RESUMEN
Recent developments in chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies have improved treatment results in patients and promoted long-term survival. However, various adverse events caused by long-term chemotherapy are still being observed. Here, we report a case of myelodysplastic syndrome that developed during chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer and progressed to acute myeloid leukemia. However, chemotherapy for ovarian cancer was continued while maintaining the quality of life under certain conditions, such as maintenance of platelet levels in collaboration with a hematologist. A 69- year-old woman(gravida 3, para 2)was diagnosed with stage â ¢C ovarian cancer in our department. After 6 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus bevacizumab(TC plus Bev), we performed a simple abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, sigmoid colon resection, and low anterior resection. Postoperatively, 3 cycles of TC plus Bev and 6 cycles of Bev monotherapy were completed for stage â ¢C ovarian cancer (ypT3cNXM0, high-grade serous carcinoma). However, the cancer recurred, and the patient received 3 cycles of gemcitabine plus Bev and 3 cycles of doxorubicin plus Bev. Precursor cells and prolonged neutropenia were observed, and myelodysplastic syndrome was diagnosed. One month later, the condition progressed to acute myeloid leukemia. The patient's neutrophil count recovered spontaneously, and subsequently, 7 cycles of weekly paclitaxel plus Bev therapy were completed along with symptomatic treatment. Unfortunately, she died of septic shock against the background of acute myeloid leukemia. It is important to monitor the appearance of blasts for early detection of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes occurring during chemotherapy, as in the case in this report. Additionally, it is important to maintain platelet count and continue chemotherapy for the primary disease.
Asunto(s)
Leucemia Mieloide Aguda , Síndromes Mielodisplásicos , Neoplasias Ováricas , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias Ováricas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Ováricas/cirugía , Neoplasias Ováricas/patología , Bevacizumab , Paclitaxel , Carboplatino , Carcinoma Epitelial de Ovario/tratamiento farmacológico , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/tratamiento farmacológico , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/cirugía , Síndromes Mielodisplásicos/tratamiento farmacológico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to assess the oncologic outcomes of elderly patients who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer across three variables: hysterectomy approach, lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Hospital records of patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer were obtained from 19 institutions. Patients were categorized into three risk groups: low, intermediate, and high. In each group, disease-free survival and overall survival were compared according to hysterectomy approach, lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis with a 95% confidence interval was performed to estimate relative risk (RR) of death. RESULTS: A total of 1246 patients were included. In the low-risk group, the adjusted RR for death for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus laparotomy and lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection were 0.64 (0.24-1.72) and 0.52 (0.24-1.12), respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, the adjusted RR for death for MIS versus laparotomy, lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy versus no adjuvant therapy were 0.80 (0.36-1.77), 0.60 (0.37-0.98), and 0.89 (0.55-1.46), respectively. In the high-risk group, the adjusted RRs for death for lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection and adjuvant therapy versus no adjuvant therapy were 0.56 (0.37-0.86) and 0.60 (0.38-0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MIS is not inferior to laparotomy in uterine-confined diseases. Lymph node resection improved the outcome for all disease stages and histological types. In contrast, adjuvant therapy improved the outcomes only in high-risk patients.