2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2683-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prognostic factors and a value of 2009 FIGO staging system in vulvar cancer

Abstract: ObjectiveIn 2009, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) modified staging of vulvar cancer—the prognostic significance of the new classification relative to the prior system as well as to the commonly recognized prognostic factors has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to test prognostic ability of 2009 staging in a cohort of uniformly treated and staged cases with long-term follow-up.MethodsPathologic characteristics were obtained by blind review of the original tissue samples.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
19
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(27 reference statements)
5
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar findings were published by Blecharz and coworkers, revealing a 5-year overall survival rate of 30.5 % in patients over 70 years of age [21]. The impact of lymph node metastasis on the overall survival as presented by Sznurkowski et al was comparable to our series, with 50 % of all patients dying due to the disease within the first 20 months [22]. In the studies mentioned before, 5-year survival rate after pelvic exenteration was 54, ∼30 and 27,4 %, respectively [6,[16][17][18].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Similar findings were published by Blecharz and coworkers, revealing a 5-year overall survival rate of 30.5 % in patients over 70 years of age [21]. The impact of lymph node metastasis on the overall survival as presented by Sznurkowski et al was comparable to our series, with 50 % of all patients dying due to the disease within the first 20 months [22]. In the studies mentioned before, 5-year survival rate after pelvic exenteration was 54, ∼30 and 27,4 %, respectively [6,[16][17][18].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The prognostic factors for vulvar cancer have been investigated in several studies [6][7][8]. Tumor invasion deeper than 2 mm was found to be a risk factor for local recur-rence [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 From the first staging classification proposed by The League of Nations in 1937 to the more recent FIGO (2015) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manuel (2010) classifications, APW play no role in the staging of cancers of the uterine cervix. 16,18,19 In contrast to malignancies of the vulva, vagina, and uterine cervix, staging protocols for malignancies of the uterine corpus and ovary have taken into consideration APW cytology, and are currently considered an important factor in distinguishing between different stages of ovarian carcinoma. 16,17 Although some data suggest that histologic grade may play a prognostic role in the staging of vulvar cancer, APW cytology is not a component of staging of vulvar cancer.…”
Section: Historical Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16,17 Although some data suggest that histologic grade may play a prognostic role in the staging of vulvar cancer, APW cytology is not a component of staging of vulvar cancer. 16,18,19 In contrast to malignancies of the vulva, vagina, and uterine cervix, staging protocols for malignancies of the uterine corpus and ovary have taken into consideration APW cytology, and are currently considered an important factor in distinguishing between different stages of ovarian carcinoma. [20][21][22][23] Positive ascites fluid and APW show prognostic significance in ovarian carcinoma, and thus remain a significant part of staging.…”
Section: Historical Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%