OBJECTIVE: Overall, patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) are considered to have a better prognosis compared with the whole group of nonmucinous carcinomas. However, some studies indicate that patients with advanced-stage MOC might have a worse prognosis than those with advanced-stage serous ovarian carcinoma (SOC). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out identifying 19 articles that compare survival of patients with MOC and patients with SOC. Meta-analyses were performed for risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) for all International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages together, as well as for early- and advanced-stage diseases separately. RESULTS: Overall, patients with MOC showed a lower risk of dying within 5 years (RR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.69; n = 45 333) and a longer survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98, for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively; n = 5540) compared with those with SOC. In contrast, in advanced-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages III and IV) disease, patients with MOC have a higher risk of dying within 5 years (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17; n = 36 113) and a shorter survival (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.71-1.94; n = 19 907). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced-stage MOC have a significantly worse prognosis compared with patients with SOC, whereas in early stage, the prognosis of patients with MOC is better.
OBJECTIVE: Overall, patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) are considered to have a better prognosis compared with the whole group of nonmucinous carcinomas. However, some studies indicate that patients with advanced-stage MOC might have a worse prognosis than those with advanced-stage serous ovarian carcinoma (SOC). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out identifying 19 articles that compare survival of patients with MOC and patients with SOC. Meta-analyses were performed for risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) for all International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages together, as well as for early- and advanced-stage diseases separately. RESULTS: Overall, patients with MOC showed a lower risk of dying within 5 years (RR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.69; n = 45 333) and a longer survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98, for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively; n = 5540) compared with those with SOC. In contrast, in advanced-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages III and IV) disease, patients with MOC have a higher risk of dying within 5 years (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17; n = 36 113) and a shorter survival (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.71-1.94; n = 19 907). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with advanced-stage MOC have a significantly worse prognosis compared with patients with SOC, whereas in early stage, the prognosis of patients with MOC is better.
Authors: Michiel Simons; Femke Simmer; Johan Bulten; Marjolijn J Ligtenberg; Harry Hollema; Shannon van Vliet; Richarda M de Voer; Eveline J Kamping; Dirk F van Essen; Bauke Ylstra; Lauren E Schwartz; Yihong Wang; Leon F Massuger; Iris D Nagtegaal; Robert J Kurman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Katarzyna Bednarska; Ewa Król; Ewa Głowacka; Hanna Romanowicz; Krzysztof Szyłło; Magdalena Klink; Zofia Sułowska; Marek Nowak Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Cécile Le Page; Kurosh Rahimi; Martin Köbel; Patricia N Tonin; Liliane Meunier; Lise Portelance; Monique Bernard; Brad H Nelson; Marcus Q Bernardini; John M S Bartlett; Dimcho Bachvarov; Walter H Gotlieb; Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine; Mark W Nachtigal; Alain Piché; Peter H Watson; Barbara Vanderhyden; David G Huntsman; Diane M Provencher; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 4.430
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