Early-Stage epithelial ovarian cancer: Predictors of survival.

Chemotherapy Early stage Fertility sparing surgery Histological grade Prognostic factors Serous histology

Journal

Gynecologic oncology reports
ISSN: 2352-5789
Titre abrégé: Gynecol Oncol Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101652231

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Historique:
received: 03 09 2022
revised: 07 10 2022
accepted: 09 10 2022
entrez: 24 10 2022
pubmed: 25 10 2022
medline: 25 10 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

One fifth of patients with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) present at an early stage (FIGO stage I & II). However, there is scarcity of literature on the outcomes and its predictors. The aim of the study was to assess relapse free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and its predictors in early stage EOC. In this retrospectively study, we included all patients with early-stage EOC diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2018. Patients with synchronous malignancies were excluded. Clinical profile, clinico-pathological characteristics and treatment details were recorded. Patient underwent initial surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk disease. Patients with stage IC, or stage II or clear cell histology or high-grade histology irrespective of stage/histological subtype were defined as high-risk disease. Fertility sparing surgery (FSS) [unilateral salpingo-oopherectomy with complete surgical staging] was performed in patient willing to preserve fertility. Primary objective was to assess RFS and OS in all patients with early stage EOC. Secondary objectives were to assess RFS and OS in early stage EOC with high-risk disease, predictors of RFS and OS, and outcomes of FSS. Survival probabilities were estimated according to Kaplan-Meier and compared by the log rank test. Cox's regression model was used to analyze the significance of various factors affecting relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). 195 patients with early stage EOC were recruited with median age of 47 years (range, 16-80 years). FIGO stage I and stage II were seen in 72 % and 18 % patients respectively. Serous subtype was reported in 58 % and high-grade histology in 66 %. 184 patients (94.0%) underwent optimal staging surgery, including 27 (14%) with fertility sparing surgery (FSS). 133 (91.7 %) of 145 patients with high-risk disease received adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin), while 12 (8.3 %) patients opted to remain on observation. At median follow up of 56 months (95 % CI, 46-64 months), 49 (25 %) patients relapsed [including 3 of 27 (11.1 %) who underwent FSS], 18 patients died of progressive disease, while 31 patients were alive and disease free. Estimated OS at 5 years is 87.6 % (95 % CI 79.9-92.5) and RFS is 73.2 % (95 % CI 64.7-80.0). On multivariate analysis tumor grade was predictive of RFS (HR 2.9, p < 0.04) and OS (HR 9.4, p < 0.02). This study confirms the excellent outcome for patients with early stage EOC. Histological grade of tumor is a significant predictor of OS and RFS. FSS is feasible in selected patients with early EOC.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
One fifth of patients with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) present at an early stage (FIGO stage I & II). However, there is scarcity of literature on the outcomes and its predictors. The aim of the study was to assess relapse free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and its predictors in early stage EOC.
Patients and Methods UNASSIGNED
In this retrospectively study, we included all patients with early-stage EOC diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2018. Patients with synchronous malignancies were excluded. Clinical profile, clinico-pathological characteristics and treatment details were recorded. Patient underwent initial surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk disease. Patients with stage IC, or stage II or clear cell histology or high-grade histology irrespective of stage/histological subtype were defined as high-risk disease. Fertility sparing surgery (FSS) [unilateral salpingo-oopherectomy with complete surgical staging] was performed in patient willing to preserve fertility. Primary objective was to assess RFS and OS in all patients with early stage EOC. Secondary objectives were to assess RFS and OS in early stage EOC with high-risk disease, predictors of RFS and OS, and outcomes of FSS. Survival probabilities were estimated according to Kaplan-Meier and compared by the log rank test. Cox's regression model was used to analyze the significance of various factors affecting relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
Results UNASSIGNED
195 patients with early stage EOC were recruited with median age of 47 years (range, 16-80 years). FIGO stage I and stage II were seen in 72 % and 18 % patients respectively. Serous subtype was reported in 58 % and high-grade histology in 66 %. 184 patients (94.0%) underwent optimal staging surgery, including 27 (14%) with fertility sparing surgery (FSS). 133 (91.7 %) of 145 patients with high-risk disease received adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin), while 12 (8.3 %) patients opted to remain on observation. At median follow up of 56 months (95 % CI, 46-64 months), 49 (25 %) patients relapsed [including 3 of 27 (11.1 %) who underwent FSS], 18 patients died of progressive disease, while 31 patients were alive and disease free. Estimated OS at 5 years is 87.6 % (95 % CI 79.9-92.5) and RFS is 73.2 % (95 % CI 64.7-80.0). On multivariate analysis tumor grade was predictive of RFS (HR 2.9, p < 0.04) and OS (HR 9.4, p < 0.02).
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
This study confirms the excellent outcome for patients with early stage EOC. Histological grade of tumor is a significant predictor of OS and RFS. FSS is feasible in selected patients with early EOC.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36277028
doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.101083
pii: S2352-5789(22)00163-1
pmc: PMC9583112
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

101083

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Références

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 21;16(4):
pubmed: 30795566
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;155 Suppl 1:61-85
pubmed: 34669199
Int J Biol Markers. 1999 Apr-Jun;14(2):106-14
pubmed: 10399630
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 15;95(2):113-25
pubmed: 12529344
Ecancermedicalscience. 2013 Jun 13;7:325
pubmed: 23781280
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Feb 28;13(5):
pubmed: 33670929
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):284-296
pubmed: 29809280
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 10;25(20):2909-20
pubmed: 17617522
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 15;95(2):125-32
pubmed: 12529345
Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Mar;116(3):301-6
pubmed: 19945740
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021 Oct;81(10):1145-1153
pubmed: 34629493
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 15;95(2):94-5
pubmed: 12529336
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):405-413
pubmed: 27931752
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 9;351(24):2519-29
pubmed: 15590954
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Oct;19(7):1199-204
pubmed: 19823055
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Sep;20(9):972-980
pubmed: 36075393
J Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;20(1):44-7
pubmed: 19471664
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Oct;123(1):37-42
pubmed: 21764430
Lancet. 2021 Jun 5;397(10290):2182-2193
pubmed: 33991479
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 4;8(14):23862-23870
pubmed: 27852043
Lancet. 2019 Mar 23;393(10177):1240-1253
pubmed: 30910306
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jan 15;95(2):105-12
pubmed: 12529343
BMC Cancer. 2020 Apr 15;20(1):320
pubmed: 32293358
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):1-5
pubmed: 24219974

Auteurs

Avinash Upadhyay (A)

Department of Medical Oncology , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Vikas Garg (V)

Department of Medical Oncology , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Sandeep Mathur (S)

Department of Pathology.

Prabhat Singh Malik (P)

Department of Medical Oncology , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Neerja Bhatla (N)

Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Sunesh Kumar (S)

Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Sachin Khurana (S)

Department of Medical Oncology , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Lalit Kumar (L)

Department of Medical Oncology , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.

Classifications MeSH