妊娠滋养细胞瘤荷兰风险分级与FIGO 2000的比较。

Yalcke Kjelle Eysbouts, Leon Massuger, Chris Thomas, Petronella Ottevanger, Delia Short, Richard Harvey, Neil Sebire, Baljeet Kaur, Sarwar Naveed, Fred Sweep, Michael Seckl
{"title":"妊娠滋养细胞瘤荷兰风险分级与FIGO 2000的比较。","authors":"Yalcke Kjelle Eysbouts, Leon Massuger, Chris Thomas, Petronella Ottevanger, Delia Short, Richard Harvey, Neil Sebire, Baljeet Kaur, Sarwar Naveed, Fred Sweep, Michael Seckl","doi":"10.1097/IGC.0000000000000812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Over the years, there has been a wide variety of classification systems in use worldwide to stratify patients between single-agent versus multi-agent chemotherapy, hindering comparison of international research results. The study presents a retrospective comparison of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2000 and Dutch risk classification system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>All patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia between January 2003 and December 2012 at the trophoblastic disease centre in London were retrospectively scored according to the Dutch classification system (N = 813).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An extensive overlap between both scoring systems was seen, even though items and relative value of items were quite distinct. The Dutch system seems to be simpler and easier to apply in all situation; a degree of overtreatment can however be presumed with the use of either system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although it is likely that outcome is indeed affected by the individual factors used in both systems, many factors relate to tumor bulk and may not be independently prognostic. We therefore believe that further refinement of the classification systems and their underlying prognostic items plus any new items that seem promising would be useful.</p>","PeriodicalId":13983,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer","volume":"36 1","pages":"1712-1716"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared.\",\"authors\":\"Yalcke Kjelle Eysbouts, Leon Massuger, Chris Thomas, Petronella Ottevanger, Delia Short, Richard Harvey, Neil Sebire, Baljeet Kaur, Sarwar Naveed, Fred Sweep, Michael Seckl\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IGC.0000000000000812\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Over the years, there has been a wide variety of classification systems in use worldwide to stratify patients between single-agent versus multi-agent chemotherapy, hindering comparison of international research results. The study presents a retrospective comparison of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2000 and Dutch risk classification system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>All patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia between January 2003 and December 2012 at the trophoblastic disease centre in London were retrospectively scored according to the Dutch classification system (N = 813).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An extensive overlap between both scoring systems was seen, even though items and relative value of items were quite distinct. The Dutch system seems to be simpler and easier to apply in all situation; a degree of overtreatment can however be presumed with the use of either system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although it is likely that outcome is indeed affected by the individual factors used in both systems, many factors relate to tumor bulk and may not be independently prognostic. We therefore believe that further refinement of the classification systems and their underlying prognostic items plus any new items that seem promising would be useful.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"1712-1716\"},\"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.0000000000000812\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000812","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:多年来,世界范围内使用了各种各样的分类系统来对患者进行单药和多药化疗的分层,阻碍了国际研究结果的比较。本研究对2000年国际妇产科联合会和荷兰妊娠滋养细胞瘤风险分类系统进行了回顾性比较。方法和材料:所有2003年1月至2012年12月在伦敦滋养细胞疾病中心诊断为妊娠滋养细胞瘤的患者,根据荷兰分类系统回顾性评分(N = 813)。结果:两个评分系统之间有广泛的重叠,即使项目和项目的相对价值是相当不同的。荷兰的制度似乎更简单,更容易适用于所有情况;然而,使用任何一种系统都可能存在一定程度的过度处理。结论:虽然结果可能确实受到两种系统中使用的个体因素的影响,但许多因素与肿瘤体积有关,可能不是独立的预后因素。因此,我们认为进一步完善分类系统及其潜在的预后项目以及任何看起来有希望的新项目将是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared.

Objective: Over the years, there has been a wide variety of classification systems in use worldwide to stratify patients between single-agent versus multi-agent chemotherapy, hindering comparison of international research results. The study presents a retrospective comparison of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2000 and Dutch risk classification system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Methods and materials: All patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia between January 2003 and December 2012 at the trophoblastic disease centre in London were retrospectively scored according to the Dutch classification system (N = 813).

Results: An extensive overlap between both scoring systems was seen, even though items and relative value of items were quite distinct. The Dutch system seems to be simpler and easier to apply in all situation; a degree of overtreatment can however be presumed with the use of either system.

Conclusions: Although it is likely that outcome is indeed affected by the individual factors used in both systems, many factors relate to tumor bulk and may not be independently prognostic. We therefore believe that further refinement of the classification systems and their underlying prognostic items plus any new items that seem promising would be useful.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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