Upstaging pathologic stage i ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted: A clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II

Jeffrey D. Seidman, Jonathan A. Cosin, Brant G. Wang, Skylar Alsop, Anna Yemelyanova, Abbie Fields, Charles R. Boice, Richard J. Zaino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: FIGO stage II ovarian cancer comprises 8% of ovarian cancers. It is a common but not universal practice to upstage densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II. FIGO guidelines are not clear, and data supporting this practice are sparse. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II ovarian cancer and grouped them based upon histologic evidence of extraovarian extension. Tumors densely adherent to extraovarian structures but without histologic tumor outside the ovary were considered pathologic stage I. All others were considered surgical-pathologic stage II. Three histologic patterns of extraovarian tumor involvement were identified. Results: Eighty-four patients were studied. Twenty-four patients had pathologic stage I disease and 60 had histologic evidence of extraovarian pelvic spread and were surgical-pathologic stage II. The 5-year survival for stage I was 100%, and the median survival was not reached. The 5-year survival for those with surgical-pathologic stage II disease was 56.8% and the median survival was 73 months. There were no differences observed based upon pattern of extraovarian spread. The survival difference between pathologic stage I and surgical-pathologic stage II was significant (p <0.001). There were no differences seen in 5-year survival among surgical-pathologic stage II patients with serous, endometrioid or clear cell histologies (64.5%, 64.8% and 64.3% respectively). Conclusion: These retrospective data suggest that the practice of upstaging densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II may not be warranted. Cell type is not a prognostic factor in stage II.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)250-254
Number of pages5
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume119
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Carcinoma
Survival
Ovarian Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Ovary
Histology
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Adhesions
  • Ovarian carcinoma
  • Prognosis
  • Staging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Upstaging pathologic stage i ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted : A clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II. / Seidman, Jeffrey D.; Cosin, Jonathan A.; Wang, Brant G.; Alsop, Skylar; Yemelyanova, Anna; Fields, Abbie; Boice, Charles R.; Zaino, Richard J.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 119, No. 2, 11.2010, p. 250-254.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seidman, Jeffrey D. ; Cosin, Jonathan A. ; Wang, Brant G. ; Alsop, Skylar ; Yemelyanova, Anna ; Fields, Abbie ; Boice, Charles R. ; Zaino, Richard J. / Upstaging pathologic stage i ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted : A clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II. In: Gynecologic Oncology. 2010 ; Vol. 119, No. 2. pp. 250-254.
@article{dec094e85e4d46e98d5b02c8ed31280a,
title = "Upstaging pathologic stage i ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted: A clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II",
abstract = "Background: FIGO stage II ovarian cancer comprises 8{\%} of ovarian cancers. It is a common but not universal practice to upstage densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II. FIGO guidelines are not clear, and data supporting this practice are sparse. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II ovarian cancer and grouped them based upon histologic evidence of extraovarian extension. Tumors densely adherent to extraovarian structures but without histologic tumor outside the ovary were considered pathologic stage I. All others were considered surgical-pathologic stage II. Three histologic patterns of extraovarian tumor involvement were identified. Results: Eighty-four patients were studied. Twenty-four patients had pathologic stage I disease and 60 had histologic evidence of extraovarian pelvic spread and were surgical-pathologic stage II. The 5-year survival for stage I was 100{\%}, and the median survival was not reached. The 5-year survival for those with surgical-pathologic stage II disease was 56.8{\%} and the median survival was 73 months. There were no differences observed based upon pattern of extraovarian spread. The survival difference between pathologic stage I and surgical-pathologic stage II was significant (p <0.001). There were no differences seen in 5-year survival among surgical-pathologic stage II patients with serous, endometrioid or clear cell histologies (64.5{\%}, 64.8{\%} and 64.3{\%} respectively). Conclusion: These retrospective data suggest that the practice of upstaging densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II may not be warranted. Cell type is not a prognostic factor in stage II.",
keywords = "Adhesions, Ovarian carcinoma, Prognosis, Staging",
author = "Seidman, {Jeffrey D.} and Cosin, {Jonathan A.} and Wang, {Brant G.} and Skylar Alsop and Anna Yemelyanova and Abbie Fields and Boice, {Charles R.} and Zaino, {Richard J.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "119",
pages = "250--254",
journal = "Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Upstaging pathologic stage i ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted

T2 - A clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II

AU - Seidman, Jeffrey D.

AU - Cosin, Jonathan A.

AU - Wang, Brant G.

AU - Alsop, Skylar

AU - Yemelyanova, Anna

AU - Fields, Abbie

AU - Boice, Charles R.

AU - Zaino, Richard J.

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Background: FIGO stage II ovarian cancer comprises 8% of ovarian cancers. It is a common but not universal practice to upstage densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II. FIGO guidelines are not clear, and data supporting this practice are sparse. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II ovarian cancer and grouped them based upon histologic evidence of extraovarian extension. Tumors densely adherent to extraovarian structures but without histologic tumor outside the ovary were considered pathologic stage I. All others were considered surgical-pathologic stage II. Three histologic patterns of extraovarian tumor involvement were identified. Results: Eighty-four patients were studied. Twenty-four patients had pathologic stage I disease and 60 had histologic evidence of extraovarian pelvic spread and were surgical-pathologic stage II. The 5-year survival for stage I was 100%, and the median survival was not reached. The 5-year survival for those with surgical-pathologic stage II disease was 56.8% and the median survival was 73 months. There were no differences observed based upon pattern of extraovarian spread. The survival difference between pathologic stage I and surgical-pathologic stage II was significant (p <0.001). There were no differences seen in 5-year survival among surgical-pathologic stage II patients with serous, endometrioid or clear cell histologies (64.5%, 64.8% and 64.3% respectively). Conclusion: These retrospective data suggest that the practice of upstaging densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II may not be warranted. Cell type is not a prognostic factor in stage II.

AB - Background: FIGO stage II ovarian cancer comprises 8% of ovarian cancers. It is a common but not universal practice to upstage densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II. FIGO guidelines are not clear, and data supporting this practice are sparse. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II ovarian cancer and grouped them based upon histologic evidence of extraovarian extension. Tumors densely adherent to extraovarian structures but without histologic tumor outside the ovary were considered pathologic stage I. All others were considered surgical-pathologic stage II. Three histologic patterns of extraovarian tumor involvement were identified. Results: Eighty-four patients were studied. Twenty-four patients had pathologic stage I disease and 60 had histologic evidence of extraovarian pelvic spread and were surgical-pathologic stage II. The 5-year survival for stage I was 100%, and the median survival was not reached. The 5-year survival for those with surgical-pathologic stage II disease was 56.8% and the median survival was 73 months. There were no differences observed based upon pattern of extraovarian spread. The survival difference between pathologic stage I and surgical-pathologic stage II was significant (p <0.001). There were no differences seen in 5-year survival among surgical-pathologic stage II patients with serous, endometrioid or clear cell histologies (64.5%, 64.8% and 64.3% respectively). Conclusion: These retrospective data suggest that the practice of upstaging densely adherent pathologic stage I tumors to stage II may not be warranted. Cell type is not a prognostic factor in stage II.

KW - Adhesions

KW - Ovarian carcinoma

KW - Prognosis

KW - Staging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77957750593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77957750593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.002

DO - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 20673974

AN - SCOPUS:77957750593

VL - 119

SP - 250

EP - 254

JO - Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 2

ER -