Premium
Evaluation of restaging in clinical stage 1A low malignant potential ovarian tumours
Author(s) -
Land Russell,
Perrin Lew,
Nicklin James
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.734
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1479-828X
pISSN - 0004-8666
DOI - 10.1111/j.0004-8666.2002.00381.x
Subject(s) - medicine , stage (stratigraphy) , ovarian cancer , ovary , disease , general surgery , retrospective cohort study , neoplasm staging , cancer , surgery , paleontology , biology
Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate whether restaging clinical stage 1A low malignant potential (LMP) tumours previously incompletely staged in a non‐gynaecology oncology centre yields useful information for management and prognosis. Methods A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients with LMP tumours treated at the Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer (QCGC) from 1982–2000. Results Fifty‐six (69%) of the 81 patients referred with a provisional stage 1A diagnosis underwent a second operation for staging purposes. Four (7%) out of the 56 patients who underwent restaging had their tumours upstaged. A single patient out of the 25 patients who did not undergo restaging had disease recurrence and died as a result. The mean follow‐up for all patients in the study was 60 months. Conclusion It is hard to justify routine surgical restaging for patients with a LMP ovarian tumour apparently confined to a single ovary. At the very least, hundreds of patients with clinical stage 1A tumours will need to be restaged before a single patient will have data that will change management. Consequently the morbidity of routine restaging is difficult to justify for such a small clinical gain.