scholarly journals Bilateral ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma metastasizing to cervix: a rare case report

Author(s):  
Arati Mallick ◽  
Saubhagya K. Jena ◽  
Debasis Kuanar

Ovarian carcinoma is the second most common gynaecologic cancer and the leading cause of death from gynaecologic malignancy. Two-third of all malignant epithelial ovarian tumors are constituted by serous ovarian cystadenocarcinomas. It is generally observed that ovarian cancer tends to remain intraabdominal even in advanced cases and that dissemination is usually by invasion of adjacent viscera, diffuse intraperitoneal implantation, and metastatic involvement of aortic and pelvic lymph nodes. Metastasizes to the uterine cervix, vagina, or vulva in ovarian cancer is rare. The reverse i.e. ovarian metastasis from cervical tumor is rather more common. Published literature suggest that, patients with cervical metastases had associated malignant ascites, retroperitoneal lymph node involvement, and significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cervical metastasis in ovarian malignancies always indicates the advanced stage of tumor and multi-organ involvement, indirectly stating poor prognosis. The median survival in cases of ovarian cancer metastasizing to cervix is 4.4 months. Authors report a case of bilateral ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma metastasising to posterior lip of cervix resulted in poor prognosis and proved fatal for the patient with review of published literature.

1997 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiro Sakai ◽  
Toshiharu Kamura ◽  
Toshio Hirakawa ◽  
Toshiaki Saito ◽  
Tsunehisa Kaku ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 1307-1313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Fournier ◽  
Eberhard Stoeckle ◽  
Frédéric Guyon ◽  
Véronique Brouste ◽  
Laurence Thomas ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Cuzick

Abstract There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this is also not true for biomarkers, especially when considering nontargeted therapies. Here I argue that for nontargeted treatments prognosis is often more important than interaction with treatment, because it is the absolute and not the relative benefit that matters, and when there is no treatment interaction, the same relative benefit translates into a larger absolute benefit for poor prognosis patients.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1410-1416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Aida Angeles ◽  
Gwénaël Ferron ◽  
Bastien Cabarrou ◽  
Gisèle Balague ◽  
Carlos Martínez-Gómez ◽  
...  

1993 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuhiro Tsuruchi ◽  
Toshiharu Kamura ◽  
Naoki Tsukamoto ◽  
Kouhei Akazawa ◽  
Toshiaki Saito ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-352
Author(s):  
E Burghardt ◽  
F Girardi ◽  
M Lahousen ◽  
K Tamussino ◽  
H Stettner

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document