Literature DB >> 28459944

Can the FIGO 2000 scoring system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia be simplified? A new retrospective analysis from a nationwide dataset.

Y K Eysbouts1, P B Ottevanger2, L F A G Massuger1, J IntHout3, D Short2, R Harvey2, B Kaur4, N J Sebire4, N Sarwar2, F C G J Sweep5, M J Seckl2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Worldwide introduction of the International Fedaration of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2000 scoring system has provided an effective means to stratify patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia to single- or multi-agent chemotherapy. However, the system is quite elaborate with an extensive set of risk factors. In this study, we re-evaluate all prognostic risk factors involved in the FIGO 2000 scoring system and examine if simplification is feasible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and December 2012, 813 patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia were identified at the Trophoblastic Disease Centre in London and scored using the FIGO 2000. Multivariable analysis and stepwise logistic regression were carried out to evaluate whether the FIGO 2000 scoring system could be simplified.
RESULTS: Of the eight FIGO risk factors only pre-treatment serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels exceeding 10 000 IU/l (OR = 5.0; 95% CI 2.5-10.4) and 100 000 IU/l (OR = 14.3; 95% CI 4.7-44.1), interval exceeding 7 months since antecedent pregnancy (OR = 4.1; 95% CI 1.0-16.2), and tumor size of over 5 cm (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.3-3.6) were identified as independently predictive for single-agent resistance. In addition, increased risk was apparent for antecedent term pregnancy (OR = 3.4; 95% CI 0.9-12.7) and the presence of five or more metastases (OR = 3.5; 95% CI 0.4-30.4), but patient numbers in these categories were relatively small. Stepwise logistic regression identified a simplified risk scoring model comprising age, pretreatment serum hCG, number of metastases, antecedent pregnancy, and interval but omitting tumor size, previous failed chemotherapy, and site of metastases. With this model only 1 out 725 patients was classified different from the FIGO 2000 system.
CONCLUSION: Our simplified alternative using only five of the FIGO prognostic factors appears to be an accurate system for discriminating patients requiring single as opposed to multi-agent chemotherapy. Further work is urgently needed to validate these findings.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FIGO; classification; gestational trophoblastic neoplasia; risk factors; staging

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28459944      PMCID: PMC5834141          DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx211

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  24 in total

1.  Risk of partial and complete hydatidiform molar pregnancy in relation to maternal age.

Authors:  N J Sebire; M Foskett; R A Fisher; H Rees; M Seckl; E Newlands
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  FIGO staging for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia 2000. FIGO Oncology Committee.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.561

3.  The practicability of FIGO 2000 staging for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Authors:  H Y S Ngan
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.437

4.  Gestational trophoblastic disease: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Authors:  M J Seckl; N J Sebire; R A Fisher; F Golfier; L Massuger; C Sessa
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  EMA/CO for high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: good outcomes with induction low-dose etoposide-cisplatin and genetic analysis.

Authors:  Constantine Alifrangis; Roshan Agarwal; Delia Short; Rosemary A Fisher; Neil J Sebire; Richard Harvey; Philip M Savage; Michael J Seckl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Brain metastases in gestational trophoblast neoplasia: an update on incidence, management and outcome.

Authors:  Philip Savage; Inga Kelpanides; Mark Tuthill; Dee Short; Michael J Seckl
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 7.  Detecting and monitoring trophoblastic disease. New perspectives on measuring human chorionic gonadotropin levels.

Authors:  L A Cole; E I Kohorn; G S Kim
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 0.142

8.  The management and outcome of women with post-hydatidiform mole 'low-risk' gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, but hCG levels in excess of 100 000 IU l(-1).

Authors:  S McGrath; D Short; R Harvey; P Schmid; P M Savage; M J Seckl
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Evaluation of prognostic factors and staging in gestational trophoblastic tumor.

Authors:  J T Soper; A C Evans; M R Conaway; D L Clarke-Pearson; A Berchuck; C B Hammond
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 10.  Epidemiology and aetiology of gestational trophoblastic diseases.

Authors:  Andrea Altieri; Silvia Franceschi; Jacques Ferlay; Jennifer Smith; Carlo La Vecchia
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evaluation and simplification of risk factors in FIGO 2000 scoring system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a 19-year retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Yang Weng; Yuanyuan Liu; Chitapa Benjoed; Xiaodong Wu; Sangsang Tang; Xiao Li; Xing Xie; Weiguo Lu
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 2.  Extravillous trophoblast migration and invasion: Impact of environmental chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  Cassandra Meakin; Emily S Barrett; Lauren M Aleksunes
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 3.143

Review 3.  A review on management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Authors:  Seyedeh Reyhaneh Yousefi Sharami; Elham Saffarieh
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2020-03-26

Review 4.  Overview of Dual-Acting Drug Methotrexate in Different Neurological Diseases, Autoimmune Pathologies and Cancers.

Authors:  Przemysław Koźmiński; Paweł Krzysztof Halik; Raphael Chesori; Ewa Gniazdowska
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 5.  Understanding and management of gestational trophoblastic disease.

Authors:  Fen Ning; Houmei Hou; Abraham N Morse; Gendie E Lash
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-04-10

6.  Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: experience at Salah Azaiez Institute.

Authors:  Rim Batti; Amina Mokrani; Haifa Rachdi; Henda Raies; Omar Touhami; Mouna Ayadi; Khadija Meddeb; Feryel Letaief; Yosra Yahiaoui; Nesrine Chraiet; Amel Mezlini
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2019-06-17

7.  miR-30a targets STOX2 to increase cell proliferation and metastasis in hydatidiform moles via ERK, AKT, and P38 signaling pathways.

Authors:  Zhenzhen Guo; Chenyu Zhu; Ying Kong; Dong Li; Linlin Sui; Youhui Wang; Zhen Li; Lu Wang; Jianhui Fan; Yuefei Xu; Na Zou
Journal:  Cancer Cell Int       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 5.722

8.  Management and prognostic analysis of patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in FIGO stage IV and its special type.

Authors:  Kai Wang; Yaxia Chen
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 5.150

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.