The Use of “Optimal Cytoreduction” Nomenclature in Ovarian Cancer Literature: Can We Move Toward a More Optimal Classification System?

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer - Tập 26 Số 8 - Trang 1421-1427 - 2016
Ana M. Angarita1, Rebecca L. Stone1, Sarah M. Temkin1, Kimberly Levinson1, Amanda N. Fader1, Edward J. Tanner1
1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD.

Tóm tắt

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to explore how cytoreductive surgical outcomes such as residual disease (RD) and use of the term “optimal cytoreduction” (OCR) have changed over time in the ovarian cancer literature.MethodsWe identified all English-language publications referring to ovarian cancer cytoreduction for a 12-year period. Publications were evaluated for how the diameter of RD was categorized and whether OCR was defined. In addition, the use of RD and OCR terminology trends over time and associations between terminology and the region of corresponding author, study type, and journal impact factor were explored.ResultsOf the 772 publications meeting inclusion criteria, the RD stratification points used to demarcate patient groups were as follows: 0 mm (45%), 5 mm (3.6%), 10 mm (65%), and 20 mm (24%). The use of 0-mm RD (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.15) and 10-mm RD (OR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.20) to delineate patient outcomes increased over time. The use of OCR terminology did not change over time but was more commonly used in clinical studies as well as those from North America. Many studies (70%) defined OCR as less than or equal to 10-mm RD, whereas 30% defined OCR differently or not at all.ConclusionsOptimal cytoreduction terminology remains ambiguous and inconsistently used in the ovarian cancer surgical literature. On the basis of this literature review, we propose a novel classification system to categorize RD without reference to OCR while accurately and succinctly identifying meaningful clinical subgroups and minimizing bias.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Griffiths, 1975, Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 42, 101

Eisenhauer, 2006, Gynecol Oncol, 103, 1083, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.028

Ozols, 2003, J Clin Oncol, 21, 3194, 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.153

Wright, 2015, J Clin Oncol, 33, 2841, 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4776

Poonawalla, 2015, Value Health, 18, 387, 10.1016/j.jval.2015.01.005

Ren, 2015, Int J Gynecol Cancer, 25, 1398, 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000517

Vergote, 2010, N Engl J Med, 363, 943, 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806

Greco, 1981, Obstet Gynecol, 58, 199

Hacker, 1983, Obstet Gynecol, 61, 413

Vogl, 1983, Cancer, 51, 2024, 10.1002/1097-0142(19830601)51:11<2024::AID-CNCR2820511111>3.0.CO;2-I

Delgado, 1984, Gynecol Oncol, 18, 293, 10.1016/0090-8258(84)90040-4

Hoskins, 1994, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 170, 974, 10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70090-7

Montz, 1989, Gynecol Oncol, 35, 338, 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90074-7

Ng, 1990, Gynecol Oncol, 38, 358, 10.1016/0090-8258(90)90073-T

Chang, 2013, Gynecol Oncol, 130, 493, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.040

Elattar, 2011, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, CD007565

Horowitz, 2015, J Clin Oncol, 33, 937, 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106

Sugarbaker, 2001, Jpn J Clin Oncol, 31, 573, 10.1093/jjco/hye088

Gogoi, 2012, Gynecol Oncol, 126, 217, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.049

Rudaitis, 2014, Int J Gynecol Cancer, 24, 1395, 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000247

Tentes, 2003, Eur J Surg Oncol, 29, 69, 10.1053/ejso.2002.1380

Chang, 2012, Gynecol Oncol, 126, 381, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.014

Verhaak, 2013, J Clin Invest, 123, 517

Abdallah, 2015, Int J Gynecol Cancer, 25, 1000, 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000549

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Tập 26 Số 8

1421-1427

Thông tin tác giả