Browse

Matched-case comparison for the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hee Seung-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Ju Yeong-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Noh Hyun-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Kidong-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Yong Beom-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hak Jae-
dc.contributor.authorKang, Soon-Beom-
dc.contributor.authorSong, Yong Sang-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Jae Weon-
dc.contributor.authorChung, Hyun Hoon-
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-04T06:21:00Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-04T06:21:00Z-
dc.date.issued2010-11-
dc.identifier.citationGYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY; Vol.119 2; 217-224ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn0090-8258-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10371/76791-
dc.description.abstractObjective. To evaluate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery (NCS) is more efficient than primary surgical treatment (PST) for improving clinical outcomes in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. Methods. We conducted a matched-case comparison where 61 patients treated with NCS were matched to 183 treated with PST. We compared intermediate- and high-risk factors, the need of adjuvant radiotherapy, disease recurrence and survivals between NCS and PST. Patients with >= 2 intermediate- or >= 1 high-risk factors received adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation using cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Results. NCS reduced more definitely intermediate- and high-risk factors than PST in stage IIA disease in spite of little difference of them in stage IB disease (large tumor size, 25% vs. 52.4%; deep stromal invasion, 57.1% vs. 82.1%; lymphovascular space invasion, 35.7% vs. 65.5%; parametrial invasion, 17.9% vs. 41.7%; p<0.05). Moreover, >= 2 intermediate-risk factors were less common in NCS than PST despite no difference of the number of high-risk factors between the 2 treatments, which decreased the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage IIA disease who received NCS (46.4% vs. 84.5%, p<0.01). Although there were no differences in progression-free survival and disease recurrence between the 2 treatments, NCS led to poorer overall survival than PST in stage IIA disease with no difference of it in stage IB disease. Conclusions. The efficacy between NCS and PST may be similar in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer. However, NCS can lead to poor prognosis despite the reduction of intermediate-risk factors and the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in FIGO stage IIA disease. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCEko_KR
dc.subjectNeoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgeryko_KR
dc.subjectFIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancerko_KR
dc.subjectPrimary surgical treatmentko_KR
dc.titleMatched-case comparison for the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancerko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김희승-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김주영-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor박노현-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김기동-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor정현훈-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김용범-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김재원-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor김학재-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor송용상-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor강순범-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.06.017-
dc.citation.journaltitleGYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY-
dc.description.citedreferenceRydzewska L, 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007406.pub2-
dc.description.citedreferenceKim K, 2009, MED HYPOTHESES, V73, P1005, DOI 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.026-
dc.description.citedreferenceKim K, 2009, J GYNECOL ONCOL, V20, P203, DOI 10.3802/jgo.2009.20.4.203-
dc.description.citedreferenceChen HJ, 2008, GYNECOL ONCOL, V110, P308, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.026-
dc.description.citedreferenceEddy GL, 2007, GYNECOL ONCOL, V106, P362, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.04.007-
dc.description.citedreferenceKang SB, 2006, CANCER LETT, V237, P305, DOI 10.1016/j.canlet.2005.06.027-
dc.description.citedreferenceCai HB, 2006, J OBSTET GYNAECOL RE, V32, P315, DOI 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2006.00404.x-
dc.description.citedreference*WHO, 2006, WHO REP COMPR CERV C-
dc.description.citedreferenceKATSUMATA N, 2006, P AM SOC CLIN ONCOLO, V24-
dc.description.citedreferenceBuda A, 2005, J CLIN ONCOL, V23, P4137, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.172-
dc.description.citedreference2003, EUR J CANC, V39, P2470-
dc.description.citedreferenceBenedetti-Panici PL, 2003, EUR J GYNAECOL ONCOL, V24, P467-
dc.description.citedreferenceNapolitano C, 2003, EUR J GYNAECOL ONCOL, V24, P51-
dc.description.citedreferenceFerrandina G, 2002, J CLIN ONCOL, V20, P973-
dc.description.citedreferencePeters WA, 2000, J CLIN ONCOL, V18, P1606-
dc.description.citedreferenceTherasse P, 2000, J NATL CANCER I, V92, P205-
dc.description.citedreferenceKeys HM, 1999, NEW ENGL J MED, V340, P1154-
dc.description.citedreferenceSardi JE, 1997, GYNECOL ONCOL, V67, P61-
dc.description.citedreferenceLeborgne F, 1997, INT J RADIAT ONCOL, V37, P343-
dc.description.citedreferenceNAMKOONG SE, 1995, GYNECOL ONCOL, V59, P136-
dc.description.citedreferenceKIM DS, 1989, GYNECOL ONCOL, V33, P225-
dc.description.citedreferenceSARDI JE, 1986, GYNECOL ONCOL, V25, P139-
dc.description.tc2-
Appears in Collections:
College of Medicine/School of Medicine (의과대학/대학원)Obstetrics & Gynecology (산부인과전공)Journal Papers (저널논문_산부인과학전공)
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse