Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
14 th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
14 th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK

14 th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK

239 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

14 th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 14th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK Stage Specific Outcomes of Patients with Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Comparison of FIGO and AJCC Staging Systems Oliver Zivanovic, Mario M. Leitao, Alexia Iasonos, Lindsay M. Jacks, Qin Zhou, Robert A. Soslow, Margrit M. Juretzka, Dennis S. Chi, Richard R. Barakat, Murray F. Brennan, Martee L. Hensley Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY

  2. Background • Uterine LMS: • - annual incidence 0.64 per 100,000 women • - poor prognosis • - high local and distant failure rates (40-80%) • - often without lymphatic spread at diagnosis

  3. Background Staging of uterine LMS • no uterine LMS-specific staging system • staged using FIGO staging system for endometrial • carcinoma • clinical course is difficult to predict • limited ability to identify appropriate patients for • investigation of adjuvant treatment strategies

  4. Background FIGO versus AJCC

  5. Background Prognostic factors • Commonly reported prognostic factors: • age • DNA ploidy • menopausal status • mitotic rate • hormone receptor status • LVSI • none are incorporated into the staging systems

  6. Objective • To determine and compare the predictive accuracy of the FIGO and AJCC staging systems • Hypothesis: neither staging system provides adequate prediction of PFS and OS in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma

  7. Methods • Patients with uterine LMS between 07/86 to 06/05 • - Department of Surgery Sarcoma Database • - Variables extracted: age, size, grade, staging criteria, treatment, outcome • - Subset received prior treatment at outside institutions • - Included only if initial pathology reviewed at MSK • Exclusion if insufficient information for staging

  8. Methods • Patients staged based on FIGO and AJCC criteria • - PFS and OS estimated using Kaplan-Meier method • Predictive accuracy estimated with concordance index: • - Analyzing all possible pairs of patients • Determining concordance (1.0) or discordance (0.0) • Overall probability: sum of the values divided by total number of data pairs

  9. Results Patient characteristics (N=219)

  10. Results Stage specific distribution by FIGO and AJCC

  11. Results 5-year PFS and OS by stage and staging system

  12. Results PFS by FIGO and AJCC N=20 N=119 N=12 N=24 N=105 N=39 N=70 N=49

  13. Results OS by FIGO and AJCC N=119 N=20 N=24 N=12 N=105 N=39 N=70 N=49

  14. Results Concordance indices (c-index)

  15. Conclusion • Stage-specific PFS and OS altered substantially • when comparing AJCC versus FIGO • Strength of AJCC: identifying patients with better • prognosis • Strength of FIGO: identifying patients with worse • prognosis • Overall predictive ability of AJCC not superior to • FIGO

  16. Implications of findings • Currently available staging systems fail to provide meaningful estimates of prognosis • Potential solution is a uterine LMS specific nomogram that combines the stage-specific variables with other established clinico-pathologic prognostic factors • The results of such individualized risk-prediction model have the potential to improve our management of women diagnosed with uterine LMS