Risk/benefit ratios in the management of gynecologic cancer

Morris, J. Carrell

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19810715)48:1+<642::aid-cncr2820481332>3.0.co;2-f

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 57 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall 10-year actuarial survival of 76.7% (84.8% in stage I) in the present series compares well with more recent reports (Malkasian 1978;Salazar et al 1978;McCabe & Sagerman 1979;Piver et al 1979;Prem et al 1979;Aalders et al 1980;Morris 1981;Surwit et al 1981). Similarly, this study confirms the role of the most commonly reported prognostic factors, related to patient's age and to the tumour's stage, histological grade and myometrial invasion (Gusberg 1966;Malkasian 1978;Piver et al 1979;Morris 1981;Surwit et al 1981). In our series the degree of myometrial invasion appeared far more relevant prognostically than histological differentiation; but, as previously shown (Aalders et al 1980;, these two variables are not independent.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Ten‐year survival in 290 patients with endometrial cancer: prognostic factors and therapeutic approach

Vecchia

Franceschi

Parazzini³

et al. 1983

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. Between 1970 and 1976, 290 patients with endometrial cancer were treated at the 1st Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic of the University of Milan. The median age was 62 years. Surgery was completed in 262 (90.3%) patients. Abdominal hysterectomy was used in 158 (70.9%) stage I and 40 (71.4%) stage II/III patients; vaginal hysterectomy in 55 (24.7%) stage I and nine (16.1%) stage II/III patients. Resection of the upper vagina was performed in 168 patients. Postoperative external beam radiotherapy was used in stage II/III patients and in 44 (19.7%) stage I high‐risk patients. Ten‐year survival, determined by the life‐table method, was 84.8% in stage I (223 patients), 53.4% in stage II (37 patients), 64.4% in stage III (19 patients), and 9.1% in stage IV (11 patients). Factors associated with poorer prognosis were: late age at diagnosis (P<0.001); deep myometrial invasion (P<0.001); poorly differentiated histological grade (P=0.11); lack of resection of the upper vagina (P= 0.13). The role and importance of surgery is discussed, with special emphasis on the selective use of the vaginal route in aged, obese and medically high‐risk patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Ten‐year survival in 290 patients with endometrial cancer: prognostic factors and therapeutic approach

Vecchia

Franceschi

Parazzini³

et al. 1983

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The role of the radiation oncologist in the management of gynecologic cancer

Kapp¹

1983

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimal management of patients with gynecologic malignancies requires a multidisciplinary approach with close cooperation between the primary care physician, the gynecologic oncologist and the radiation therapist. In order to obtain maximum survival rates with minimal morbidity, treatment should be based on a detailed knowledge of tumor localization, potential sites of occult spread, and tumor–host interactions. A careful delineation of patterns of recurrence will permit the identification of patients at increased risk for treatment failure and will aid in the design of alternative treatment protocols tailor‐made to control potential site(s) of tumor spread. The technological advances in radiation oncology and their influence on survival rates are presented, with illustrations taken from the literature and from the recent results of the Patterns of Care Study for treatment of carcinoma of the cervix. The role of radiation therapy in the treatment of carcinomas of the cervix, uterus, and the epithelial tumors of the ovary are reviewed, emphasizing treatment protocols based on consideration of technical, tumor, and host factors. Ongoing clinical research trials and potential areas for further improvement in the management of gynecologic malignancies are discussed.

show abstract

Quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer

McCartney¹,

Larson²

1987

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits of cancer treatment must assess quality as well as quantity of survival. Recently, researchers have attempted to define and measure quality of life (QL). Reliable QL measures are useful for rating the QL costs of cancer itself, for rating existing cancer treatments and therapies under clinical investigation, and for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve or prevent deterioration in QL status. Collaborative decision making by patients with their oncologists about anticipated therapy is enhanced by consideration of QL risks. Measures have broadened from assessing only performance status to include the domains of physical status (activity level, cognition, sexuality, fertility, and symptoms of pain, nausea, vomiting), psychological status (sense of well-being, depression, anxiety), social interaction (with sexual partner, family, friends, and co-workers), and economic status. Studies applying these concepts to patients who are survivors, in curative treatment, in palliative treatment, and terminally ill will be discussed.

show abstract

Risk/benefit ratios in the management of gynecologic cancer

Cited by 5 publications

References 57 publications

Ten‐year survival in 290 patients with endometrial cancer: prognostic factors and therapeutic approach

Ten‐year survival in 290 patients with endometrial cancer: prognostic factors and therapeutic approach

The role of the radiation oncologist in the management of gynecologic cancer

Quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About