Cargando…

Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer

OBJECTIVE: In 2009, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) modified staging of vulvar cancer—the prognostic significance of the new classification relative to the prior system as well as to the commonly recognized prognostic factors has not been assessed. The aim of this study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sznurkowski, Jacek J., Milczek, Tomasz, Emerich, Janusz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23263173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2683-x
_version_ 1782269847057465344
author Sznurkowski, Jacek J.
Milczek, Tomasz
Emerich, Janusz
author_facet Sznurkowski, Jacek J.
Milczek, Tomasz
Emerich, Janusz
author_sort Sznurkowski, Jacek J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: In 2009, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) modified staging of vulvar cancer—the prognostic significance of the new classification relative to the prior system as well as to the commonly recognized prognostic factors has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to test prognostic ability of 2009 staging in a cohort of uniformly treated and staged cases with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Pathologic characteristics were obtained by blind review of the original tissue samples. 76 patients who qualified for surgery on the basis of the same criteria, with full clinical history, were included in the study. The histological analyses were performed on 76 and 35 paraffin-embedded tissue samples from primary tumors and lymph nodes, respectively. Survival analyses included the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Univariate analysis has demonstrated that age (p = 0.0170), lymph node metastasis (p = 0.0393), tumor grade (p = 0.0086) and FIGO1994 stage (p = 0.001) were the significant prognostic factors for overall survival. Multivariate analysis has demonstrated that growing age (HR 2.25, 95 % CI 0.79–3.71, p = 0.0321), tumor grade (G1 vs. G2 and G3) (HR 1–3.11, 95 % CI 1.6–4.62, p = 0.0057) and FIGO1994 stage (HR 1.78, 95 % CI 0.55–3.01, p = 0.0061) are independent prognostic factors with respect to overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the prognostic advantage of the 1994 FIGO staging as it has become an independent prognostic factor in contrast to the new FIGO system. This should be tested in future larger cohort studies. Differentiation grade turned out to be a very valuable independent prognostic factor and should be incorporated as a routine component of the histopathologic reports in vulvar cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3655214
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36552142013-05-16 Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer Sznurkowski, Jacek J. Milczek, Tomasz Emerich, Janusz Arch Gynecol Obstet Gynecologic Oncology OBJECTIVE: In 2009, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) modified staging of vulvar cancer—the prognostic significance of the new classification relative to the prior system as well as to the commonly recognized prognostic factors has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to test prognostic ability of 2009 staging in a cohort of uniformly treated and staged cases with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Pathologic characteristics were obtained by blind review of the original tissue samples. 76 patients who qualified for surgery on the basis of the same criteria, with full clinical history, were included in the study. The histological analyses were performed on 76 and 35 paraffin-embedded tissue samples from primary tumors and lymph nodes, respectively. Survival analyses included the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Univariate analysis has demonstrated that age (p = 0.0170), lymph node metastasis (p = 0.0393), tumor grade (p = 0.0086) and FIGO1994 stage (p = 0.001) were the significant prognostic factors for overall survival. Multivariate analysis has demonstrated that growing age (HR 2.25, 95 % CI 0.79–3.71, p = 0.0321), tumor grade (G1 vs. G2 and G3) (HR 1–3.11, 95 % CI 1.6–4.62, p = 0.0057) and FIGO1994 stage (HR 1.78, 95 % CI 0.55–3.01, p = 0.0061) are independent prognostic factors with respect to overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the prognostic advantage of the 1994 FIGO staging as it has become an independent prognostic factor in contrast to the new FIGO system. This should be tested in future larger cohort studies. Differentiation grade turned out to be a very valuable independent prognostic factor and should be incorporated as a routine component of the histopathologic reports in vulvar cancer. Springer-Verlag 2012-12-22 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3655214/ /pubmed/23263173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2683-x Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Gynecologic Oncology
Sznurkowski, Jacek J.
Milczek, Tomasz
Emerich, Janusz
Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title_full Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title_fullStr Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title_short Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer
title_sort prognostic factors and a value of 2009 figo staging system in vulvar cancer
topic Gynecologic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23263173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2683-x
work_keys_str_mv AT sznurkowskijacekj prognosticfactorsandavalueof2009figostagingsysteminvulvarcancer
AT milczektomasz prognosticfactorsandavalueof2009figostagingsysteminvulvarcancer
AT emerichjanusz prognosticfactorsandavalueof2009figostagingsysteminvulvarcancer