背景:本研究的目的是评估浸润型黏液癌(MC)的临床病理因素和预后,MC具有扩张性入侵,和高级别浆液性癌(HGSC)。
方法:确定了1984年至2019年之间的MC和HGSC病例。回顾性比较浸润性浸润或扩张性浸润与HGSC的临床病理因素及预后。虽然我们目前的研究包括我们以前研究的病例,我们在进行分析时延长了观察期.因此,我们的研究增加了病例数,新进行了生存分析.
结果:经过病理检查,浸润性浸润MC27例,25例MC伴扩张性侵袭,并纳入219例HGSC。MC在无进展生存期方面具有更好的预后(PFS,p<0.01)和总生存期(OS,p<0.01)比所有国际妇产科联合会(FIGO)阶段的HGSC高;但是,多变量分析显示PFS和OS没有统计学差异。在浸润性侵袭的MC和HGSC之间,所有FIGO阶段的PFS和OS均无统计学差异。然而,在FIGO阶段II至IV的情况下,浸润性浸润的MC的PFS(p<0.01)和OS(p<0.01)均比HGSC差。在单变量分析中,与HGSC相比,具有浸润性侵袭的MC是PFS(风险比[HR]2.83,p<0.01)和OS(HR3.83,p<0.01)的较差预后因素。与HGSC相比,具有扩张性侵袭的MC具有较好的PFS(p<0.01)和OS(p<0.01)。多因素分析表明,与HGSC相比,具有扩张性侵袭的MC是PFS(HR0.17,p<0.01)和OS(HR0.18,p=0.03)的更好预后因素。
结论:与HGSC的预后相比,MC的侵入模式和FIGO阶段不同。因此,未来的研究可能需要考虑这种关联.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathological factors and prognosis of mucinous carcinoma (MC) with infiltrative invasion, MC with expansile invasion, and high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC).
METHODS: Cases of MC and HGSC between 1984 and 2019 were identified. The clinicopathological factors and prognosis of MC with infiltrative invasion or expansile invasion and HGSC were retrospectively compared. Although our present study included cases in our previous studies, we extended observational period when analysis was performed. Accordingly, our study added increased cases and survival analysis was newly conducted.
RESULTS: After pathological review, 27 cases of MC with infiltrative invasion, 25 cases of MC with expansile invasion, and 219 cases of HGSC were included. MC had a better prognosis in terms of progression-free survival (PFS, p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS, p < 0.01) than HGSC for all International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages; however, multivariate analysis did not show statistical differences in PFS and OS. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS for all FIGO stages between MC with infiltrative invasion and HGSC. However, in cases with FIGO stages II to IV, MC with infiltrative invasion had worse PFS (p < 0.01) and OS (p < 0.01) than HGSC. In univariate analysis, MC with infiltrative invasion was a worse prognostic factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.83, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 3.83, p < 0.01) than HGSC. Compared with HGSC, MC with expansile invasion had better PFS (p < 0.01) and OS (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that MC with expansile invasion was a better prognostic factor for PFS (HR 0.17, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 0.18, p = 0.03) than HGSC.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the prognosis of HGSC, that of MC was different according to the invasive pattern and FIGO stage. Therefore, future study may be needed to consider this association.