PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2014 | 12 | 2 | 98-114
Article title

Znaczenie obserwacji pacjentów z nowotworem ginekologicznym: doświadczenie jednego ośrodka na Słowacji

Content
Title variants
EN
The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: single institution experience in Slovakia
Languages of publication
EN PL
Abstracts
EN
Background: A routine follow-up is standard medical practice in patients treated for gynecologic cancer. Objectives of the follow-up are: 1) to detect recurrence as soon as possible and therefore improve the survival of patients with recurrence; 2) to diagnose complications related to treatment; 3) to provide psychological support and 4) to participate in scientific studies. The aim of our study was to compare the survival differences between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the time of relapse. Method: Retrospective cohort analysis. Results: All women diagnosed and treated for vulvar, cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2012 were included in this retrospective study. We identified 59 patients with vulvar cancer, 216 with cervical cancer, 311 with endometrial cancer and 177 with ovarian cancer. The median survival time after recurrence between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients was in vulvar cancer 22 vs. 27 months (p = 0.181), in cervical cancer 10 vs. 13 months (p = 0.123), in endometrial cancer 19 vs. 30 months (p = 0.265) and in ovarian cancer 19 vs. 18 months (p = 0.861). Conclusions: There was no survival difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the time of relapse. Follow-up may become effective if the procedures are adapted to other aims of routine practice (e.g. psychosocial care and monitoring adverse effects of treatment). The development of follow-up care is a dynamic process, especially in the light of the continuous development of new medical technologies.
PL
Wstęp: Rutynowe badania kontrolne to procedury standardowe u pacjentek leczonych z powodu nowotworów ginekologicznych. Celem obserwacji jest: 1) jak najwcześniejsze wykrycie nawrotu i związana z tym poprawa przeżywalności pacjentek; 2) rozpoznanie powikłań związanych z leczeniem; 3) zapewnienie wsparcia psychologicznego oraz 4) prowadzenie badań naukowych. Celem niniejszej pracy było porównanie przeżywalności u pacjentek z objawami i bez objawów w czasie wznowy choroby nowotworowej. Metoda: Retrospektywne badanie kohortowe. Wyniki: Do badania retrospektywnego włączono wszystkie kobiety, u których rozpoznano i które leczono z powodu raka sromu, szyjki macicy, endometrium lub jajnika w naszym ośrodku w latach 2003–2012. Raka sromu stwierdzono u 59, raka szyjki macicy u 216, raka błony śluzowej trzonu macicy u 311, a raka jajnika u 177 pacjentek. Odpowiednio dla pacjentek z objawami i bez objawów mediana przeżycia po rozpoznaniu nawrotu wynosiła 22 vs 27 m iesięcy ( p = 0,181) w przypadku raka sromu, 10 vs 13 m iesięcy ( p = 0,123) w przypadku raka szyjki macicy, 19 vs 30 miesięcy (p = 0,265) w przypadku raka endometrium oraz 19 vs 18 miesięcy (p = 0,861) w przypadku raka jajnika. Wnioski: Nie wykazano różnic w przeżywalności między pacjentkami z objawami i bez objawów w czasie wznowy choroby nowotworowej. Obserwacja może być skuteczna, gdy jej procedury dostosowane są do innych celów postępowania rutynowego (np. opieki psychologicznej i monitorowania objawów niepożądanych związanych z leczeniem). Doskonalenie okresu obserwacji jest procesem dynamicznym, szczególnie w świetle ciągłego rozwoju nowych technologii medycznych.
Discipline
Year
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
98-114
Physical description
References
  • 1. Vistad I., Moy B.W., Salvesen H.B., Liavaag A.H.: Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer – time for a change? Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2011; 90: 707–718.
  • 2. Società Italiana di Ginecologia e Ostetricia (Italy). 2012. Adres: www.sigo.it.
  • 3. Dansk Selskab for Obstetrik og Gynækologi (Denmark). 2012. Adres: www.dgc.eu.com/fundanemt/files/filer/DGC_retningslinier_ for_cervix_revideret20jan2007.pdf.
  • 4. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (Germany) – AWMF online – Leitlinien – FRAME-Version 2010. Adres: www.awmf.org/orgleitlinien/ detail/II/032-034.html.
