scholarly journals Multiple Primary Malignancies in Patients with Gynecologic Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Eun-Jung Yang ◽  
Ji-Hyeon Lee ◽  
A-Jin Lee ◽  
Nae-Ry Kim ◽  
Yong-Taek Ouh ◽  
...  

Objective: To investigate the prevalence and oncologic outcomes of patients with multiple primary malignant tumors (MPMT) with gynecologic cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included 1929 patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer at a tertiary medical center between August 2005 and April 2021. The clinical data included cancer location, age at primary malignancy diagnosis, interval between primary and secondary cancer, stage of cancer, family history of cancer, genetic testing, dates of last follow-up, recurrence, and death. Results: The prevalence of MPMT with gynecologic cancer in patients was 8.6% and the mean diagnostic period between primary and secondary cancer was 60 months. Furthermore, 20 of the 165 patients with MPMT had multiple primary gynecologic cancers (MPGC), whereas 145 had gynecologic cancer coexisting with non-gynecologic cancer (GNC). Endometrial-ovarian cancer (60%) was the most common coexisting cancer in the MPGC group, whereas the most common non-gynecologic cancer in the GNC group was breast cancer (34.5%). There were 48 patients with synchronous cancer and 117 patients with metachronous cancer. The incidence of synchronous cancer was higher in the MPGC group than in the GNC group (p = 0.037). Significantly more patients had early-stage ovarian cancer in the MPGC group than in the GNC group (p = 0.031). The overall recurrence and mortality rates were 15.8% and 8.5%, respectively, in patients with MPMT. Conclusion: Synchronous cancer incidence was significantly higher in the MPGC than in the GNC group. Early-stage ovarian cancer was more highly diagnosed in patients with MPGC than in those with GNC. A systematic examination after primary cancer diagnosis could facilitate the early diagnosis of secondary primary malignancy, thereby improving patient prognosis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingduo Kong ◽  
Hongyi Wei ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Yilin Li ◽  
Yongjun Wang

Abstract Background Laparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC. Methods According to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2). Results A total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008). Conclusions Laparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.


2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gamal H. Eltabbakh ◽  
Pramila R. Yadev ◽  
Ann Morgan

Oncology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 365-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aristotle Bamias ◽  
Christina Bamia ◽  
Alexandra Karadimou ◽  
Nikolaos Soupos ◽  
Flora Zagouri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document