| Literature DB >> 35454861 |
Christoph Wohlmuth1,2, Vladimir Djedovic1,3, Susanne K Kjaer4,5, Allan Jensen4, Rosalind Glasspool6,7, Patricia Roxburgh6,7, Anna DeFazio8,9,10,11, Sharon E Johnatty12, Penelope M Webb13, Francesmary Modugno14,15, Diether Lambrechts16,17, Joellen M Schildkraut18, Andrew Berchuck19, Liv Cecilie Vestrheim Thomsen20,21, Line Bjorge20,21, Estrid Høgdall22, Claus K Høgdall5, Ellen L Goode23, Stacey J Winham24, Keitaro Matsuo25,26, Beth Y Karlan27, Jenny Lester27, Marc T Goodman28, Pamela J Thompson29, Tanja Pejovic30,31, Marjorie J Riggan19, Katherine Lajkosz32, Alicia Tone1, Taymaa May1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies on low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSC) are limited by a low number of cases. The aim of this study was to define the prognostic significance of age, stage, and CA-125 levels on survival in a multi-institutional cohort of women with pathologically confirmed LGSC.Entities:
Keywords: CA-125; low-grade serous cancer; ovarian cancer; survival
Year: 2022 PMID: 35454861 PMCID: PMC9024456 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14081954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Demographic and clinical characteristics.
| Parameter | |
|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis, years | |
| Mean ± SD | 53.8 ± 13.5 |
| Median (range) | 54 (18–80) |
| Ethnicity | |
| White, | 112 (64%) |
| Black, | 3 (2%) |
| Asian, | 2 (1%) |
| Other, | 3 (2%) |
| not reported, | 56 (32%) |
| FIGO stage | |
| Stage I, | 14 (8%) |
| Stage II, | 17 (10%) |
| Stage III, | 125 (73%) |
| Stage IV, | 16 (9%) |
| not specified, | 4 |
| Residual Disease | |
| No macroscopic disease | 65 (57%) |
| Optimal, ≤1 cm | 30 (26%) |
| Suboptimal, >1 cm | 19 (17%) |
| not reported, | 62 |
| Pre-Treatment CA-125 | |
| <35 | 25 (14%) |
| ≥35 | 151 (86%) |
| Post-Treatment CA-125 | |
| <35 | 136 (77%) |
| ≥35 | 40 (23%) |
| Total Follow Up, Years | |
| Mean ± SD | 4.7 ± 3.7 |
Abbreviations: n, number; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1(A,B) Progression-free and overall survival of the overall cohort. Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
Univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard model for progression-free and overall survival.
| PFS | OS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| ||
| Age | |||||||||
| Age, continuous | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) | 0.31 | 0.99 (0.96–1.01) | 0.23 | 1.01 (0.99–1.03) | 0.25 | 0.98 (0.95–1.01) | 0.3 | |
| FIGO stage | <0.001 | 0.009 | 0.026 | 0.35 | |||||
| Stage I/II | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Stage III/IV | 3.77 (1.94–7.35) | <0.001 | 4.26 (1.43–12.73) | 0.009 | 2.16 (1.09–4.27) | 0.026 | 1.69 (0.56–5.05) | 0.35 | |
| Residual Disease | <0.001 | 0.022 | 0.043 | 0.85 | |||||
| No macroscopic | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Optimal, ≤1 cm | 1.77 (0.78–4.01) | 0.17 | 1.26 (0.54–2.92) | 0.59 | 2.14 (0.82–5.59) | 0.12 | 1.33 (0.50–3.55) | 0.57 | |
| Suboptimal, >1 cm | 4.98 (2.38–10.44) | <0.001 | 2.93 (1.33–6.47) | 0.008 | 2.84 (1.24–6.51) | 0.014 | 1.06 (0.4–2.81) | 0.91 | |
| PreTx CA-125 | 0.28 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 0.78 | |||||
| <35 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| ≥35 | 1.43 (0.75–2.74) | 0.28 | 1.07 (0.46–2.52) | 0.87 | 1.44 (0.65–3.22) | 0.37 | 1.17 (0.39–3.45) | 0.78 | |
| PostTx CA-125 | <0.001 | 0.005 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| <35 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| ≥35 | 3.45 (2.23–5.33) | 0.003 | 2.81 (1.36–5.81) | 0.005 | 3.58 (2.19–5.87) | <0.001 | 6.62 (2.45–17.92) | <0.001 | |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PostTx CA-125, CA-125 level within 3 months of completion of first-line chemotherapy and prior to commencement of maintenance therapy; PreTx CA-125, CA-125 level before treatment initiation (primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy).
Figure 2(A–H) Progression-free and overall survival by FIGO stage, residual disease, and post-treatment CA-125 and pre-treatment CA-125. (A,B) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by FIGO stage (Stages I and II combined vs. Stages III and IV). (C,D) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by residual disease following cytoreductive surgery (no visible macroscopic disease vs. macroscopic disease ≤ 1 cm vs. macroscopic disease > 1 cm). (E,F) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by CA-125 levels following treatment (<35 vs. ≥35) and (G,H) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by CA-125 levels at diagnosis (<35 vs. ≥35). The Kaplan–Meier method with log-rank tests was used to examine survival differences. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Individuals at risk are shown in the legends. Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
Figure 3(A–D) Secondary analysis of post-treatment and pre-treatment CA-125 by CA-125 level. (A,B) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by CA-125 levels following treatment (<35 vs. 35–500 vs. >500) and (C,D) illustrate progression-free and overall survival by CA-125 levels at diagnosis (<35 vs. 35–500 vs. >500). The Kaplan–Meier method with log-rank tests was used to examine survival differences. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Individuals at risk are shown in the legends. Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.