br Krieger N Overcoming the
8. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of ω-Muricholic Acid census-based methodology. Am J Public Health 1992; 82:703-10.
9. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Rehkopf DH, Subramanian SV. Painting a truer picture of US socioeconomic and racial/ethnic health in-equalities: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health 2005; 95:312-23.
10. Martinez EE, Forbes PW, O’Brien SE, de Ferranti SD. Census tract-based income level and lipid levels in urban pediatric primary care: a retrospective study. BMC Pediatr 2016; 16:86.
11. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117:5039-46.
12. DeRouen MC, Schupp CW, Koo J, et al. Impact of individual and neigh-borhood factors on disparities in prostate cancer survival. Cancer Epidemiol 2018; 53:1-11.
14. Hellenthal NJ, Parikh-Patel A, Bauer K, Ralph W, deVere W, Koppie TM. Men of higher socioeconomic status have improved outcomes after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2010; 76:1409-13.
15. Schwartz K, Powell IJ, Underwood W 3rd, George J, Yee C, Banerjee M. Interplay of race, socioeconomic status, and treatment on survival of patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 74:1296-302.
17. Freedland SJ, Terris MK, Platz EA, Presti JC Jr. Body mass index as a pre-dictor of prostate cancer: development versus detection on biopsy. Urology 2005; 66:108-13.
18. Hararah MK, Pollack CE, Garza MA, et al. The relationship between education and prostate-specific antigen testing among urban African American Medicare beneficiaries. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 2015; 2:176-83.
21. Steenland K, Rodriguez C, Mondul A, Calle EE, Thun M. Prostate cancer inci-dence and survival in relation to education (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2004; 15:939-45.
22. Tanumihardjo SA, Anderson C, Kaufer-Horwitz M, et al. Poverty, obesity, and malnutrition: an international perspective recognizing the paradox. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107:1966-72.
25. Rundle A, Neckerman KM, Sheehan D, et al. A prospective study of socioeco-nomic status, prostate cancer screening and incidence among men at high risk for prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24:297-303.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Current Problems in Cancer
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cpcancer
Association of lymphadenectomy and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer
Ozlem Ercelep a,∗, Melike Ozcelik a, Mahmut Gumus b
a Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey b Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmi Alem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
Purpose: Lymph node metastasis has a significant contribu-
Keywords: tion to the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer but the role
Lymphadenectomy of lymph node dissection in treatment is not clear. In this
Ovarian cancer study, we aimed to retrospectively determine the effect of
the number and localization of lymph nodes removed and
the number of metastatic lymph nodes on survival.
Methods: In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the data
of 378 patients (210 patients with lymph node dissection
and 168 patients with no dissection) who underwent pri-
mary surgery between 2004 and 2014 in various centers
with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis and followed up in
our medical oncology clinic. Demographic and histopatho-
logic features, stage, Ca 125 levels, chemotherapy responses
of these patients were examined and survival analyzes were
Results: The median age of the patients was 52 years (range
phadenectomy had significantly improved progression free
patients with >10 lymph nodes removed compared to pa-
✩ Compliance with ethical standards. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: None. Research involving human participants and/or animals: Not applicable because the study was retrospective.
∗ Correspondence to: Ozlem Ercelep, Department of Medical Oncology, Pendik Education and Research Hospital, Mar-mara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Ercelep).
was found to be longer in patients with pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection compared to patients with only pelvic lymph node dissection (P < 0.05). Patients in stage I-II had no difference in PFS and OS. Patients in stage III-IV had no difference in PFS but there was a significant difference in OS (P = 0.02).
Conclusion: It may be a therapeutic effect of lymphadenec-tomy in advanced stage ovarian cancer. The number of lymph nodes removed and the removal of the paraaortic lymph nodes may also contribute to the treatment.