title: Extremely poor postrecurrence oncological outcome for patients with recurrent mucinous ovarian cancer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study was conducted to assess the long-term clinical outcome for patients with recurrent mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (RmOC) in comparison with recurrent serous epithelial ovarian cancer (RsOC).
  
  
  METHODS
  Three hundred and eighty-four patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, including 340 RsOC and 44 RmOC patients, were analyzed in this study. The pathological slides were evaluated under central pathological review. The prognostic significance of clinicopathological factors was evaluated employing both uni- and multivariable analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 3- and 5-year postrecurrence survival (PRS) rates of patients with RmOC were 17.3, and 6.9 %, respectively. In contrast, those of patients with RsOC were 29.8 and 18.8 %, respectively. The PRS of patients with RmOC was significantly poorer than that of patients with RsOC (PRS: P = 0.0006). Moreover, either in the presence or absence of a residual tumor (RT) at initial surgery, the PRS of patients with RmOC was markedly poorer than that of patients with RsOC [RT (-): P < 0.0001: RT (+): P = 0.0912]. In multivariable analysis, a mucinous histology predicted a significantly poorer PRS (RmOC vs. RsOC: hazard ratio (HR) 2.080, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.434-3.016, P = 0.0001). Confining analysis to deceased patients (N = 302), the proportion of RmOC patients who died within 12 months following recurrence was markedly higher than that of RsOC [RmOC 69.2 %, RsOC: 41.1 % (P < 0.0001)].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The clinical outcome after recurrence in patients with RmOC was extremely poor. This confirms that RmOC should be considered a different entity from other epithelial ovarian cancers.
authors: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsuruma-cho 65, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan, kajiyama@med.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
authors: Hiroaki
authors: H
authors: Kajiyama
authors: Mika
authors: M
authors: Mizuno
authors: Kiyosumi
authors: K
authors: Shibata
authors: Michiyasu
authors: M
authors: Kawai
authors: Tetsuro
authors: T
authors: Nagasaka
authors: Fumitaka
authors: F
authors: Kikkawa
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001952:Bridged-Ring Compounds / Q000008:administration & dosage; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology*; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D018297:Neoplasms, Cystic, Mucinous, and Serous / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology*; D010051:Ovarian Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology*; D011379:Prognosis; D015996:Survival Rate; D043823:Taxoids / Q000008:administration & dosage; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D001952:Bridged-Ring Compounds; D043823:Taxoids; C080625:taxane
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Mar;27(3):281-92
references: 12604884
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):436-41
references: 15863142
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov;205(5):480.e1-8
references: 21861962
references: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Mar 15;22(6):1040-4
references: 15020606
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90
references: 21296855
references: Ann Oncol. 2008 Jul;19(7):1284-1287
references: 18356137
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jun;109(3):370-6
references: 18395777
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Aug;122(2):334-8
references: 21575985
references: Lancet. 2001 Jan 20;357(9251):176-82
references: 11213094
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Mar-Apr;18(2):209-14
references: 17624989
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jun;113(3):331-4
references: 19275957