Piovano E.,University of Turin |
Attamante L.,University of Turin |
Macchi C.,University of Turin |
Cavallero C.,University of Turin |
And 7 more authors.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | Year: 2014
Objective: The aim of this review was to analyze the state of the art about HE4 and follow-up in patients treated for ovarian cancer. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE database using the key words "HE4" and "ovarian cancer" and "recurrence" or "relapse" or "follow up." Results: Seven of 28 clinical studies were selected. Four studies were prospective, and all of them were based on a small number of patients (8Y73 women). A failure of HE4 levels to normalize at completion of standard therapy may indicate a poor prognosis, thus suggesting the need of a closer follow-up. Moreover, HE4 showed better sensibility and specificity in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer recurrence with respect to CA-125, being also an earlier indicator of the relapse with a lead time of 5 to 8 months. HE4 showed a better performance in this setting if performed in association with other markers (CA-125, CA-72.4). HE4 seems to be an independent predictive factor for the surgical outcome at secondary cytoreductive surgery and to maintain its prognostic role even after the recurrence. Conclusions: These preliminary data start to suggest a superiority of HE4 over CA-125 in the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence. Moreover, the prognostic role of HE4 could help clinicians to personalize the follow-up program, whereas its predictive role could be useful to plan the treatment of the relapse. The role of HE4 in ovarian cancer follow-up deserves to be further investigated in prospective randomized multicentric studies. Copyright © 2014 by IGCS and ESGO. Source
Carrara L.,University of Brescia |
Gadducci A.,University of Pisa |
Landoni F.,Italian National Cancer Institute |
Maggino T.,Unit of Gynaecology and Obstetrics |
And 6 more authors.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | Year: 2012
Objective: To determine current practice and to assess the value of routine follow-up procedures for endometrial cancer surveillance. To discuss whether such procedures are feasible and effective to identify asymptomatic recurrences and describe the pattern of relapse detected by procedures. Methods: The records of 282 consecutive women with recurrent endometrial cancer treated from 1986 to 2005 were retrospectively collected in 8 Italian institutions. Primary disease, clinical history, and recurrence features and data were analyzed. Results: Thirty-five (12.4%) of 282 patients had recurrence in vaginal vault, 51 patients (18.0%) had recurrence in central pelvis, 14 patients (4.9%) had recurrence in pelvic wall, and 39 patients (13.8%) had recurrence in lymph nodes. One-hundred twenty-eight patients (45.3%) showed a distant relapse, whereas 15 patients (5.3%) developed both distant relapse and local relapse. The site of relapse influenced survival because the patients with vaginal vault recurrences lived significantly longer than the patients with recurrences in other sites. Eighty (28.4%) of the 282 patients became symptomatic and anticipated the scheduled visit, 37 (13.1 %) of the patients reported their symptoms during the follow-up meeting, and 165 (58.5 %) of the patients were asymptomatic and the diagnostic path was introduced by a planned visit or examination. Among the asymptomatic patients, the first procedure that led to further examinations was clinical visit alone for 60 (36.4%) of 165 patients, imaging for 103 patients (62.4%), and cytologic examination for 2 patients (1.2%). Symptoms at recurrence can predict survival: patients with an asymptomatic recurrence had a median survival time from relapse of 35 months versus 13 months if they had a symptomatic repetition (P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Follow-up after endometrial cancer treatment varies in Italy. In this retrospective study, women with asymptomatic recurrence have shown a better clinical outcome compared with those with symptomatic relapse. The optimal approach is actually unknown, and guidelines comparing follow-up protocols have not been established. Prospective costeffectiveness studies are needed. Copyright © 2012 by IGCS and ESGO. Source