• Ann. Surg. Oncol. · Apr 2016

    Lymph Node Involvement Pattern and Survival Differences of FIGO IIIC and FIGO IIIA1 Ovarian Cancer Patients After Primary Complete Tumor Debulking Surgery: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of the Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer Network.

    • Khayal Gasimli, Elena Ioana Braicu, Mani Nassir, Rolf Richter, Aygun Babayeva, Radoslav Chekerov, Silvia Darb-Esfahani, Jalid Sehouli, and Mustafa Zelal Muallem.
    • Department of Gynecology, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
    • Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016 Apr 1; 23 (4): 1279-86.

    ObjectiveThe main goal of the current study was to compare survival differences among subgroups of primary ovarian cancer patients in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIIC and IIIA1 after complete tumor debulking surgery.MethodsA total of 218 patients with primary ovarian cancer who received complete cytoreductive surgery were included in the current retrospective analysis of the validated Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer Network Database, which covers the periods January 2002 until December 2012. According to their tumor spread pattern, patients were divided into three groups: Group A (peritoneum only), Group B (peritoneum and lymph nodes), and Group C (lymph nodes only). Associations between groups and clinicopathological factors were analyzed using standard statistical procedures.ResultsThe vast majority of patients were classified into Group B. Lymph node involvement was detected in 70.5 % of the cases where peritoneal implants presented ≥2 cm beyond the pelvis (Group A + B). The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 47.4 % in Group A, 45.1 % in Group B, and 91.7 % in Group C (p < 0.01). In the subgroup analysis of Group B, both pelvic and para-aortic lymph node involvement was found in 57 % of patients. Patients in Group B who had para-aortic lymph node involvement only had better median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with patients with pelvic lymph node involvement only and pelvic and para-aortic lymph node involvement (28, 16, and 18 months, respectively; p = 0.02). The median OS differed significantly between patients with para-aortic lymph node involvement only versus patients with both pelvic and para-aortic involvement (68.5 vs. 46.7 months; p = 0.02). Three-year PFS was 90.0 % in FIGO IIIA1(i) and 62.6 % in FIGO IIIA1(ii) (hazard ratio 2.30, 95 % confidence interval 0.45-11.58).ConclusionsPatients with FIGO stage IIIC with lymph node involvement only had the best clinical outcome compared with patients in the same stage with peritoneal involvement only. Furthermore, involvement of both pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes were of the same infrequency, and involvement of only para-aortic lymph nodes in this stage resulted in a better chance of survival than involvement of pelvic lymph nodes only or both pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes simultaneously. In accordance with the revised FIGO classification of 2013, our study revealed that FIGO IIIA1(i) is prognostically better compared with FIGO IIIA1(ii).

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…