Treatment of recurrent serous borderline tumors with noninvasive peritoneal implants

Final pathology showed a serous borderline ovarian tumor (Figure 1A) with foci of microinvasion and one non-invasive implant (Figure 1B) in the omentun measuring 5 mm (2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage: IIIB). The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESG...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:International journal of gynecological cancer Ročník 34; číslo 9; s. 1466 - 1469
Hlavní autoři: Navarro Santana, Beatriz, Arencibia, Octavio, Andújar, Miguel, Rubio, Jano, Martin, Alicia
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.09.2024
Elsevier Inc
Elsevier Limited
Témata:
ISSN:1048-891X, 1525-1438, 1525-1438
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Final pathology showed a serous borderline ovarian tumor (Figure 1A) with foci of microinvasion and one non-invasive implant (Figure 1B) in the omentun measuring 5 mm (2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage: IIIB). The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines 3 do not recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for primary treatment of serous borderline tumors with extraovarian invasive and non-invasive implants. The authors did not find differences in progression- free survival between patients who received chemotherapy and those who did not. 6 Dr. Martin: What is the role of hormonal therapy in patients with serous borderline tumors? NCCN guidelines 4 recommend surgery for patients with recurrent serous borderline tumors. Residual disease after cytoreductive surgery and the type of peritoneal implants are important factors for prognosis in the advanced stages. 8 Survival is worse in patients with invasive implants compared with non-invasive. 8 A meta-analysis of 97 studies including 4129 women showed that survival of non-invasive implants was 95.3% while it was 66% for those with invasive implants (p<0.0001).
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Case Study-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-4
ObjectType-Report-1
ObjectType-Article-3
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Report-3
ObjectType-Case Study-4
ISSN:1048-891X
1525-1438
1525-1438
DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2024-005811