Prognostic analysis of ovarian cancer associated with endometriosis
Abstract
Objective The objective of the study was to evaluate the prognosis of ovarian cancer arising in endometriosis.Study design We retrospectively compared 42 cases of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer (EAOC) with 184 cases of ovarian carcinoma without endometriosis (OC).Results The median age in the EAOC group was 52 vs 59 years in OC (P < .05). In comparison with OC, the EAOC patients were more likely to have low-grade (21% vs 8%; P = .04) and early-stage tumors (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I and II combined) (49% vs 24%; P = .002). Clear cell (21% vs 2%) and endometrioid (14% vs 3%) tumors were more frequent in EAOC, whereas mucinous tumors were more prevalent in OC (P = .001). The median survival (199 vs 62 months) and the 5 year survival (62% vs 51%) were better for EAOC when compared with OC (P = .038). After controlling for age, stage, grade, and treatment, association with endometriosis was not an independent predictor of better survival in ovarian cancer.Conclusion As such, EAOC has a much better survival rate than OC. This could be explained by the higher prevalence of early-stage and low-grade tumors in EAOC when compared with OC.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer appears to occur in younger women with a better outcome as they often present with a low-grade tumor (FIGO I or II) compared with ovarian carcinoma without endometriosis (low-grade rate: 49% versus 24%).
“Endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer appears to occur in younger women with a better outcome as they often present with a low-grade tumor (FIGO I or II) compared with ovarian carcinoma without endometriosis (low-grade rate: 49% versus 24%) [62].”
From Malignancy in Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: Is There a Way to Avoid It? A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 85
- Authors
- Kumar, S., Munkarah, A., Arabi, H., Bandyopadhyay, S., Semaan, A., Hayek, K., Garg, G., Morris, R., & Ali-Fehmi, R.
- Affiliations
- Wayne State University (US)
- Henry Ford Health (US)
- Emory University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 204
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63.e1-63.e7
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2046046824
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Keywords
- endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer, ovarian cancer, prognosis, survival, tumor stage, tumor grade, clear cell carcinoma, endometrioid carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, ovarian carcinoma
- MeSH terms
- Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Survival Rate, Adenocarcinoma, Clear Cell, Carcinoma, Endometrioid, Cystadenocarcinoma, Serous
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review