Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoban, Gonca
dc.contributor.authorSahin, Hanifi
dc.contributor.authorMeydanli, Mehmet Mutlu
dc.contributor.authorSari, Mustafa Erkan
dc.contributor.authorYalcin, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorOzkan, Nazli Topfedaisi
dc.contributor.authorCuylan, Zeliha Firat
dc.contributor.authorErdem, Baki
dc.contributor.authorGungorduk, Kemal
dc.contributor.authorAkbayir, Ozgur
dc.contributor.authorDede, Murat
dc.contributor.authorSalman, Mustafa Coskun
dc.contributor.authorGungor, Tayfun
dc.contributor.authorAyhan, Ali
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-25T14:37:42Z
dc.date.available2019-05-25T14:37:42Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1757-2215
dc.identifier.urihttps://ovarianresearch.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13048-018-0393-0
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/3305
dc.description.abstractBackground: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the prognosis of non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with exclusively retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) metastases, and to compare the prognosis of these women to that of patients who had abdominal peritoneal involvement. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective department database review was performed to identify patients with stage III non-serous EOC at 7 gynecologic oncology centers in Turkey. Demographic, clinicopathological and survival data were collected. The patients were divided into three groups based on the initial sites of disease: 1) the retroperitoneal (RP) group included patients who had positive pelvic and / or para-aortic LNs only. 2) The intraperitoneal (IP) group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis. These patients all had a negative LN status, 3) The IP / RP group included patients with > 2 cm IP dissemination outside of the pelvis as well as positive LN status. Survival data were compared with regard to the groups. Results: We identified 179 women with stage III non-serous EOC who were treated at 7 participating centers during the study period. The median age of the patients was 53 years, and the median duration of follow-up was 39 months. There were 35 (19.6%) patients in the RP group, 72 (40.2%) in the IP group and 72 (40.2%) in the IP/RP group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for the RP, the IP, and IP/ RP groups were 66.4%, 37.6%, and 25.5%, respectively (p = 0.002). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the RP group was significantly longer when compared to those of the IP, and the IP/RP groups (74.4% vs. 54%, and 36%, respectively; p = 0.011). However, we were not able to define "RP only disease" as an independent prognostic factor for increased DFS or OS. Conclusions: Primary non-serous EOC patients with node-positive-only disease seem to have better survival when compared to those with extra-pelvic peritoneal involvement.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1186/s13048-018-0393-0en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectClear cell adenocarcinomaen_US
dc.subjectEndometrioid adenocarcinomaen_US
dc.subjectEpithelial ovarian canceren_US
dc.subjectLymph node dissectionen_US
dc.subjectMucinous adenocarcinomaen_US
dc.subjectSurvival analysisen_US
dc.titleDoes the primary route of spread have a prognostic significance in stage III non-serous epithelial ovarian cancer?en_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCHen_US
dc.identifier.volume11en_US
dc.identifier.wos000426678700001


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record