Gynecologic oncology · 2015
Does plastic surgical consultation improve the outcome of patients undergoing radical vulvectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aviki Emeline M, Esselen Katharine M, Barcia Sara M, Nucci Marisa R, Horowitz Neil S, Feltmate Colleen M, Berkowitz Ross S, Orgill Dennis G, Viswanathan Akila N, Muto Michael G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To analyze margin status and prognostic factors for complications in patients undergoing vulvectomy for invasive squamous cell cancer (iSCC) with and without plastic-assisted closure.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were collected on 94 patients with iSCC who underwent vulvectomy between 2004 and 2013. All pathology slides were re-reviewed by two gynecologic pathologists. Data were analyzed using XLSTAT-Pro v2014.2.02.
RESULTS: Of 88 eligible patients, 15 (17%) had plastic-assisted vulvar closure and 73 (83%) did not. There were significantly more patients in the plastics group with recurrent disease (53% v 10%) and history radiation therapy prior to surgery (40% versus 5%). Plastic-assisted closure was associated with larger tumors (3.73 cm versus 2.03 cm, p<0.01) and a higher frequency of adequate margins (53% versus 29%, p=0.06). For tumors≥3.0 cm, plastic-assisted closure was significantly associated with adequate margins (44% versus 6%, p=0.03). Prior radiation use was associated with plastic-assisted closure, larger tumors, older age, and recurrent disease. Complications occurred in 36 patients (41%) and significantly more occurred in those with plastic-assisted closure (67% versus 36%, p=0.04). On multivariate analysis including age, tumor size, recurrent disease, plastic-assisted closure, and history of radiation, only history of radiation therapy was a significant predictor of complications (OR=17, 95%CI 2.05-141.35; p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Plastic-assisted vulvectomy closure was more often utilized in cases involving past radiation therapy and larger tumors. Plastic-assisted closure significantly increased the frequency of adequate margins in tumors≥3 cm and did not impact complications.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were collected on 94 patients with iSCC who underwent vulvectomy between 2004 and 2013. All pathology slides were re-reviewed by two gynecologic pathologists. Data were analyzed using XLSTAT-Pro v2014.2.02.
RESULTS: Of 88 eligible patients, 15 (17%) had plastic-assisted vulvar closure and 73 (83%) did not. There were significantly more patients in the plastics group with recurrent disease (53% v 10%) and history radiation therapy prior to surgery (40% versus 5%). Plastic-assisted closure was associated with larger tumors (3.73 cm versus 2.03 cm, p<0.01) and a higher frequency of adequate margins (53% versus 29%, p=0.06). For tumors≥3.0 cm, plastic-assisted closure was significantly associated with adequate margins (44% versus 6%, p=0.03). Prior radiation use was associated with plastic-assisted closure, larger tumors, older age, and recurrent disease. Complications occurred in 36 patients (41%) and significantly more occurred in those with plastic-assisted closure (67% versus 36%, p=0.04). On multivariate analysis including age, tumor size, recurrent disease, plastic-assisted closure, and history of radiation, only history of radiation therapy was a significant predictor of complications (OR=17, 95%CI 2.05-141.35; p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Plastic-assisted vulvectomy closure was more often utilized in cases involving past radiation therapy and larger tumors. Plastic-assisted closure significantly increased the frequency of adequate margins in tumors≥3 cm and did not impact complications.