ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The prognosis for ovarian cancer patients remains poor. A key to maximizing survival rates is early detection and treatment. This requires an accurate prediction of malignancy. Our study seeks to improve the accuracy of prediction by focusing on early subjective assessment of malignancy. We therefore investigated the assessment of patients themselves in comparison to the assessment of physicians. METHODS: One thousand three hundred and thirty patients participated in a prospective and multicenter study in six hospitals in Berlin. Using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, we measured the accuracy of the early subjective assessment in comparison to the final histological outcome. Moreover, we investigated factors related to the assessment of patients and physicians. RESULTS: The patients' assessment of malignancy is remarkably accurate. With a positive predictive value of 58%, the majority of patients correctly assessed a pelvic mass as malignant. With more information available, physicians achieved only a slightly more accurate prediction of 63%. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, our study considered subjective factors in the diagnostic process of pelvic masses. This paper demonstrates that the patients' personal assessment should be taken seriously as it can provide a significant contribution to earlier diagnosis and thus improved therapy and overall prognosis.
Subject(s)
Ovarian Neoplasms , Berlin , Female , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
In 1-5% of patients during childbearing years recurrent miscarriages (RM) occur. There are established risk factors like anatomical, endocrine and hemostatic disorders as well as immunological changes in the maternal immune system. Nevertheless, further elucidation of the pathogenesis remains a matter of debate. In addition, there are no standardized immunological treatment strategies. Recent studies indicate possible effects of tumor necrosis factor α blocker and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) concerning live birth rate (LBR) in RM patients. Therefore, we performed a retrospective cohort study in patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatment (ART) with known RM analysing the possible benefits of G-CSF application. From January 2002 to December 2010, 127 patients (199 cylces) with RM (at least 2 early miscarriages) 49 (72 cycles) receiving G-CSF and 78 (127 cycles) controls receiving either no medication (subgroup 1) or Cortisone, intravenous immunoglobulins or low molecular weight heparin (subgroup 2) undergoing ART for in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection were analysed. G-CSF was administered weekly once (34 Mill) in 11 patients, 38 patients received 2 × 13 Mill G-CSF per week until the 12th week of gestation. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Windows (19.0), p < 0.05 significant. The mean age of the study population was 37.3 ± 4.4 years (mean ± standard deviation) and differed not significantly between patients and subgroups. However, the number of early miscarriages was significantly higher in the G-CSF group as compared to the subgroups (G-CSF 2.67 ± 1.27, subgroup 1 0.85 ± 0.91, subgroup 2 0.64 ± 0.74) and RM patients receiving G-CSF had significantly more often a late embryo transfer (day 5) (G-CSF 36.7%, subgroup 1 12.1%, subgroup 2 8.9%). The LBR of patients and the subgroups differed significantly (G-CSF 32%, subgroup 1 13%, subgroup 2 14%). Side effects were present in less than 10% of patients, consisting of irritation at the injection side, slight leukocytosis, rise of the temperature (<38 °C), mild bone pain and hyperemesis gravidarum. None of the newborn showed any kind of malformations. According to our data, G-CSF seems to be a safe and promising immunological treatment option for RM patients. However, with regard to the retrospective setting and the possible bias of a higher rate of late embryo transfers in the G-CSF group additional studies are needed to further strengthen our results.
