Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2

Gestasyonel Trofoblastik Neoplazide EMA/CO Kombinasyon Kemoterapisi: Sonuçlarımızın Güncellemesi

EMA/CO Combination Chemotheraphy in Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: Update of Our Results

Pages
86–92
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Because of the differences in many studies, risk factors for predicting the success of the treatment are not clear

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed updating our experience about the treatment success of EMA-CO(etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin-D, cyclophosphamide, vincristine) chemotherapy in high-riskgestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients were scored according to FIGO's modified WHO system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Riskscoring of patients before 2000 was remade by using this system.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Because of the differences in many studies, risk factors for predicting the success of the treatment are not clear
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed updating our experience about the treatment success of EMA-CO(etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin-D, cyclophosphamide, vincristine) chemotherapy in high-riskgestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients were scored according to FIGO's modified WHO system. Riskscoring of patients before 2000 was remade by using this system. Thirty-nine patients who were treatedwith EMA-CO between 1992 and 2013 because of high risk GTN or the resistance to single agentmethotrexate and MAC III chemotherapy combinations were evaluated retrospectively. Adjuvant surgeryand radiotherapy were used in selected patients. Response and effects of the prognostic factors to theresponse rate were analyzed.RESULTS: Median follow-up time of the patients was 74.8 months . Complete clinical response was obtained in 36 (92.3%) patients with only EMA-CO or EMA-CO and surgery. The responserate of treatment was 91.3% (n:21/23) in patients taking primary EMA-CO, 93.8% (n:15/16) in patientstaking secondary EMA/CO chemotherapy. Resistance to the EMA-CO treatment developed in 6 (15.3%)patients and 3 of the patients with drug resistance died. During the follow-up time disease recurred in 3(7.7%) patients. When the antecedent pregnancy was term pregnancy or the histopathological diagnosis was choriocarcinoma or when there was liver metastasis, the treatment success decreased. The effects of tumor dimension and the presence of metastasis tended to be statistically significant in determining the resistance to therapy. CONCLUSION: EMA-CO regimen is highly effective for treatment of high-risk GTN. Because of the differences in many studies, risk factors for predicting the success of the treatment are not clear

Özet

Bu çalışmamızda yüksek riskli gestasyonel trofoblastik neoplazide (GTN) EMA-CO (etoposid, metotreksat, aktinomi- sin-D, siklofosfamid, vinkristin) kemoterapisi hakkındaki dene- yimlerimizi güncellemeyi amaçladık.

🔖

Cite This Article

TAŞÇI, T., ÜREYEN, I., KİMYON, G., KARALÖK, M. A., KOÇ, S., KÖSE, M. F., TULUNAY, G., TURAN, T. (2015). Gestasyonel Trofoblastik Neoplazide EMA/CO Kombinasyon Kemoterapisi: Sonuçlarımızın Güncellemesi. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2, 86–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/226992

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Bagshawe KD. Risk and prognostic factors in trophoblas- tic neoplasia. Cancer 1976;38(3):1373-85. World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Group, Gestational trophoblastic diseases. World Health Organi - zation Tech Rep Ser, Genova 1983;692: p.7-81. FIGO Oncology Committee Report FIGO staging for ges- tational trophoblastic neoplasia 2000. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002;77:285-7. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic-Oncology, Current FIGO staging for cancer of the vagina, fallopian tube, ovary, and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(1):3-4.
  2. McNeish IA, Strickland S, Holden L, Rustin GJ, Foskett M, Seckl MJ, Newlands ES. Low-risk persistent gesta- tional trophoblastic disease: outcome after initial treat- ment with low-dose methotrexate and folinic acid from 1992 to 2000. J Clin Oncol 2002;20(7):1838-44. Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease II: classifica- tion and management of gestational trophoblastic neopla- sia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204(1): 11-8.
  3. Newlands ES, Bagshawe KD, Begent RH, Rustin GJ, Holden L. Results with the EMA/CO (etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, vin- cristine) regimen in high risk gestational trophoblastic tu- mours, 1979 to 1989. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98(6): 550-7.
  4. Turan T, Karacay O, Tulunay G. Results with EMA/CO (etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin D, cyclophos- phamide, vincristine) chemotherapy in gestational tro- phoblastic neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(3): 1432-8. Tse K. Y. and Ngan H. Y. Gestational trophoblastic dis- ease. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26(3): 357-70. Seckl MJ and Newlands ES. Investigation and treatment of patients with persistent gestational trophoblastic dis- ease and gestational trophoblastic tumours/neoplasia in the United Kingdom. In: Gestational Trophoblastic Disease, 3rdedn. Ed. Hancock BW, et al. 2009;335-65.
  5. Bower M, Newlands ES, Holden L, Short D, Brock C, Rustin GJ, Begent RH, Bagshawe KD. EMA/CO for high- risk gestational trophoblastic tumors: results from a cohort of 272 patients. J Clin Oncol 1997;15(7):2636-43.
  6. Kim SJ, Bae SN, Kim JH, Kim CJ, Jung JK. Risk factors for the prediction of treatment failure in gestational tro- phoblastic tumors treated with EMA/CO regimen. Gynecol Oncol 1998;71(2):247-53.
  7. Lurain JR, Singh DK, Schink JC. Management of metastatic high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: FIGO stages II-IV: risk factor score >or=7. J Reprod Med 2010;55(5-6):199-207.
  8. Escobar PF, Lurain JR, Singh