abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We challenge epidemiologic knowledge regarding ovarian carcinoma (OC) by bridging the
gap between clinical and autopsy data.
METHODS:
Autopsy
reports, histological slides and clinical files from
660 patients in
whom OC was diagnosed from 1975-2005 were studied (autopsy cohort,
n=233; Clinical Cancer Registry from the local gyneco-oncologic center,
n=427).
RESULTS:
Out
of the autopsy cohort, we identified four distinct subgroups of
patients: 1) OC was diagnosed before autopsy, n=156 (67.0%). 2) OC was
an incidental finding, n=16 (6.8%). 3) The ovarian tumors were not
primary OC but rather metastases from other primary tumors; this revised
diagnosis was first made by using current histopathological
knowledge/techniques, n=24 (10.3%). 4)
Death was directly due to OC in
its final stage and OC was first diagnosed by autopsy, n=37 (15.9%);
when these cases were added to the Clinical Cancer Registry to an
adjusted OC incidence model, the autopsy cases comprised 8.8% of the
adjusted cohort and almost doubled the percentage of oldest patients
(≥80 years at diagnosis) from 4.9% to 9.3% (p=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS:
Epidemiological
data from the 1970s-1990s may overestimate true incidence because up to
10% of carcinomas in the ovary were
not properly classified. Patients
who were first diagnosed with OC by autopsy comprise a distinct
subgroup. These are patients who have not been seen by specialized
oncologists and thus play no role in their perception of the disease.
Nevertheless, these cases have impact on prevalence and incidence data
of OC and in an era of
reduced autopsy rates will probably be
overlooked.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.