» Articles » PMID: 32903851

Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Analysis of Gynecologic Cancer with Spinal Metastases: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Oncology
Date 2020 Sep 9
PMID 32903851
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to provide key information on the clinical characteristics, surgical treatment, and potential prognostic factors in patients with metastatic spinal gynecologic cancer (MSGC), with a view to their application in clinical practice.

Methods: From January 2010 to January 2020, we performed a retrospective analysis of 14 patients with MSGC who underwent surgical treatment in a single center. Surgical treatment was performed on 14 patients, and a total of 14 operations were performed. The survival time of patients after spinal surgery was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis.

Results: The average age of patients was 51.9 years (range 25‒70). The average time from initial surgery to the discovery of spinal metastasis was 60.3 months (2‒180), and the average follow-up time was 19.2 months (2‒55). Spinal tumor progression was found in 9 patients, and 12 patients (85.7%) died during follow-up. In univariate analysis, extraosseous visceral metastasis (p = 0.024), revised Tokuhashi stage (p = 0.025), Tomita stage (p = 0.005), and number of spinal lesions (p = 0.038) were associated with overall survival (OS). Extraosseous visceral metastasis (p = 0.026), revised Tokuhashi stage (p = 0.014), Tomita stage (p = 0.001), and gynecological cancer type (p = 0.039) were associated with progression-free survival.

Conclusion: Surgical treatment is an effective treatment for MSGC and relieves pain, restores function and rebuilds stability. Based on our single-center experience, extraosseous visceral metastasis, revised Tokuhashi stage, Tomita stage, and gynecological cancer type may be potential prognostic factors for OS.

Citing Articles

The risk of distant metastases in patients with gynecologic cancers after surgery: a population-based study.

Hsiao Y, Chen P, Hsin M, Wang P, Huang J, Yang S Aging (Albany NY). 2021; 13(24):25846-25858.

PMID: 34914632 PMC: 8751588. DOI: 10.18632/aging.203773.


Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Modalities, and Potential Contributing and Prognostic Factors in Patients with Bone Metastases from Gynecological Cancers: A Systematic Review.

Salamanna F, Perrone A, Contartese D, Borsari V, Gasbarrini A, Terzi S Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(9).

PMID: 34573970 PMC: 8465573. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091626.

References
1.
Uccella S, Morris J, Bakkum-Gamez J, Keeney G, Podratz K, Mariani A . Bone metastases in endometrial cancer: report on 19 patients and review of the medical literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 130(3):474-82. PMC: 3917308. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.010. View

2.
Zhang Y, Guo X, Wang G, Ma W, Liu R, Han X . Real-World Study of the Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prognostic Factors Associated with Bone Metastases in Women with Uterine Cervical Cancer Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Data Analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24:6387-6397. PMC: 6146765. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.912071. View

3.
Miranpuri A, Rajpal S, Salamat M, Kuo J . Upper cervical intramedullary spinal metastasis of ovarian carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Rep. 2011; 5:311. PMC: 3154862. DOI: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-311. View

4.
Safadi S, Rendon P, Rutledge T, Mayasy S . Ovarian Carcinoma With Isolated Spinal Cord Metastasis. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2016; 4(3):2324709616657644. PMC: 4959636. DOI: 10.1177/2324709616657644. View

5.
Chen W, Zheng R, Baade P, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F . Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66(2):115-32. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21338. View