Evaluation of restaging in clinical stage 1A low malignant potential ovarian tumours.
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Land
Russell
R
Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, Royal Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Perrin
Lew
L
Nicklin
James
J
D002288:Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous / Q000473:pathology*; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D018283:Cystadenocarcinoma, Papillary / Q000473:pathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging / Q000592:standards*; D016522:Oncology Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010051:Ovarian Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D011379:Prognosis; D011793:Queensland; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D024162:Second-Look Surgery / Q000592:standards*; D019564:Unnecessary Procedures