  • 5. ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) 2011 – Guidelines. 2012. Adres: www.annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ content/20/suppl.4/iv29.full.
  • 6. Benedet J.L., Bender H., Jones H. 3rd i wsp.: FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2000; 70: 209–262.
  • 7. Pecorelli S.: Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2009; 105: 103–104.
  • 8. Maggino T., Landoni F., Sartori E. i wsp.: Patterns of recurrence in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. A multicenter CTF Study. Cancer 2000; 89: 116–122.
  • 9. Cheng X., Zang R., Wu X. i wsp.: Recurrence patterns and prognostic factors in Chinese patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva treated with primary surgery. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2009; 19: 158–162.
  • 10. Woolderink J.M., de Bock G.H., de Hullu J.A. i wsp.: Patterns and frequency of recurrences of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. Gynecol. Oncol. 2006; 103: 293–299.
  • 11. Rhodes C.A., Cummins C., Shafi M.I.: The management of squamous cell vulval cancer: a population based retrospective study of 411 cases. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1998; 105: 200–205.
  • 12. Nordin A., Mohammed K.A., Naik R. i wsp.: Does long-term follow-up have a role for node negative squamous carcinoma of the vulva? The Gateshead experience. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2001; 22: 36–39.
  • 13. Mlynček M.: Sledování po léčbě. W: Cibula D., Petruželka L. i wsp.: Onkogynekologie. Grada Publishing, Praha 2009: 370.
  • 14. de Hullu J.A., Hollema H., Lolkema S. i wsp.: Vulvar carcinoma. The price of less radical surgery. Cancer 2002; 95: 2331–2338.
  • 15. Stehman F.B., Bundy B.N., Ball H., Clarke-Pearson D.L.: Sites of failure and times to failure in carcinoma of the vulva treated conservatively: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996; 174: 1128–1132.
  • 16. Monk B.J., Tewari K.S.: Invasive cervical cancer. W: DiSaia P.J., Creasman W.T. (red.): Clinical Gynecologic Oncology. Wyd. 7, Mosby, St. Louis (MO) 2002: 54–124.
  • 17. Morice P., Deyrolle C., Rey A. i wsp.: Value of routine follow- up procedures for patients with stage I/II cervical cancer treated with combined surgery-radiation therapy. Ann. Oncol. 2004; 15: 218–223.
  • 18. Bodurka-Bevers D., Morris M., Eifel P.J. i wsp.: Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 78: 187–193.
  • 19. Duyn A., Van Eijkeren M., Kenter G. i wsp.: Recurrent cervical cancer: detection and prognosis. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2002; 81: 351–355.
  • 20. Ansink A., de Barros Lopes A., Naik R., Monaghan J.M.: Recurrent stage IB cervical carcinoma: evaluation of the effectiveness of routine follow up surveillance. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1996; 103: 1156–1158.
  • 21. Stehman F.B., Bundy B.N., DiSaia P.J. i wsp.: Carcinoma of the cervix treated with radiation therapy. I. A multi-variate analysis of prognostic variables in the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer 1991; 67: 2776–2785.
  • 22. Burghardt E. (red.): Surgical Gynecologic Oncology. Thieme Medical Publishers Inc., New York 1993: 185–222.
  • 23. Zola P., Fuso L., Mazzola S. i wsp.: Follow-up strategies in gynecological oncology: searching appropriateness. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2007; 17: 1186–1193.
  • 24. Mabuchi S., Isohashi F., Maruoka S. i wsp.: Post-treatment follow-up procedures in cervical cancer patients previously treated with radiotherapy. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012; 286: 179–185.
  • 25. Reddoch J.M., Burke T.W., Morris M. i wsp.: Surveillance for recurrent endometrial carcinoma: development of a follow-up scheme. Gynecol. Oncol. 1995; 59: 221–225.
  • 26. Berchuck A., Anspach C., Evans A.C. i wsp.: Postsurgical surveillance of patients with FIGO stage I/II endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 1995; 59: 20–24.
  • 27. Owen P., Duncan I.D.: Is there any value in the long term follow up of women treated for endometrial cancer? Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1996; 103: 710–713.
