File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-ESGO.172
- WOS: WOS:000523502500259
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Web of Science: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: Comparison of different staging systems for high-grade uterine leiomyosarcoma
Title | Comparison of different staging systems for high-grade uterine leiomyosarcoma |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2019 |
Publisher | BMJ Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.ijgc.net/ |
Citation | 21st International Meeting of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), Athens, Greece, 2-5 November 2019. Meeting Abstracts in International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer, 2019, v. 29 n. Suppl. 4 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Introduction/Background The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) had developed a staging system specific to each type of uterine sarcoma in 2009. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) also has another staging system for soft tissue sarcoma. However there were limited data to validate these systems due to the rarity of the tumor. Even among uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS), the clinical behaviors differ between high-grade and low-grade disease.
Methodology Patients with uLMS diagnosed in Jrun 1993 - Jan 2014 were identified. All specimens were reviewed by gynecologic pathologists using the World Health Organization diagnostic criteria. Survival and recurrence status were recorded from the medical records.
Results 142 high-grade uLMS patients had enough information for analysis. The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 36 months (inter-quartile range 13–77 months). In terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both the 1988 FIGO and AJCC staging systems could classify patients into four distinct groups, while patients with stage 2 in the 2009 FIGO staging system had a worse prognosis compared to stage 3 (table 1, figure 1). And neither of the two FIGO staging systems could categorize the patients meaningfully according to their sub-stages (table 2). In addition, patients are early stage, regardless of the staging systems, had a high recurrence rate up to 50% (table 1).
Conclusion None of the staging systems could accurately predict the patients‘ outcomes according to their stages. Further collaborative studies are needed in order to establish a better staging system to predict the prognosis and guide the adjuvant of the patients. |
Description | Poster exhibition Day 2 - no. P109 |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/281823 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.1 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.107 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Tse, KY | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ngan, HYS | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ip, PCP | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-03-27T04:22:56Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-03-27T04:22:56Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 21st International Meeting of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), Athens, Greece, 2-5 November 2019. Meeting Abstracts in International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer, 2019, v. 29 n. Suppl. 4 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1048-891X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/281823 | - |
dc.description | Poster exhibition Day 2 - no. P109 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction/Background The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) had developed a staging system specific to each type of uterine sarcoma in 2009. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) also has another staging system for soft tissue sarcoma. However there were limited data to validate these systems due to the rarity of the tumor. Even among uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS), the clinical behaviors differ between high-grade and low-grade disease. Methodology Patients with uLMS diagnosed in Jrun 1993 - Jan 2014 were identified. All specimens were reviewed by gynecologic pathologists using the World Health Organization diagnostic criteria. Survival and recurrence status were recorded from the medical records. Results 142 high-grade uLMS patients had enough information for analysis. The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 36 months (inter-quartile range 13–77 months). In terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both the 1988 FIGO and AJCC staging systems could classify patients into four distinct groups, while patients with stage 2 in the 2009 FIGO staging system had a worse prognosis compared to stage 3 (table 1, figure 1). And neither of the two FIGO staging systems could categorize the patients meaningfully according to their sub-stages (table 2). In addition, patients are early stage, regardless of the staging systems, had a high recurrence rate up to 50% (table 1). Conclusion None of the staging systems could accurately predict the patients‘ outcomes according to their stages. Further collaborative studies are needed in order to establish a better staging system to predict the prognosis and guide the adjuvant of the patients. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | BMJ Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.ijgc.net/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | 21st International Meeting of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) | - |
dc.rights | International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. Copyright © BMJ Group. | - |
dc.title | Comparison of different staging systems for high-grade uterine leiomyosarcoma | - |
dc.type | Conference_Paper | - |
dc.identifier.email | Tse, KY: tseky@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Ngan, HYS: hysngan@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Ip, PCP: philipip@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Tse, KY=rp02391 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Ngan, HYS=rp00346 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Ip, PCP=rp01890 | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1136/ijgc-2019-ESGO.172 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 309522 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 29 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | Suppl. 4 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000523502500259 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1048-891X | - |