4.7 Article

Predictors of survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery based on the pooled analysis of an international collaborative cohort

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 105, Issue 7, Pages 890-896

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.328

Keywords

ovarian cancer; recurrence; surgery; survival; pooled analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: This study aims to identify prognostic factors and to develop a risk model predicting survival in patients undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCR) for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Individual data of 1100 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer of a progression-free interval at least 6 months who underwent SCR were pooled analysed. A simplified scoring system for each independent prognostic factor was developed according to its coefficient. Internal validation was performed to assess the discrimination of the model. RESULTS: Complete SCR was strongly associated with the improvement of survival, with a median survival of 57.7 months, when compared with 27.0 months in those with residual disease of 0.1-1 cm and 15.6 months in those with residual disease of >1 cm, respectively (P<0.0001). Progression-free interval (<= 23.1 months vs >23.1 months, hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; score: 2), ascites at recurrence (present vs absent, HR: 1.27; score: 1), extent of recurrence (multiple vs localised disease, HR: 1.38; score: 1) as well as residual disease after SCR (R1 vs R0, HR: 1.90, score: 2; R2 vs R0, HR: 3.0, score: 4) entered into the risk model. CONCLUSION: This prognostic model may provide evidence to predict survival benefit from secondary cytoreduction in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 890-896. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.328 www.bjcancer.com Published online 30 August 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available