Cargando…
Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Galenos Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31362486 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165 |
_version_ | 1783474446785314816 |
---|---|
author | Spiliotis, John D. Iavazzo, Christos Kopanakis, Nikolaos D. Christopoulou, Athina |
author_facet | Spiliotis, John D. Iavazzo, Christos Kopanakis, Nikolaos D. Christopoulou, Athina |
author_sort | Spiliotis, John D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residual disease included the great omentum, epiploic appendices, liver round ligament, gallbladder, and cervical/vaginal stump. The median survival for women with residual disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) + systemic chemotherapy was 38 months compared with the control group, which reached 23.8 months. The morbidity rates were 18% vs 7%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 2.5% vs 1.3%. The main sites of recurrent disease included the mesenterium, pelvic floor, diaphragm, and Glisson’s capsule. Women with recurrent disease treated with CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy had median survival rates of 26 months vs 16 months in the control group. The morbidity rates were 22% vs 15%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 3.3% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse have a different prognosis when compared with patients with residual and recurrent disease. A different prognosis is presented in women undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse when comparing patients with residual and recurrent disease. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6883755 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Galenos Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68837552019-12-09 Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? Spiliotis, John D. Iavazzo, Christos Kopanakis, Nikolaos D. Christopoulou, Athina J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residual disease included the great omentum, epiploic appendices, liver round ligament, gallbladder, and cervical/vaginal stump. The median survival for women with residual disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) + systemic chemotherapy was 38 months compared with the control group, which reached 23.8 months. The morbidity rates were 18% vs 7%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 2.5% vs 1.3%. The main sites of recurrent disease included the mesenterium, pelvic floor, diaphragm, and Glisson’s capsule. Women with recurrent disease treated with CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy had median survival rates of 26 months vs 16 months in the control group. The morbidity rates were 22% vs 15%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 3.3% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse have a different prognosis when compared with patients with residual and recurrent disease. A different prognosis is presented in women undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse when comparing patients with residual and recurrent disease. Galenos Publishing 2019-12 2019-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6883755/ /pubmed/31362486 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165 Text en © Copyright 2019 by the Turkish-German Gynecological Education and Research Foundation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association published by Galenos Publishing House. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Spiliotis, John D. Iavazzo, Christos Kopanakis, Nikolaos D. Christopoulou, Athina Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title | Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title_full | Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title_fullStr | Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title_full_unstemmed | Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title_short | Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
title_sort | secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: the r-r dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31362486 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spiliotisjohnd secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease AT iavazzochristos secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease AT kopanakisnikolaosd secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease AT christopoulouathina secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease |