Impact of Abdominal Wall Metastases on Prognosis in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Beyhan Ataseven, Andreas du Bois, Philipp Harter, Sonia Prader, Christoph Grimm, Christian Kurzeder, Stephanie Schneider, Sebastian Heikaus, Anett Kahl, Alexander Traut, Florian Heitz
{"title":"Impact of Abdominal Wall Metastases on Prognosis in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.","authors":"Beyhan Ataseven, Andreas du Bois, Philipp Harter, Sonia Prader, Christoph Grimm, Christian Kurzeder, Stephanie Schneider, Sebastian Heikaus, Anett Kahl, Alexander Traut, Florian Heitz","doi":"10.1097/IGC.0000000000000826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with the presence of abdominal wall metastasis (AWM) are categorized as stage International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IVB, irrespective of other biologic factors or preceding invasive intervention before final surgery. We evaluated the impact of AWM on patients' overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In this exploratory study, 634 consecutive patients with advanced EOC treated in our center from 2000 to 2014 were included. Patients were categorized into FIGO IIIC (n = 308), FIGO IVB AWM only (n = 86), and FIGO IV others (metastases other than AWM, n = 240). Clinicopathological parameters and survival data were extracted from our prospectively maintained tumor registry. Survival analyses were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 75 (87.2%) of 86 cases, AWM was seen after a preceding intervention, and only in 12.7%, the deposits were spontaneously established. The median OS in patients with stage FIGO IIIC, FIGO IVB AWM only, and FIGO IV others was 37, 58, and 25 months (P < 0.001), respectively. Patients with FIGO IVB AWM only had a significantly better OS than patients with FIGO IV others (P < 0.001). The numeric longer OS of patients with FIGO IVB AWM only compared with patients with FIGO IIIC was not statistically significant (P = 0.151). In multivariate analysis considering all confounding factors including residual disease, OS of patients with FIGO IIIC did not differ from patients with FIGO AWM only (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-12.26; P = 0.398).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most AWM are acquired after preceding intervention (puncture or laparoscopy). Prognosis of patients with AWM as the only site of distant metastasis is superior compared with other stage FIGO IV patients. Therefore, up-staging of patients only because of AWM to FIGO IVB may be questioned. A revision/clarification of the FIGO classification system should be considered to avoid unnecessary stigmatization of patients and to classify these patients more appropriately according to prognosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":13983,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"1594-1600"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with the presence of abdominal wall metastasis (AWM) are categorized as stage International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IVB, irrespective of other biologic factors or preceding invasive intervention before final surgery. We evaluated the impact of AWM on patients' overall survival (OS).

Patients and methods: In this exploratory study, 634 consecutive patients with advanced EOC treated in our center from 2000 to 2014 were included. Patients were categorized into FIGO IIIC (n = 308), FIGO IVB AWM only (n = 86), and FIGO IV others (metastases other than AWM, n = 240). Clinicopathological parameters and survival data were extracted from our prospectively maintained tumor registry. Survival analyses were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models.

Results: In 75 (87.2%) of 86 cases, AWM was seen after a preceding intervention, and only in 12.7%, the deposits were spontaneously established. The median OS in patients with stage FIGO IIIC, FIGO IVB AWM only, and FIGO IV others was 37, 58, and 25 months (P < 0.001), respectively. Patients with FIGO IVB AWM only had a significantly better OS than patients with FIGO IV others (P < 0.001). The numeric longer OS of patients with FIGO IVB AWM only compared with patients with FIGO IIIC was not statistically significant (P = 0.151). In multivariate analysis considering all confounding factors including residual disease, OS of patients with FIGO IIIC did not differ from patients with FIGO AWM only (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-12.26; P = 0.398).

Conclusions: Most AWM are acquired after preceding intervention (puncture or laparoscopy). Prognosis of patients with AWM as the only site of distant metastasis is superior compared with other stage FIGO IV patients. Therefore, up-staging of patients only because of AWM to FIGO IVB may be questioned. A revision/clarification of the FIGO classification system should be considered to avoid unnecessary stigmatization of patients and to classify these patients more appropriately according to prognosis.

腹壁转移对上皮性卵巢癌预后的影响。
目的:上皮性卵巢癌(EOC)合并腹壁转移(AWM)的患者被国际妇产科学联合会(FIGO)分类为IVB期,无论其他生物学因素或最终手术前是否进行有创干预。我们评估了AWM对患者总生存期(OS)的影响。患者和方法:本探索性研究纳入2000 - 2014年在我中心连续治疗的634例晚期EOC患者。患者分为FIGO IIIC (n = 308), FIGO IVB AWM (n = 86)和FIGO IV其他(除AWM外的转移,n = 240)。临床病理参数和生存数据从我们前瞻性维持的肿瘤登记处提取。生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法和Cox回归模型计算。结果:86例患者中75例(87.2%)在术前干预后出现AWM,仅12.7%的患者自发形成AWM。FIGO IIIC期、FIGO IVB期和FIGO IV期患者的中位生存期分别为37个月、58个月和25个月(P < 0.001)。FIGO IVB AWM患者的OS仅明显优于FIGO IV其他患者(P < 0.001)。FIGO IVB AWM患者与FIGO IIIC患者相比,FIGO IVB AWM患者的生存时间更长,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.151)。在考虑包括残留疾病在内的所有混杂因素的多因素分析中,FIGO IIIC患者的OS与FIGO AWM患者的OS无差异(风险比,0.84;95%置信区间为0.56-12.26;P = 0.398)。结论:大多数AWM是在术前干预(穿刺或腹腔镜)后获得的。以AWM为唯一远处转移部位的患者预后优于其他FIGO IV期患者。因此,仅仅因为AWM而将患者提前到FIGO IVB可能会受到质疑。应考虑修订/澄清FIGO分类系统,以避免对患者进行不必要的污名化,并根据预后更适当地对这些患者进行分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书