Survival analysis of revised 2013 FIGO staging classification of epithelial ovarian cancer and comparison with previous FIGO staging classification
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective To analyze the prognostic role of revised version of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2013) in epithelial ovarian cancer and compare with previous version staging classificationMethodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated at Samsung Medical Center from 2002 to 2012. We reclassified the patients based on the revised FIGO staging classification. Results Eight hundred seventy-eight patients were enrolled (stage I, 22.8%; stage II, 10.4%; stage III, 56.2%; stage IV, 10.7%). Previous stage IC (98, 11.1%) was subdivided into IC1 (9, 1.0%), IC2 (57, 6.4%), and IC3 (32, 4.1%). In addition, previous stage IV (94, 1.7%) was categorized into IVA (37, 4.2%) and IVB (57, 6.5%) in new staging classification. Stage IIC (66, 7.5%) has been eliminated and integrated into IIA (36, 4.1%) and IIB (55, 6.2%) in revised classification. Revised FIGO stage IC3 had significant prognostic impact on PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.840; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.361 to 10.83; P=0.011) and revised FIGO stage IIIC appears to be an independent, significant poor prognostic factor for PFS (HR, 2.541; 95% CI, 1.242 to 5.200; P=0.011) but not in the case of previous version of FIGO stage IIIC (HR, 1.070; 95% CI, 0.502 to 2.281; P=0.860). However, any sub-stages of both previous and revised version in stage II and IV, there was no significant prognostic role. Conclusion Revised FIGO stage has more progressed utility for informing prognosis than previous version, especially in stage I and III. For stage II and IV, further validation should be needed in large population based study in the future.
Abstract
Objective To analyze the prognostic role of revised version of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2013) in epithelial ovarian cancer and compare with previous version staging classificationMethodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated at Samsung Medical Center from 2002 to 2012. We reclassified the patients based on the revised FIGO staging classification. Results Eight hundred seventy-eight patients were enrolled (stage I, 22.8%; stage II, 10.4%; stage III, 56.2%; stage IV, 10.7%). Previous stage IC (98, 11.1%) was subdivided into IC1 (9, 1.0%), IC2 (57, 6.4%), and IC3 (32, 4.1%). In addition, previous stage IV (94, 1.7%) was categorized into IVA (37, 4.2%) and IVB (57, 6.5%) in new staging classification. Stage IIC (66, 7.5%) has been eliminated and integrated into IIA (36, 4.1%) and IIB (55, 6.2%) in revised classification. Revised FIGO stage IC3 had significant prognostic impact on PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.840; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.361 to 10.83; P=0.011) and revised FIGO stage IIIC appears to be an independent, significant poor prognostic factor for PFS (HR, 2.541; 95% CI, 1.242 to 5.200; P=0.011) but not in the case of previous version of FIGO stage IIIC (HR, 1.070; 95% CI, 0.502 to 2.281; P=0.860). However, any sub-stages of both previous and revised version in stage II and IV, there was no significant prognostic role. Conclusion Revised FIGO stage has more progressed utility for informing prognosis than previous version, especially in stage I and III. For stage II and IV, further validation should be needed in large population based study in the future.
참고문헌 (24)
- Ferlay J., "Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008 : GLOBOCAN 2008", Int J Cancer, 127, pp.2893~2917 (2010)
- Bray F., "Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index(2008-2030) : a population-based study", Lancet Oncol, 13, pp.790~801 (2012)
- 임명철, "Incidence of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer in Korea, 1999-2010", Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 24(4), pp.298~302 (2013), 대한부인종양학회
- Berek JS, "Berek & Novak's gynecology. 14th ed" (2012), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Bakkar R., "Stage IIIC ovarian", peritoneal serous carcinoma : a heterogeneous group of patients with different prognoses, 2014, pp.33, 302~308
- Onda T., "Patients with ovarian carcinoma upstaged to stage III after systematic lymphadenctomy have similar survival to stage I", II patients and superior survival to other stage III patients, 1998, pp.83, 1555~1560
- Berek JS., "Lymph node-positive stage IIIC ovarian cancer: a separate entity?", Int J Gynecol Cancer, 19(Suppl 2), pp.S18~S20 (2009)
- Kanazawa K., "The validity and significance of substage IIIC by node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer : impact of nodal metastasis on patient survival", Gynecol Oncol, 73, pp.237~241 (1999)
- Panici PB., "Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer : a randomized clinical trial", J Natl Cancer Inst, 97, pp.560~566 (2005)
- Cliby WA., "Is it justified to classify patients to Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer based on nodal involvement only?", Gynecol Oncol, 103, pp.797~801 (2006)
- Ferrandina G., "Ovarian cancer patients with"node-positive-only"stage IIIC disease have a more favorable outcome than stage IIIA", B, 2007, pp.107, 154~156
- 백수진, "Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer classified solely by lymph node metastasis has a more favorable prognosis than other types of stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer", Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 19(4), pp.223~228 (2008), 대한부인종양학회
- Prat J, "Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum", Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 124, pp.1~5 (2014)
- Vergote I., "Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma", Lancet, 357, pp.176~182 (2001)
- Bakkum-Gamez JN., "Influence of intraoperative capsule rupture on outcomes in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer", Obstet Gynecol, 113, pp.11~17 (2009)
- Seidman JD., "Prognostic factors for stage I ovarian carcinoma", Int J Gynecol Pathol, 29, pp.1~7 (2010)
- Chan JK., "Prognostic factors for high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer : a Gynecologic Oncology Group study", Cancer, 112, pp.2202~2210 (2008)
- Obermair A., "A new prognostic model for FIGO stage 1 epithelial ovarian cancer", Gynecol Oncol, 104, pp.607~611 (2007)
- Kim HS., "Impact of intraoperative rupture of the ovarian capsule on prognosis in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer : a meta-analysis", Eur J Surg Oncol, 39, pp.279~289 (2013)
- Ayhan A., "Metastatic lymph node number in epithelial ovarian carcinoma : does it have any clinical significance?", Gynecol Oncol, 108, pp.428~432 (2008)
- 이효표, "한국 부인암의 현황: 1991~2004년까지의 동향", Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 51(12), pp.1411~1420 (2008), 대한산부인과학회
- Dembo AJ., "Prognostic factors in patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer", Obstet Gynecol, 75, pp.263~273 (1990)
- Gilks CB., "Ovarian carcinoma pathology and genetics : recent advances", Hum Pathol, 40, pp.1213~1223 (2009)
- Amir E., "Poor correlation between progression-free and overall survival in modern clinical trials : are composite endpoints the answer?", Eur J Cancer, 48, pp.385~388 (2012)