A retrospective study for investigating the relationship between old and new staging systems with prognosis in ovarian cancer using gynecologic cancer registry of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG): disparity between serous carcinoma and clear cell carcinoma.
Cancer Staging
Clear Cell Carcinoma
Ovarian Cancer
Prognosis
Serous Carcinoma
Journal
Journal of gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 2005-0399
Titre abrégé: J Gynecol Oncol
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101483150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
27
05
2019
revised:
16
11
2019
accepted:
31
12
2019
pubmed:
7
2
2020
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
7
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers was revised in 2014. The aim of this study is to clarify whether the revised FIGO2014 staging reflects the prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer by histological type in Japan. We extracted 9,747 patients who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer since 2004 until 2008 and who could be classified into appropriate stages from the Gynecologic Cancer Registry of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. These cases were analyzed after revision to FIGO2014 based on the pTNM classification. Among stage I, the 5-year overall survival rate (5y-OS) in FIGO2014 was 94.9% in stage IA, 92.3% in stage IC1, 86.1% in IC2, and 84.9% in IC3 with significant differences between stages IA and IC1 (p=0.012), IC1 and IC2 (p<0.001). There was a significant difference between stages IA and IC1 in clear cell and mucinous carcinoma but not in serous and endometrioid carcinoma. Among stage III, the 5y-OS was 75.6% in stage IIIA1, 68.9% in IIIA2, 58.6% in IIIB, and 44.4% in IIIC, with significant differences between stages IIIA2 and IIIB (p=0.009), IIIB and IIIC (p<0.001). Among stage IV, the 5y-OS was 43.1% in stage IVA* and 32.1% in IVB with a significant difference (p=0.002). The results suggest that changes in classification for stage III and stage IV are appropriate, but the subclassification for stage IC might be too detailed. There was a discrepancy of prognosis by histological type between stage IA and IC1.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32026659
pii: 31.e45
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e45
pmc: PMC7286757
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e45Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Aug;142(2):243-7
pubmed: 27208538
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 May;26(4):680-7
pubmed: 26937751
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015 Mar;58(2):124-34
pubmed: 25798426
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;147(2):243-249
pubmed: 28807367
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):1-5
pubmed: 24219974
J Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Oct;24(4):352-8
pubmed: 24167671
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;113(1):11-7
pubmed: 19104354
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Mar;28(2):e32
pubmed: 28198168
J Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;19(4):223-8
pubmed: 19471577
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec;103(3):797-801
pubmed: 17052746
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019 Feb;45(2):289-298
pubmed: 30426591
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Oct 17;10:4709-4718
pubmed: 30410404