Evolución de los resultados del tratamiento del cáncer de endometrio en España entre 1980 y 1999. Análisis de las casuísticas nacionales de la Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia

  1. Herruzo, A. 1
  2. Carmona, M. 1
  3. Chiva, L. 1
  4. Ibáñez, E. 1
  5. Menjón, S. 1
  6. Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J. 1
  1. 1 Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia
    info

    Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia

    Madrid, España

Revista:
Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología

ISSN: 0304-5013

Año de publicación: 2002

Volumen: 45

Número: 2

Páginas: 54-62

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/S0304-5013(02)75731-2 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Both overall 5-year survival (59.1% vs 71.4%) and disease-free survival (55.6% vs. 63.1%) were significantly higher in the more recent casuistics (p=0.0000). Cases in the first casuistics were more advanced than those in the second and more cases were exclusively diagnosed as adenocarcinoma and had a significantly worse histological grade of differentiation. Treatment was surgical in 88.9% of cases in 1993 compared with only 76.4% of those from the earlier casuistics (p=0.0000)Only 28.9% of cases were treated in hospitals that treated 25 cases or more in the first casuistics while this percentage rose to 50.5% in the 1993 casuistics. More patients were lost to follow-up in the first period studied than in the second (24.2% vs. 7%; p=0.0000). The FIGO surgical classification (1988) did not seem to have been implanted even in 1993 since it was only used in 27.2% of patients. These results, together with the consideration that patients were diagnosed at an advanced ae (61 ± 9.7 years in the first casuistics and 64 ± 10.5 years in the second) indicate that there is still scope for improvement in the treatment of endometrial cancer in Spain

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Herruzo, (1993), pp. 229
  • Ibáñez, (1999), pp. 161
  • Ibáñez E, Chiva L, Rodríguez-Escudero F. Resultados de la encuesta nacional sobre el carcinoma de endometrio diagnosticado en 1993. Disponible en: http://www.sego.es/secciones/sego_secciones.htm
  • Lewis, (1970), J Obstet Gynecol Brit Commonw, 77, pp. 343, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1970.tb03530.x
  • Boronow, (1984), Obstet Gynecol, 63, pp. 825
  • DiSaia, (1985), Am J Obstet Gynecol, 151, pp. 1009, 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90371-0
  • Creasman, (1987), Cancer, 60, pp. 2035, 10.1002/1097-0142(19901015)60:8+<2035::AID-CNCR2820601515>3.0.CO;2-8
  • Morrow, (1991), Gynecol Oncol, 40, pp. 55, 10.1016/0090-8258(91)90086-K
  • (1990), Am J Obstet Gynecol, 162, pp. 610
  • Larson, (1996), Obstet Gynecol, 88, pp. 394, 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00161-5
  • Mikuta, (1995), Cancer, 76, pp. 2041, 10.1002/1097-0142(19951115)76:10+<2041::AID-CNCR2820761322>3.0.CO;2-Z
  • Eltabbakh, (1997), Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys, 38, pp. 373, 10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00040-0
  • Creasman, (1981), pp. 562
  • Morrow, (1996), pp. 569
  • Calero, (1982), pp. 377
  • Kauppila, (1984), Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 63, pp. 441, 10.3109/00016348409156700
  • Creasman, (1998), J Epidemiol Biostat, 3, pp. 35
  • Nori, (1987), pp. 115
  • Creutzberg, (2000), Lancet, 355, pp. 1404, 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02139-5
  • Poulsen, (1989), Acta Oncologica, 28, pp. 589, 10.3109/02841868909092277
  • Abeler, (1992), Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2, pp. 9, 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1992.02010009.x
  • Piura, (1997), J Surg Oncol, 66, pp. 189, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199711)66:3<189::AID-JSO7>3.0.CO;2-8
  • Marziale, (1989), Gynecol Oncol, 32, pp. 278, 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90624-0
  • Rose, (1996), N Engl J Med, 335, pp. 640, 10.1056/NEJM199608293350907
  • Hernández, (1996), J Natl Med Assoc, 88, pp. 107
  • Orr, (1998), Gynecol Oncol, 71, pp. 335, 10.1006/gyno.1998.5296
  • Trimble, (1998), Gynecol Oncol, 71, pp. 340, 10.1006/gyno.1998.5254