4.6 Article

Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage II cervical cancer

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 107, 期 2, 页码 310-315

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.06.026

关键词

cervical carcinoma; tumor; size; measurement; FIGO stage II; advanced disease; bulky disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Tumor size is a well recognized prognostic factor in early stage cervical carcinoma (CX). However, limited knowledge exists about the value of tumor size in surgically treated CX with extrauterine extension. Methods. 245 cases of local advanced CX (FIGO stage IIA and 1113) who received upfront surgery were evaluated regarding tumor size, regarding the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement and recurrence free and overall survival during a median follow-up time of 54 months (95% CI 45.4-62.6 months). Tumors larger than 4 cm were defined as bulky stage disease. Results. Bulky disease was seen in 46.1% (113/245). 60.2% of these patients showed pelvic lymph node involvement, compared to 42.4% (56/ 132) in non-bulky tumors (p=0.006; odds ratio: 2.2 [95% CI:1.3-3.61). Patients with bulky tumors showed an increase of recurrent disease (40.2% vs. 28.0%;p=0.045). The relative risk for recurrent disease was 1.97 (95% CI: 1.3-3.0). The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly lower (67.7% [95% CI: 58.2-74.8] vs. 49.5% [95% CI: 36.8-59.1]; p=0.0015). In multivariate analysis, tumor stage, pelvic lymph node involvement and maximal tumor size were independent prognostic factors. Conclusions. The results suggest that tumor size, defining bulky disease as tumors larger than 4 cm, is of prognostic impact also in FIGO stage II cervical carcinomas. A revised FIGO/TNM classification system similar to the subgrouping of stage IB CX is recommended for stage II using a cut-off value of 4 cm as discriminator: stage IIA1 and stage IIB1 for tumors with <= 4 cm and IIA2 and IIB2 for tumors > 4 cm (i.e. bulky disease). (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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