Could fertility-sparing surgery be considered for women with early stage ovarian clear cell carcinoma? / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present retrospective population-based study was to investigate the oncologic impact of uterine and ovarian preservation (OP) in premenopausal women with stage IA or IC ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC). METHODS: The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was accessed and a cohort of surgically-staged premenopausal women (age <50 years) diagnosed with unilateral stage IA or IC OCCC was drawn. Based on site-specific surgery codes, women who did not undergo hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) were identified. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were calculated following generation of Kaplan-Meier curves; comparisons were made with the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox analysis was performed to control for possible confounders. RESULTS: A total of 741 premenopausal women who met the inclusion criteria were identified. Based on available information, rate of uterine preservation was 14.5% (96/663) while the rate of OP was 28.1% (71/253). Five-year CSS rates were 90.8% for women who did not undergo hysterectomy compared with 87.7% for those who did (p=0.290). Similarly, 5-year CSS rates in the OP and BSO groups were 92.6% and 85%, respectively (p=0.060). After controlling for disease sub-stage (IA vs. IC), uterine or OP was not associated with a worse overall or cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: In the present cohort, uterine and OP did not have a negative impact on oncologic outcomes. Selection criteria for fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) could be expanded to include women with stage IA OCCC.

Description of the Efficacy and Safety of Three New Biologics in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

English articles on abatacept, golimumab, and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis published between 2002 and 2009 were reviewed systematically. All randomized clinical trials, open-label extensions, meta-analyses, and reviews were examined. There were thirteen articles on abatacept, four on golimumab, and seven on tocilizumab. All three drugs were effective in methotrexate-naive, methotrexate-incomplete responders, and tumor-necrosis-factor-failure rheumatoid arthritis patients. Of the three, only abatacept has been tested in a head-to-head trial with infliximab, in which it was found to be equivalent to infliximab. Golimumab resulted in a more modest improvement than the others in methotrexate-naive patients, although no direct comparisons among the three drugs were possible or appropriate. Descriptive analysis of adverse events showed that patients receiving abatacept, golimumab, and tocilizumab were subject to more adverse events than controls overall, as expected. In the abatacept studies, a few cases of tuberculosis, more cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal bleedings and more basal cell carcinoma were seen. Golimumab was associated with more skin rashes and pneumonia, while tocilizumab was associated with increased lipids, more liver-function abnormalities, and neutropenia. These new medications are useful additions to the rheumatologic armamentarium and represent greater convenience (golimumab) or different mechanisms of action (abatacept and tocilizumab) than tumor-necrosis-factor inhibitors for treating rheumatoid arthritis. As expected, some adverse events occur when using these drugs and patients need to be watched carefully.