Literature DB >> 29653688

Evaluation and suggestions for improving the FIGO 2000 staging criteria for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A ten-year review of 1420 patients.

Fang Jiang1, Xi-Run Wan2, Tao Xu3, Feng-Zhi Feng1, Tong Ren1, Jun-Jun Yang1, Jun Zhao1, Tao Yang4, Yang Xiang5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To re-evaluate the efficacy of the prognostic factors currently employed in the treatment of malignant gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.
METHODS: Clinical data from the Gestational Trophoblastic Disease (GTD) Center at Peking Union Medical Hospital (PUMCH) collected between January 2002 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. A new hazard ratio (HR)-based prognostic scoring scale was established and compared with the original scoring system.
RESULTS: In total, 1420 cases were included in the study (median follow-up=40months, overall complete remission (CR) rate=95.8%, relapse rate=7.1%, mortality rate=5.5%, median disease-free survival (DFS)=36months). Low-risk (0-6 points) and high-risk (≥6 points) patients exhibited CR rates of 99.8% (915/917) and 88.5% (445/503) and mortality rates of 0.3% and 15.1% (P<0.001), respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that age, pretreatment serum levels of human chorionic gonadotropin beta-subunit (β-hCG) and maximum tumor diameter were not independent prognostic risk factors. Antecedent pregnancy, the interval from the index pregnancy, the number of metastases and a history of failed chemotherapy treatments were independent prognostic risk factors. By modifying the scoring system based on the variables identified in a Cox analysis, we significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.
CONCLUSION: Though effective, the accuracy of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2000 Trophoblastic Neoplasia Staging System requires improvement. Irrelevant prognostic factors should be removed, and the weights of other factors should be adjusted appropriately.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Efficacy; Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia; Prognosis; Risk; Staging criteria

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29653688     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  5 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

2.  MST4 Regulates Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition of Choriocarcinoma by Mediating TGF-β1 Expression.

Authors:  Hanxi Yu; Weichen Zhang; Peilin Han; Beng Yang; Xiaode Feng; Ping Zhou; Xiaoxu Zhu; Bingqian Zhou; Wei Chen; Jianhua Qian; Jun Yu
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 4.147

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

4.  Hepatic toxicity following actinomycin D chemotherapy in treatment of familial gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A case report.

Authors:  Xiyan Mu; Rutie Yin; Danqing Wang; Liang Song; Yu Ma; Xia Zhao; Qingli Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Role of Emergency Surgery for Fatal Complications of Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Zhe Wang; Peilin Han; Xiaoxu Zhu; Jun Ying; Jianhua Qian
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 3.989

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.