4.7 Article

Management and Survival of Elderly and Very Elderly Patients with Endometrial Cancer: An Age-Stratified Study of 1228 Women from the FRANCOGYN Group

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 1667-1676

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5735-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little data exist about the clinical management and survival of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the management of elderly and very elderly patients with endometrial cancer as well as the overall survival (OS) rate, disease-free survival (DFS) rate, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate in a multicenter cohort. Data from 1228 patients with endometrial cancer who received primary treatment between January 2001 and December 2012 were collected from a multicenter database. Clinical management, DFS, CSS, and OS were analyzed. Based on the international endometrial cancer risk classification, 36% (212/582) of women age 65 years or younger, 42% (220/526) of women ages 65-80 years, and 48% (58/120) of women older than 80 years showed high-risk endometrial cancer (p < 0.001). Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed for 85% (230/271) of the women age 65 years or younger and 46% (33/71) of the women older than 80 years (p < 0.001). Radiotherapy was performed for 27% (33/120) of the very elderly and 40% (233/582) of the young patients (p = 0.009). The 3-year CSS rates were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93-97%) for the women age 65 years or younger, 90% (95% CI, 87-94%) for the women ages 65-80 years, and 82% (95% CI, 73-93%) for the women older than 80 years (p < 0.001). The elderly and very elderly patients with endometrial cancer showed poorer prognosis than young patients. The significant lower CSS rate for the elderly patients could have be due to both the higher rate of high-risk endometrial cancer and undertreatment. Specific guidelines for the management of elderly and very elderly patients with endometrial cancer are needed to improve their prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据