FIGO 2013 staging system for ovarian cancer: What is new in comparison to the 1988 staging system?

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 48-52

  Kandukuri, Shivani R ^a   Rao, Jianyu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

2013 FIGO staging; cancer of ovary; fallopian tube; peritoneum

Indexed keywords

CANCER STAGING; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; OVARY TUMOR; PATHOLOGY; PERITONEUM TUMOR; PROGNOSIS; RISK FACTOR; SECONDARY; UTERINE TUBE TUMOR;

CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; FALLOPIAN TUBE NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PERITONEAL NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84920818175     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000135     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Singer G, Oldt R III, Cohen Y, et al. Mutations in BRAF and KRAS characterize the development of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:484-486.
2. Singer G, Stöhr R, Cope L, et al. Patterns of p53 mutations separate ovarian serous borderline tumors and low- and high-grade carcinomas and provide support for a new model of ovarian carcinogenesis: a mutational analysis with immunohistochemical correlation. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:218-224.
3. Callahan MJ, Crum CP, Medeiros F, et al. Primary fallopian tube malignancies in BRCA-positive women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3985-3990.
4. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: Evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31:161-169.
5. Prat J; FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124:1-5.
6. Seidman JD, Yemelyanova AV, Khedmati F, et al. Prognostic factors for stage I ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2010; 29:1-7.
7. Dembo AJ, Davy M, Stenwig AE, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:263-273.
8. Ozols RF, Rubin SC, Thomas GM. Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins WJ, Young RC, Markman M, et al., editors. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology, 4th ed. New York: Lippincott; 2005. pp. 895-987.
9. Vergote I, De Brabanter J, Fyles A, et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001; 357:176-182.
10. Bakkum-Gamez JN, Richardson DL, Seamon LG, et al. Influence of intraoperative capsule rupture on outcomes in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:11-17.
11. Seidman JD, Cosin JA, Wang BG, et al. Upstaging pathologic stage I ovarian carcinoma based on dense adhesions is not warranted: a clinicopathologic study of 84 patients originally classified as FIGO stage II. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 119:250-254.
12. Ahmed FY, Wiltshaw E, AHern RP, et al. Natural history and prognosis of untreated stage I epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2968-2975.
13. Chan JK, Tian C, Monk BJ, et al. Prognostic factors for high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 2008; 112:2202-2210.
14. Obermair A, Fuller A, Lopez-Varela E, et al. A new prognostic model for FIGO stage 1 epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104:607-611.
15. Timmers PJ, Zwinderman AH, Teodorovic I, et al. Clear cell carcinoma compared to serous carcinoma in early ovarian cancer: same prognosis in a large randomized trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009; 19:88-93.
16. Onda T, Yoshikawa H, Yasugi T, et al. Patients with ovarian carcinoma upstaged to stage III after systematic lymphadenctomy have similar survival to stage I/II patients and superior survival to other stage III patients. Cancer 1998; 83:1555-1560.
17. Kanazawa K, Suzuki T, Tokashiki M. The validity and significance of substage IIIC by node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of nodal metastasis on patient survival. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 73:237-241.
18. Panici PB, Maggioni A, Hacker N, et al. Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:560-566.
19. Cliby WA, Aletti GD, Wilson TO, Podratz KC. Is it justified to classify patients to Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer based on nodal involvement only? Gynecol Oncol 2006; 103:797-801.
20. Ferrandina G, Scambia G, Legge F, et al. Ovarian cancer patients with nodepositive- only Stage IIIC disease have a more favorable outcome than Stage IIIA/B. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 107:154-156.
21. Baek SJ, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer classified solely by lymph node metastasis has a more favorable prognosis than other types of stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2008; 19:223-228.
22. Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet1 2006; 95 (Suppl 1):S161-S192.