4.5 Article

Brain metastasis from cervical carcinoma

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 141-146

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00808.x

Keywords

brain metastasis; cervical cancer; cervical carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to describe the features of patients with brain metastasis from cervical cancer. Twelve patients with brain metastasis from cervical cancer were identified. Information regarding symptoms, treatment, and survival was analyzed. The incidence of brain metastasis in our population was 0.77%. Median patient age at initial diagnosis of cervical cancer was 43.5 years (range 29-57 years) compared with 44.5 years (range 31-58 years) at identification of brain metastasis. Six patients had FIGO stage IB disease; three had stage IIB disease; and one each had stage IIIA, IIIB, and IVB disease. The median interval from diagnosis of cervical cancer to identification of brain metastasis was 17.5 months (range 1.1-96.1 months). All but one patient presented with neurologic symptoms. Eight patients received whole-brain irradiation and steroids, three received steroids alone, and one underwent surgery, followed by irradiation. All the patients who received whole-brain irradiation experienced improvement in their symptoms. Median survival from diagnosis of brain metastasis to death was 2.3 months (range 0.3-7.9 months). Five patients who received chemotherapy after brain irradiation had a median survival of 4.4 months compared to 0.9 months for those who received no additional treatment after brain irradiation (P = .016). Most patients with brain metastasis from cervical cancer presented with neurologic sequelae. Brain irradiation improved these symptoms. Survival after diagnosis of brain metastasis was poor; however, patients who received chemotherapy after brain irradiation appeared to have improved survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available