scholarly journals Long-Term Survival and Clinicopathological Implications of DNA Mismatch Repair Status in Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers in Hong Kong Chinese Women

Biomedicines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1385
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Ho Sze Lee ◽  
Joshua Jing Xi Li ◽  
Chit Chow ◽  
Ronald Cheong Kin Chan ◽  
Johnny Sheung Him Kwan ◽  
...  

To investigate the role of DNA mismatch repair status (MMR) in survival of endometrioid endometrial cancer in Hong Kong Chinese women and its correlation to clinical prognostic factors, 238 patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer were included. Tumor MMR status was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Clinical characteristics and survival were determined. Association of MMR with survival and clinicopathological parameters were assessed. MMR deficiency (dMMR) was found in 43 cases (16.5%). dMMR was associated with poor prognostic factors including older age, higher stage, higher grade, larger tumor size and more radiotherapy usage. Long-term survival was worse in dMMR compared to the MMR proficient group. The dMMR group had more deaths, shorter disease-specific survival (DSS), shorter disease-free survival (DFS), less 10-year DSS, less 10-year DFS, and more recurrence. The 5-year DSS and 5-year DFS in the dMMR group only showed a trend of worse survival but did not reach statistical significance. In conclusion, dMMR is present in a significant number of endometrioid endometrial cancers patients and is associated with poorer clinicopathological factors and survival parameters in the long run. dMMR should be considered in the risk stratification of endometrial cancer to guide adjuvant therapy and individualisation for longer follow up plan.

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 937-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leszek Gottwald ◽  
Piotr Pluta ◽  
Janusz Piekarski ◽  
Michał Spych ◽  
Katarzyna Hendzel ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16537-e16537
Author(s):  
Yun-hsin Tang ◽  
Angel Chao ◽  
Chyong-Huey Lai ◽  
Cheng-Tao Lin ◽  
Gingin Lin ◽  
...  

e16537 Background: To evaluate the clinical features and the outcomes of endometrial cancer with treatment failure after primary definitive surgery. Methods: A total of 89 patients who received primary definitive surgery between 2000 and 2010 with treatment failure were retrospectively reviewed. The correlation of clinicopathological features, primary treatment, failure pattern, and salvage treatment with outcomes were analyzed. Results: Twenty of the 89 patients with persistent or progressive diseases died at a median of 7.6 months (range, 1.9-14.0 months). The remaining 69 patients with initial disease controlled but subsequent relapse had a median time to recurrence of 13.9 months (range, 3.2 – 97.1). Assessable failure patterns included vaginal only in 14.5%, pelvic in 2.9%, distant in 59.4%, distant and loco-regional in 23.2%. The median survival after recurrence (SAR) was 25.5 months (range 1.5-121.7 months). The 5-year SAR rate was 52.7%. By univariate analysis, FIGO stage, grade of differentiation, histologic cell type, cervical invasion, adnexal metastasis, and status of lymph node metastasis when initial diagnosis, and bone or/and lung metastasis, radiotherapy after recurrence, and CA-125 ≥ 35 U/mL at recurrence were significant factors of 5-year survival after recurrence. By multivariate analysis, high-grade cancer (HR 3.05, 1.17-8.01; p = 0.023), bone and/or lung metastasis at recurrence (HR2.81, 1.15-6.85; p = 0.023), and CA-125 ≥ 35 U/mL (HR 2.85, 1.18-6.87; p = 0.013) were significantly poor prognostic factors for SAR. Six patients achieved long-term survival with more than one recurrence after aggressive multimodal salvage therapy along with deliberate restaging and post-therapy surveillance. Conclusions: High-grade, bone and/or lung metastasis and CA-125 ≥ 35 U/mL at recurrence were significantly poor prognostic factors for SAR. After intensive treatment, patients with recurrent endometrial cancer may have long-term survival.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 103070
Author(s):  
Nicholas B. Abt ◽  
Lauren E. Miller ◽  
Tara E. Mokhtari ◽  
Derrick T. Lin ◽  
Jeremy D. Richmon ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo Marte ◽  
Andrea Tufo ◽  
Francesca Steccanella ◽  
Ester Marra ◽  
Piera Federico ◽  
...  

Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.


2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcella Arru ◽  
Luca Aldrighetti ◽  
Renato Castoldi ◽  
Saverio Di Palo ◽  
Elena Orsenigo ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seok-Yeon Kim ◽  
Joo-Yong Han ◽  
Yong-Jin Kim ◽  
Ji-Dong Sung ◽  
In-Ho Chae ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document