  • 28. Salvesen H.B., Akslen L.A., Iversen T., Iversen O.E.: Recurrence of endometrial carcinoma and the value of routine follow up. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1997; 104: 1302–1307.
  • 29. Agboola O.O., Grunfeld E., Coyle D., Perry G.A.: Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer. CMAJ 1997; 157: 879–886.
  • 30. Shumsky A.G., Stuart G.C., Brasher P.M. i wsp.: An evaluation of routine follow-up of patients treated for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 1994; 55: 229–233.
  • 31. Tjalma W.A., van Dam P.A., Makar A.P., Cruickshank D.J.: The clinical value and the cost-effectiveness of follow-up in endometrial cancer patients. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2004; 14: 931–937.
  • 32. Lajer H., Jensen M.B., Kilsmark J. i wsp.: The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: evidence-based ignorance? Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2010; 20: 1307–1320.
  • 33. Gadducci A., Cosio S., Fanucchi A. i wsp.: An intensive follow-up does not change survival of patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res. 2000; 20: 1977–1984.
  • 34. Morice P., Levy-Piedbois C., Ajaj S. i wsp.: Value and cost evaluation of routine follow-up for patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2001; 37: 985–990.
  • 35. Smith C.J., Heeren M., Nicklin J.L. i wsp.: Efficacy of routine follow-up in patients with recurrent uterine cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 107: 124–129.
  • 36. Fung-Kee-Fung M., Dodge J., Elit L. i wsp.; Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-based Care Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group: Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol. Oncol. 2006; 101: 520–529.
  • 37. Carrara L., Gadducci A., Landoni F. i wsp.: Could different follow-up modalities play a role in the diagnosis of asymptomatic endometrial cancer relapses? An Italian multicentric retrospective analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012; 22: 1013–1019.
  • 38. Gadducci A., Cosio S., Zola P. i wsp.: Surveillance procedures for patients treated for epithelial ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2007; 17: 21–31.
  • 39. Petruželka L., Fischerová D., Novotný J.: Chemoterapie. W: Cibula D., Petruželka L. i wsp.: Onkogynekologie. Grada Publishing, Praha 2009: 544–554.
  • 40. Gadducci A., Fuso L., Cosio S. i wsp.: Are surveillance procedures of clinical benefit for patients treated for ovarian cancer? A retrospective Italian multicentric study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2009; 19: 367–374.
  • 41. Chan K.K., Tam K.F., Tse K.Y., Ngan H.Y.: The role of regular physical examination in the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 110: 158–161.
  • 42. Tanner E.J., Chi D.S., Eisenhauer E.L. i wsp.: Surveillance for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: survival impact or lead-time bias? Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 117: 336–340.
  • 43. Geurts S.M., de Vegt F., van Altena A.M. i wsp.: Impact of routine follow-up examinations on life expectancy in ovarian cancer patients: a simulation study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012; 22: 1150–1157.
  • 44. Gadducci A., Cosio S., Conte P.F., Genazzani A.R.: Consolidation and maintenance treatments for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in complete response after first-line chemotherapy: a review of the literature. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2005; 55: 153–166.
  • 45. von Georgi R., Schubert K., Grant P., Münstedt K.: Post-therapy surveillance and after-care in ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004; 114: 228–233.
  • 46. Rustin G.J.S., van der Burg M.E.L., Griffin C.L. i wsp.; MRC OV05; EORTC 55955 investigators: Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1155–1163.
  • 47. Geurts S.M.E., van Altena A.M., de Vegt F. i wsp.: No supportive evidence for clinical benefit of routine follow-up in ovarian cancer: a Dutch multicenter study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2011; 21: 647–653.
  • 48. Verheijen R.H.M., Cibula D., Zola P., Reed N.; Council of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology: Cancer antigen 125: lost to follow-up? A European Society of Gynaecological Oncology consensus statement. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012; 22: 170–174.
  • 49. Geurts S.M.E., de Vegt F., van Altena A.M. i wsp.: Considering early detection of relapsed ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2011; 21: 837–845.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-3c3e7fb4-7142-4e70-bc8f-da683f272840
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.