Michiel Simons1, Nicole Ezendam, Johan Bulten, Iris Nagtegaal, Leon Massuger. 1. *Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen; †Eindhoven Cancer Registry, Eindhoven; ‡Department of Medical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg; and §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) generally have a favorable prognosis, although in advanced stage, prognosis is significantly worse compared to patients with serous ovarian carcinomas (SOCs). This might be due to the difficulties in distinguishing MOC from metastatic tumors. In the current study, we investigate prognosis of MOC compared to other types of ovarian cancer and to synchronous metastases to the ovary (sMO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Age, laterality, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, tumor grade, treatment, and survival were extracted from the Eindhoven Cancer registry for all patients diagnosed with ovarian carcinomas or sMO between 1990 and 2012. Five-year survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 3556 patients with primary ovarian carcinoma (of which 474 mucinous) and 289 with sMO were identified. In advanced stage, 5-year survival of patients with MOC was comparable to survival of patients with sMO (11% vs 11%, P = 0.32) and decreased compared to patients with SOC (26%, P < 0.01). For MOC, there was no clinically significant effect on 5-year survival of either debulking (12% vs 8%, P < 0.01) or chemotherapy (12% vs 10%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced stage MOC have a worse prognosis than advanced stage SOC. Survival is almost identical to that of patients with sMO. Effects of chemotherapy and debulking are limited in patients with MOC, which may be explained by suboptimal treatment due to the admixture of metastases in advanced stage MOC. Methods to differentiate between primary MOC and metastatic disease are needed to provide optimal treatment and insight in prognosis.
OBJECTIVES:Patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) generally have a favorable prognosis, although in advanced stage, prognosis is significantly worse compared to patients with serous ovarian carcinomas (SOCs). This might be due to the difficulties in distinguishing MOC from metastatic tumors. In the current study, we investigate prognosis of MOC compared to other types of ovarian cancer and to synchronous metastases to the ovary (sMO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Age, laterality, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, tumor grade, treatment, and survival were extracted from the Eindhoven Cancer registry for all patients diagnosed with ovarian carcinomas or sMO between 1990 and 2012. Five-year survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 3556 patients with primary ovarian carcinoma (of which 474 mucinous) and 289 with sMO were identified. In advanced stage, 5-year survival of patients with MOC was comparable to survival of patients with sMO (11% vs 11%, P = 0.32) and decreased compared to patients with SOC (26%, P < 0.01). For MOC, there was no clinically significant effect on 5-year survival of either debulking (12% vs 8%, P < 0.01) or chemotherapy (12% vs 10%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with advanced stage MOC have a worse prognosis than advanced stage SOC. Survival is almost identical to that of patients with sMO. Effects of chemotherapy and debulking are limited in patients with MOC, which may be explained by suboptimal treatment due to the admixture of metastases in advanced stage MOC. Methods to differentiate between primary MOC and metastatic disease are needed to provide optimal treatment and insight in prognosis.
Authors: Katherine C Kurnit; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Bryan M Fellman; Aaron Varghese; Rebecca Stone; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson; Kathleen M Schmeler; Anais Malpica; Amanda N Fader; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer J Mueller; Brooke A Schlappe; Rahul Kumar; Narciso Olvera; Fanny Dao; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; Carol Aghajanian; Deborah DeLair; Yaser R Hussein; Robert A Soslow; Douglas A Levine; Britta Weigelt Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Martin Gore; Allan Hackshaw; William E Brady; Richard T Penson; Richard Zaino; W Glenn McCluggage; Raji Ganesan; Nafisa Wilkinson; Timothy Perren; Ana Montes; Jeffrey Summers; Rosemary Lord; Graham Dark; Gordon Rustin; Melanie Mackean; Nicholas Reed; Sean Kehoe; Michael Frumovitz; Helen Christensen; Amanda Feeney; Jonathan Ledermann; David M Gershenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Gabriel Cuellar-Partida; Yi Lu; Suzanne C Dixon; Peter A Fasching; Alexander Hein; Stefanie Burghaus; Matthias W Beckmann; Diether Lambrechts; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen; Ignace Vergote; Adriaan Vanderstichele; Jennifer Anne Doherty; Mary Anne Rossing; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Marc T Goodman; Natalia Bogdanova; Thilo Dörk; Matthias Dürst; Peter Hillemanns; Ingo B Runnebaum; Natalia Antonenkova; Ralf Butzow; Arto Leminen; Heli Nevanlinna; Liisa M Pelttari; Robert P Edwards; Joseph L Kelley; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten B Moysich; Roberta B Ness; Rikki Cannioto; Estrid Høgdall; Claus Høgdall; Allan Jensen; Graham G Giles; Fiona Bruinsma; Susanne K Kjaer; Michelle A T Hildebrandt; Dong Liang; Karen H Lu; Xifeng Wu; Maria Bisogna; Fanny Dao; Douglas A Levine; Daniel W Cramer; Kathryn L Terry; Shelley S Tworoger; Meir Stampfer; Stacey Missmer; Line Bjorge; Helga B Salvesen; Reidun K Kopperud; Katharina Bischof; Katja K H Aben; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Leon F A G Massuger; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Sara H Olson; Valerie McGuire; Joseph H Rothstein; Weiva Sieh; Alice S Whittemore; Linda S Cook; Nhu D Le; C Blake Gilks; Jacek Gronwald; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubiński; Tomasz Kluz; Honglin Song; Jonathan P Tyrer; Nicolas Wentzensen; Louise Brinton; Britton Trabert; Jolanta Lissowska; John R McLaughlin; Steven A Narod; Catherine Phelan; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Diana Eccles; Ian Campbell; Simon A Gayther; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Susan J Ramus; Anna H Wu; Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Agnieszka Timorek; Lukasz Szafron; Julie M Cunningham; Brooke L Fridley; Stacey J Winham; Elisa V Bandera; Elizabeth M Poole; Terry K Morgan; Ellen L Goode; Joellen M Schildkraut; Celeste L Pearce; Andrew Berchuck; Paul D P Pharoah; Penelope M Webb; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Harvey A Risch; Stuart MacGregor Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 5.881