Cargando…

Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the prognosis of non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with exclusively retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) metastases, and to compare the prognosis of these women to that of patients who had abdominal peritoneal involvem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sahin, Hanifi, Meydanli, Mehmet Mutlu, Sari, Mustafa Erkan, Yalcin, Ibrahim, Çoban, Gonca, Ozkan, Nazlı Topfedaisi, Cuylan, Zeliha Firat, Erdem, Baki, Gungorduk, Kemal, Akbayir, Özgür, Dede, Murat, Salman, Mustafa Coşkun, Güngör, Tayfun, Ayhan, Ali
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5838854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29506569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0393-0
_version_ 1783304315990966272
author Sahin, Hanifi
Meydanli, Mehmet Mutlu
Sari, Mustafa Erkan
Yalcin, Ibrahim
Çoban, Gonca
Ozkan, Nazlı Topfedaisi
Cuylan, Zeliha Firat
Erdem, Baki
Gungorduk, Kemal
Akbayir, Özgür
Dede, Murat
Salman, Mustafa Coşkun
Güngör, Tayfun
Ayhan, Ali
author_facet Sahin, Hanifi
Meydanli, Mehmet Mutlu
Sari, Mustafa Erkan
Yalcin, Ibrahim
Çoban, Gonca
Ozkan, Nazlı Topfedaisi
Cuylan, Zeliha Firat
Erdem, Baki
Gungorduk, Kemal
Akbayir, Özgür
Dede, Murat
Salman, Mustafa Coşkun
Güngör, Tayfun
Ayhan, Ali
author_sort Sahin, Hanifi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the prognosis of non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with exclusively retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) metastases, and to compare the prognosis of these women to that of patients who had abdominal peritoneal involvement. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective department database review was performed to identify patients with stage III non-serous EOC at 7 gynecologic oncology centers in Turkey. Demographic, clinicopathological and survival data were collected. The patients were divided into three groups based on the initial sites of disease: 1) the retroperitoneal (RP) group included patients who had positive pelvic and /or para-aortic LNs only. 2) The intraperitoneal (IP) group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis. These patients all had a negative LN status, 3) The IP / RP group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis as well as positive LN status. Survival data were compared with regard to the groups. RESULTS: We identified 179 women with stage III non-serous EOC who were treated at 7 participating centers during the study period. The median age of the patients was 53 years, and the median duration of follow-up was 39 months. There were 35 (19.6%) patients in the RP group, 72 (40.2%) in the IP group and 72 (40.2%) in the IP/RP group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for the RP, the IP, and IP/RP groups were 66.4%, 37.6%, and 25.5%, respectively (p = 0.002). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the RP group was significantly longer when compared to those of the IP, and the IP/RP groups (74.4% vs. 54%, and 36%, respectively; p = 0.011). However, we were not able to define “RP only disease” as an independent prognostic factor for increased DFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: Primary non-serous EOC patients with node-positive-only disease seem to have better survival when compared to those with extra-pelvic peritoneal involvement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5838854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58388542018-03-09 Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer? Sahin, Hanifi Meydanli, Mehmet Mutlu Sari, Mustafa Erkan Yalcin, Ibrahim Çoban, Gonca Ozkan, Nazlı Topfedaisi Cuylan, Zeliha Firat Erdem, Baki Gungorduk, Kemal Akbayir, Özgür Dede, Murat Salman, Mustafa Coşkun Güngör, Tayfun Ayhan, Ali J Ovarian Res Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the prognosis of non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with exclusively retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) metastases, and to compare the prognosis of these women to that of patients who had abdominal peritoneal involvement. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective department database review was performed to identify patients with stage III non-serous EOC at 7 gynecologic oncology centers in Turkey. Demographic, clinicopathological and survival data were collected. The patients were divided into three groups based on the initial sites of disease: 1) the retroperitoneal (RP) group included patients who had positive pelvic and /or para-aortic LNs only. 2) The intraperitoneal (IP) group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis. These patients all had a negative LN status, 3) The IP / RP group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis as well as positive LN status. Survival data were compared with regard to the groups. RESULTS: We identified 179 women with stage III non-serous EOC who were treated at 7 participating centers during the study period. The median age of the patients was 53 years, and the median duration of follow-up was 39 months. There were 35 (19.6%) patients in the RP group, 72 (40.2%) in the IP group and 72 (40.2%) in the IP/RP group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for the RP, the IP, and IP/RP groups were 66.4%, 37.6%, and 25.5%, respectively (p = 0.002). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the RP group was significantly longer when compared to those of the IP, and the IP/RP groups (74.4% vs. 54%, and 36%, respectively; p = 0.011). However, we were not able to define “RP only disease” as an independent prognostic factor for increased DFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: Primary non-serous EOC patients with node-positive-only disease seem to have better survival when compared to those with extra-pelvic peritoneal involvement. BioMed Central 2018-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5838854/ /pubmed/29506569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0393-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Sahin, Hanifi
Meydanli, Mehmet Mutlu
Sari, Mustafa Erkan
Yalcin, Ibrahim
Çoban, Gonca
Ozkan, Nazlı Topfedaisi
Cuylan, Zeliha Firat
Erdem, Baki
Gungorduk, Kemal
Akbayir, Özgür
Dede, Murat
Salman, Mustafa Coşkun
Güngör, Tayfun
Ayhan, Ali
Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title_full Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title_fullStr Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title_full_unstemmed Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title_short Does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
title_sort does the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage iii non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5838854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29506569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0393-0
work_keys_str_mv AT sahinhanifi doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT meydanlimehmetmutlu doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT sarimustafaerkan doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT yalcinibrahim doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT cobangonca doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT ozkannazlıtopfedaisi doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT cuylanzelihafirat doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT erdembaki doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT gungordukkemal doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT akbayirozgur doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT dedemurat doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT salmanmustafacoskun doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT gungortayfun doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer
AT ayhanali doestheprimaryrouteofspreadhaveaprognosticsignificanceinstageiiinonserousepithelialovariancancer