Premium
Borderline ovarian tumors and extended patient follow‐up: An individual institution's experience
Author(s) -
Rettenmaier Mark A.,
Lopez Katrina,
Abaid Lisa N.,
Brown John V.,
Micha John P.,
Goldstein Bram H.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.21416
Subject(s) - medicine , demographics , disease , chemotherapy , surgery , retrospective cohort study , adjuvant chemotherapy , population , cancer , demography , environmental health , sociology , breast cancer
Borderline tumors of the ovary (BOT) comprise nearly 20% of all ovarian malignancies and are associated with a favorable prognosis. However, since these lesions can present with malignant features and recur, a further evaluation of appropriate patient management and long‐term follow‐up is warranted. Methods We report a physician group's retrospective experience treating BOT patients at a single institution. Patient demographics, disease pathology, treatment type (surgery, chemotherapy), and patient surveillance (e.g., disease‐free survival (DFS), overall survival, follow‐up via CA‐125/radiology/physical exam) data were reviewed in all cases. Results In the present study, 78 BOT patients treated from April 2001 until February 2009 were identified and confirmed via pathologic diagnosis. The majority (87%) underwent surgery, although nearly 13% of patients also received adjuvant chemotherapy. In the study population, 12% of the patients developed progressive disease, which was primarily detected via CA‐125 and physical exam/disease symptomatology. DFS for these patients was 38 months. Recurrent disease was significantly related to the administration of chemotherapy ( P = 0.0024) and prolonged time since initial treatment ( P < 0.001). Discussion Since BOT can be aggressive and eventually recur, continued (i.e., long‐term) surveillance with CA‐125 evaluation and physical examination should be considered for optimal patient follow‐up. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010;101:18–21. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.