survival compared to ovarian cancerpatients. Differences in protein expression patterns of Her2/neu, estrogen and progestin receptors and frequency of loss of heterozygosity differed between primary peritoneal cancer and primary ovarian cancerpatients. No major differences were found between primary fallopian tube cancer and primary ovarian cancer. The proportion of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC) was lower in primary peritoneal cancer and primary ovarian cancer compared to primary fallopian tube cancer. CONCLUSION: Except from differences in the proportion of STIC only few differences between primary fallopian tube cancer and primary ovarian cancer have been found. In contrast, observed differences in risk factor profile, clinicopathologic and prognostic factors, as well as in the molecular patterns, indicate that peritoneal cancer and ovarian cancer may be linked to different carcinogenic pathways.
Authors: Allison J Love; Pascal Lambert; Donna Turner; Robert Lotocki; Erin Dean; Shaundra Popowich; Alon D Altman; Mark W Nachtigal Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-02-07
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: Jennifer Anne Doherty; Lauren Cole Peres; Chen Wang; Gregory P Way; Casey S Greene; Joellen M Schildkraut Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2017-07-10
Authors: Merrina Anugraham; Francis Jacob; Arun V Everest-Dass; Andreas Schoetzau; Sheri Nixdorf; Neville F Hacker; Daniel Fink; Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz; Nicolle H Packer Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 6.603