Survival analysis of revised 2013 FIGO staging classification of epithelial ovarian cancer and comparison with previous FIGO staging classification.
10.5468/ogs.2015.58.2.124
- Author:
E Sun PAIK
1
;
Yoo Young LEE
;
Eun Jung LEE
;
Chel Hun CHOI
;
Tae Joong KIM
;
Jeong Won LEE
;
Duk Soo BAE
;
Byoung Gie KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. bksong.kim@samsung.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Neoplasm staging;
New classification;
Ovarian neoplasms
- MeSH:
Classification*;
Gynecology;
Humans;
Neoplasm Staging;
Obstetrics;
Ovarian Neoplasms*;
Prognosis;
Retrospective Studies;
Survival Analysis*
- From:Obstetrics & Gynecology Science
2015;58(2):124-134
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prognostic role of revised version of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2013) in epithelial ovarian cancer and compare with previous version staging classification METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated at Samsung Medical Center from 2002 to 2012. We reclassified the patients based on the revised FIGO staging classification. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-eight patients were enrolled (stage I, 22.8%; stage II, 10.4%; stage III, 56.2%; stage IV, 10.7%). Previous stage IC (98, 11.1%) was subdivided into IC1 (9, 1.0%), IC2 (57, 6.4%), and IC3 (32, 4.1%). In addition, previous stage IV (94, 1.7%) was categorized into IVA (37, 4.2%) and IVB (57, 6.5%) in new staging classification. Stage IIC (66, 7.5%) has been eliminated and integrated into IIA (36, 4.1%) and IIB (55, 6.2%) in revised classification. Revised FIGO stage IC3 had significant prognostic impact on PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.840; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.361 to 10.83; P=0.011) and revised FIGO stage IIIC appears to be an independent, significant poor prognostic factor for PFS (HR, 2.541; 95% CI, 1.242 to 5.200; P=0.011) but not in the case of previous version of FIGO stage IIIC (HR, 1.070; 95% CI, 0.502 to 2.281; P=0.860). However, any sub-stages of both previous and revised version in stage II and IV, there was no significant prognostic role. CONCLUSION: Revised FIGO stage has more progressed utility for informing prognosis than previous version, especially in stage I and III. For stage II and IV, further validation should be needed in large population based study in the future.
