Tine H Schnack1, Estrid Høgdall, Lotte Nedergaard, Claus Høgdall. 1. *Gynecological Clinic, University Hospital of Copenhagen, København Ø; †Department of Pathology, University Hospital Herlev, Herlev; and ‡Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Copenhagen, København Ø, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical demographic and prognostic factors as well as overall survival in a nationwide cohort of patients diagnosed with ovarian clear cell carcinoma (oCCC) and high grade ovarian serous adenocarcinoma (oSAC) during 2005 to 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Population-based prospectively collected data on oCCC (n = 179) and oSAC (n = 2363) cases were obtained from the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database. χ, Fischer or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, multivariate logistic regression, univariate Kaplan-Meier, and multivariate Cox regression tests were used. Statistical tests were 2-sided. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The oCCC cases were significantly younger than oSAC cases. An inverse association between ever smoking and oCCC as compared to oSAC was observed and a significantly higher proportion of oCCC was found to be nulliparous (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.92).Although more oSAC than oCCC cases diagnosed in stage III or IV were referred to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a higher proportion of oCCC achieved complete cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery and/or had lymphadenectomy performed; overall survival were poorer among oCCC than oSAC cases in analyses restricted to stages III and IV (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.61), whereas no difference between early stage oCCC and oSAC was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that demographic features and risk factors differ between oCCC and oSAC cases. Furthermore, our findings confirm that advanced stages of oCCC have a poorer prognosis compared with oSAC probably because of the resistance toward adjuvant chemotherapy. The observed differences highlight the need for subtype-specific research and individualized treatment within ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical demographic and prognostic factors as well as overall survival in a nationwide cohort of patients diagnosed with ovarian clear cell carcinoma (oCCC) and high grade ovarian serous adenocarcinoma (oSAC) during 2005 to 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Population-based prospectively collected data on oCCC (n = 179) and oSAC (n = 2363) cases were obtained from the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database. χ, Fischer or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, multivariate logistic regression, univariate Kaplan-Meier, and multivariate Cox regression tests were used. Statistical tests were 2-sided. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The oCCC cases were significantly younger than oSAC cases. An inverse association between ever smoking and oCCC as compared to oSAC was observed and a significantly higher proportion of oCCC was found to be nulliparous (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.92).Although more oSAC than oCCC cases diagnosed in stage III or IV were referred to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a higher proportion of oCCC achieved complete cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery and/or had lymphadenectomy performed; overall survival were poorer among oCCC than oSAC cases in analyses restricted to stages III and IV (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.61), whereas no difference between early stage oCCC and oSAC was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that demographic features and risk factors differ between oCCC and oSAC cases. Furthermore, our findings confirm that advanced stages of oCCC have a poorer prognosis compared with oSAC probably because of the resistance toward adjuvant chemotherapy. The observed differences highlight the need for subtype-specific research and individualized treatment within ovarian cancer.
Authors: Sherri L Stewart; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Sun Hee Rim; Susan A Sabatino; Kevin C Ward; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shu-Feng Hsieh; Hei-Yu Lau; Hua-Hsi Wu; Heng-Cheng Hsu; Nae-Fang Twu; Wen-Fang Cheng Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Young Shin Chung; Jung Yun Lee; Hyun Soo Kim; Eun Ji Nam; Sang Wun Kim; Young Tae Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.759