Tumour size, volume, and marker expression during radiation therapy can predict survival of cervical cancer patients: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of KROG 16-01.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this multi-institutional study was to determine the prognostic impact of tumour parameters, such as tumour size (TS), tumour volume (TV), and marker expression, on survival during radiation therapy (RT) for cervical cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 231 patients with histologically confirmed cervical cancer, classified as Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Ib2-IVa, were enrolled in this study. Pre- and mid-RT pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-ag) analysis were performed twice, during RT and just before brachytherapy. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 27.8months (range, 2-116months). Multivariate analysis revealed that stage (odds ratio [OR], 2.936 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.119-7.707; P=0.029), tumour volume reduction rate (TVRR) (OR, 3.435 and 95% CI, 1.062-11.106; P=0.039), and SCC-ag reduction rate (SCCRR) (OR, 5.104 and 95% CI, 1.769-14.727; P=0.003) were independently associated with overall survival (OS), while pre-RT TS (OR, 2.148 and 95% CI, 1.221-3.810; P=0.009), mid-RT TV (OR, 3.106 and 95% CI, 1.685-5.724; P<0.0001) and SCCRR (OR, 1.954 and 95% CI, 1.133-3.369; P=0.016) were associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Based on the prognostic factor analysis, patients with the highest prognostic risk score of 3 showed poorer overall survival and progression free survival than patients with lower prognostic risk scores. CONCLUSION: We identified that tumour parameters such as TVRR, SCCRR, pre-RT TS, and mid-RT TV areindependent and strong prognostic parameters for patients with cervical cancer receiving RT. This scoring system-based prognostic factor analysis could be used to help develop optimized treatment plans for cervical cancer patients during RT.

Clinical outcomes after sentinel lymph node biopsy in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate non-sentinel lymph node (LN) status after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) in patients with breast cancer and to identify the predictive factors for disease failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2006 to December 2007, axillary lymph node (ALN) dissection after SNB was performed for patients with primary invasive breast cancer who had no clinical evidence of LN metastasis. A total of 320 patients were treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 48 years, and the median follow-up time was 72.8 months. Close resection margin (RM) was observed in 13 patients. The median number of dissected SNB was two, and that of total retrieved ALNs was 11. Sentinel node accuracy was 94.7%, and the overall false negative rate (FNR) was 5.3%. Eleven patients experienced treatment failure. Local recurrence, regional LN recurrence, and distant metastasis were identified in 0.9%, 1.9%, and 2.8% of these patients, respectively. Sentinel LN status were not associated with locoregional recurrence (p > 0.05). Close RM was the only significant factor for disease-free survival (DFS) in univariate and multivariate analysis. The 5-year overall survival, DFS, and locoregional DFS were 100%, 96.8%, and 98.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, SNB was performed with high accuracy and low FNR and high locoregional control was achieved.

Laparotomy versus laparoscopy for the treatment of adnexal masses during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has been highlighted as an effective surgical modality for diverse pelvic organ diseases. However, its surgical and obstetric efficacy has not been fully confirmed in pregnant women because of the absence of a large comparative study. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes between laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery for adnexal masses during pregnancy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 262 pregnant women who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery for adnexal masses between 2000 and 2009 was performed. RESULTS: Of the 262 women, 174 (66.4%) underwent laparotomy and 88 (33.6%) underwent laparoscopic surgery for adnexal masses. The laparoscopy group had a significantly shorter mean operative time (60.7 ± 27.1 vs 69.7 ± 24.4 min, P = 0.002) and mean hospital stay (4.7 ± 1.7 vs 6.6 ± 1.3 days, P < 0.001) than the laparotomy group. In multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference between laparoscopy and laparotomy group in obstetric outcomes, including preterm delivery and miscarriage rate, after adjusting for confounding factors, such as gestational age at surgery, emergency surgery and mass size. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach appears to offer a suitable alternative to laparotomy, which, in our setting, was associated with shorter operative times and hospital stays than laparotomy.