4.5 Article

Gliomatosis Peritonei A Particular Entity With Specific Outcomes Within the Growing Teratoma Syndrome

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000345

关键词

Immature ovarian teratoma; Growing teratoma syndrome; Gliomatosis peritonei; Recurrence; Follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Ovarian immature teratoma may be associated with peritoneal spread that could, after adjuvant chemotherapy, develop into disease exclusively composed of mature implants (growing teratoma syndrome) and/or gliomatosis peritonei (GP), defined as the presence of pure mature glial tissue. However, very few specific series are devoted to the outcomes of pure GP. This was the aim of the present study. Patients: From 1997 to 2013, data concerning patients treated for stage II/III immature teratoma were reviewed. All slides were reviewed by an expert pathologist. Patients with ovarian cancer associated with peritoneal spread in the form of pure GP (initially if patients were treated without adjuvant treatment or after adjuvant chemotherapy if done) were analyzed. Results: Ten patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median age of patients at diagnosis was 36 years (range, 14-41 years). Six patients had undergone a conservative treatment. Five patients had macroscopic residual disease at the end of surgery. The median duration of follow-up from the diagnosis of GP was 39 months (range, 6-114 months). Six patients had undergone secondary surgery. Among them, 5 had incompletely resected macroscopic GP. No patients had died of their disease. All patients were asymptomatic at the time of the last consultation (1 of them with abnormal radiologic imaging). Conclusions: Gliomatosis peritonei is a particular entity of the condition described as growing teratoma syndrome because residual peritoneal disease can be asymptomatic totally stable over a long period which raises the question of a more conservative surgical approach in patients with massive peritoneal spread.

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

4.5
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