| Literature DB >> 30150886 |
Emrah Akkaya1, Muzaffer Sanci1, Nur G Kulhan2, Mehmet Kulhan2, Umit Nayki2, Cenk Nayki2, Nahit Ata2, Pasa Ulug2.
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: Fallopian tube cancer is very rare in the literature and so there are not enough data about the therapeutic approaches. The approaches are generally determined in accordance with the data obtained from ovarian cancer. Many prognostic factors have been investigated in an effort to better estimate patient outcome. Stage, age, and residual tumor after surgery are consistently important prognostic factors. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic factors and survival rates of primary fallopian tube cancer (PFTC), which is rare among gynecological cancers.Entities:
Keywords: management and treatment; primary fallopian tube cancer; prognostic factor
Year: 2018 PMID: 30150886 PMCID: PMC6103229 DOI: 10.5114/wo.2017.69590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contemp Oncol (Pozn) ISSN: 1428-2526
Demographic and morphological features
| Parameter | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| ≤ 60 | 18 | 47.4 |
| > 60 | 20 | 52.6 |
| Median range | 55 (30–72) | |
| Menopause | 28 | 73.7 |
| Parity, median range | 2.5 (0–5) | |
| Symptom | ||
| Vaginal bleeding/discharge | 8 | 21.1 |
| Abdominal pain | 5 | 13.2 |
| Others | 22 | 57.9 |
| None | 3 | 7.9 |
| Presence of ascites | 21.8 | |
| Preoperative diagnosis | ||
| Adnexal mass | 16 | 42.1 |
| Ovarian malignancy | 22 | 57.9 |
| CA-125 (U/ml), median (range) | 41.5 (5.0–802.0) | |
| FIGO Stage | ||
| I | 16 | 52.1 |
| II | 5 | 13.2 |
| III | 17 | 44.7 |
| IV | – | – |
| Grade | ||
| I | 2 | 5.3 |
| II | 6 | 15.8 |
| III | 30 | 78.9 |
| No. of removed lymph nodes, median (range) | ||
| Pelvic | 13.5 (6–24) | |
| Para-aortic | 10 (3–23) | |
| Recurrence | 14 | 36.8 |
| Duration of follow-up | 34.5 (14–78) | |
| Disease-free survival | 25.5 (11–76) | |
| Overall survival | 34.5 (14–78) | |
| Surgical procedures | ||
| USO | 1 | 2.6 |
| TAH + BSO | 2 | 5.3 |
| TAH + BSO + washing cytology | 15 | 39.5 |
| + PLD + omentectomy | ||
| TAH + BSO + washing cytology | 20 | 52.6 |
| + PPLD + omentectomy | ||
| Residual tumor at initial surgery (cm) | ||
| ≤ 1 | 25 | 65.8 |
| > 1 | 13 | 34.2 |
| Chemotherapy | ||
| Yes | 25 | 89.5 |
| No | 4 | 10.5 |
| Radiotherapy | ||
| Yes | 38 | 89.5 |
| No | 100 | 10.5 |
| Histological type | ||
| Serous | 24 | 63.2 |
| Non-serous | 14 | 36.8 |
USO – unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; TAH – total abdominal hysterectomy; BSO – bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; PLD – pelvic lymphadenectomy; PPLD – pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy
Fig. 1Effect of stage of disease and survival probability (HR: 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1–5.9; p = 0.02)
Fig. 2Effect of optimality and survival probability (HR: 5.8; 95% CI: 2.6–13.0; p = 0.0003)
Fig. 3Ca-125 and survival probability (HR: 3.7; 95% CI: 1.6–8.4; p = 0.003)
Fig. 4Histological type and survival probability (HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 0.9–5.2; p = 0.03)
Fig. 5Ascites and survival probability (HR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.4–8.0; p = 0.01)
Fig. 6Grade and survival probability (HR: 1.3; 95% CI: 0.6–2.7; p = 0.42)
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors
| Parameter | Median survival (months) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Age (< 60 years vs. > 60 years) | 1.8 | 6.2–8.1 | 0.97 | |||
| Comorbidity (presence vs. absence) | 4.2 | 4.8–10.1 | 0.77 | |||
| Tumor stage (I/II vs. III/IV) | 2.6 | 1.1–5.9 | 0.02 | 3.6 | 1.6–8.7 | 0.01 |
| Tumor grade (I vs. II vs. III) | 1.3 | 0.6–2.7 | 0.42 | |||
| Ascites (presence vs. absence) | 3.4 | 1.4–8.0 | 0.01 | 2.1 | 1.3–5.8 | 0.03 |
| Preoperative CA125 value (< 35 U/ml vs. 35 U/ml) | 3.7 | 1.6–8.4 | 0.003 | 1.3 | 0.4–3.8 | 0.61 |
| Residual tumor size (< 1 cm vs. > 1 cm) | 5.8 | 2.6–13.0 | 0.003 | 3.2 | 1.2–5.9 | 0.001 |
| Histology (serous vs. non-serous) | 2.1 | 0.9–5.2 | 0.003 | |||
CI – confidence interval; CA-125 – cancer antigen 125; HR – hazard ratio