4.7 Article

Prognostic impact of lymphadenectomy in clinically early stage malignant germ cell tumour of the ovary

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages 493-497

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.267

Keywords

lymphadenectomy; survival; clinical stage I; malignant germ cell tumour; ovary

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of lymphadenectomy and nodal metastasis on survival in clinical stage I malignant ovarian germ cell tumour (OGCT). METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute registry from 1988 to 2006. Analyses were performed using Student's t-test, Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. RESULTS: In all, 1083 patients with OGCT who have undergone surgical treatment and deemed at time of the surgery to have disease clinically confined to the ovary were included 590 (54.48%) had no lymphadenectomy (LND-1) and 493 (45.52%) had lymphadenectomy. Of the 493 patients who had lymphadenectomy, 441 (89.5%) were FIGO surgical stage I (LND+1) and 52 (10.5%) were upstaged to FIGO stage IIIC due to nodal metastasis (LND+3C). The 5-year survival was 96.9% for LND-1, 97.7% for LND+1 and 93.4% for LND+3C (P = 0.5). On multivariate analysis, lymphadenectomy was not an independent predictor of survival when controlling for age, histology and race (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.62-2.58, P = 0.5). Moreover, the presence of lymph node metastasis had no significant effect on survival (HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 0.67-10.96, P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Neither lymphadenectomy nor lymph node metastasis was an independent predictor of survival in patients with OGCT confined to the ovary. This probably reflects the highly chemosensitive nature of these tumours. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 493-497. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.267 www.bjcancer.com Published online 19 July 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available