Background – The aim of this study is to analyze the clinicopathological features, diagnosis and appropriate treatment outcome of patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a heterogenous group of disorder in a government tertiary care hospital center. Method– This is a retrospective study of 23 patients from 2002-2020 over 18 years. The patients were evaluated on the basis of their age, obstetric history and the treatment received. All the patients were scored according to Modified World Health Organization (WHO) prognostic scoring system as adapted by FIGO Year 2000. Low risk group patients were given injection Methotrexate + Calcium Leucovorin and high risk group were given EMACO regimen. After treatment, the patient follow up was till date or minimum up to 2 years. The response to treatment was evaluated by regular clinical and radiological examination and serum β-hCG level estimation. Results – Three out of 23 patients who relapsed after primary chemotherapy were given second line chemotherapy. All three patients achieved complete remission (CR) after salvage chemotherapy. Thus overall response rate is 100%. Conclusion – Proper diagnosis, close monitoring and follow up with β-hCG value is of utmost importance in the management of GTN, WHO/FIGO scoring should be done and managed with chemotherapy treatment according to the risk assessment.
| Published in | Cancer Research Journal (Volume 8, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11 |
| Page(s) | 45-50 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia, EMACO Regimen, Invasive Mole, Choriocarcinoma
| [1] | Berkowitz RS and Goldstein DP. Molar pregnancy. N. Engl. J. Medicine 2009; 1639-45. |
| [2] | Mangili G, Lorusso D, Brown J,. Trophoblastic disease review for diagnosis and management: a joint report from the International Society for the Study of Trophoblastic Disease, European Organisation for the Treatment of Trophoblastic Disease, and the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014; 24 (9, Suppl 3) S109–S116. |
| [3] | Tse KY, Chan KKL, Tam KF and Ngan HYS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine. 2009; 19 (4): 89-91. |
| [4] | Savage P. Molar pregnancy. The Obstetrician and Gynecologist 2008; 10: 3-8. |
| [5] | Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology, clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 531–539. |
| [6] | Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Berkowitz RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Lancet 2010; 376: 717–729. |
| [7] | Brown J, Naumann RW, Seckl MJ, 15 years of progress in gestational trophoblastic disease: scoring, standardization, and salvage. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144: 200–207. |
| [8] | Bolze PA, Riedl C, Massardier J,. Mortality rate of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia with a FIGO score of ≥13. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: 390. e391–398. |
| [9] | Ngan HYS, Seckl MJ, Berkowitz RS, Update on the diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 143 (Suppl 2): 79–85. |
| [10] | Bower M, Newlands ES, Holden L Short D, Brock C, Rustin CJ et al. EMA/CO for high risk gestational trophoblastic tumor: Results from a cohort of 272 patients. Journal Clinical Oncology 1997; 15: 2636-43. |
| [11] | Hoekstra AV, Lurain JR, Rademaker AW, Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: treatment outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 251–258. |
| [12] | Lurain JR, Casanova LA, Miller DS,. Prognostic factors in gestational trophoblastic tumors: a proposed new scoring system based on multivariate analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164: 611–616. |
| [13] | Mao Y, Wan X, Lv W, Xie X. Relapsed or refractory gestational trophoblastic neoplasia treated with the etoposide and cisplatin/etoposide, methotrexate, and actinomycin D (EP-EMA) regimen. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 98: 44–47. |
| [14] | Lu WG, Ye F, Shen YM, EMA-CO chemotherapy for high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a clinical analysis of 54 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 357–362. |
| [15] | Alazzam M, Tidy J, Osborne R,. Chemotherapy for resistant or recurrent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 1: CD008891. |
| [16] | Lurain JR, Schink JC. Importance of salvage therapy in the management of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. J Reprod Med 2012; 57: 219–224. |
| [17] | Essel KG, Bruegl A, Gershenson DM,. Salvage chemotherapy for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: utility or futility? Gynecol Oncol 2017; 146: 74–80. |
| [18] | Feldman DR, Hu J, Dorff TB, Lim K, Patil S, Woo KM et al. Paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin efficacy for first-line treatment of patients with intermediate- or poor-risk germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (21): 2478–2483. |
| [19] | Lurain JR, Nejad B. Secondary chemotherapy for high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 97: 618–623. |
| [20] | Yamamoto E, Niimi K, Fujikake K, Nishida T, Murata M, Mitsuma A et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for choriocarcinoma: a case report and literature review. Mol Clin Oncol 2016; 5 (5): 660–664. |
| [21] | Wherry EJ. T cell exhaustion. Nat Immunol 2011; 12: 492–499. |
| [22] | Veras E, Kurman RJ, Wang TL,. PD-L1 expression in human placentas and gestational trophoblastic diseases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2017; 36: 146–153. |
| [23] | Ghorani E, Kaur B, Fisher RA,. Pembrolizumab is effective for drug-resistant gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Lancet 2017; 390: 2343–2345. |
APA Style
Rajendra Kumar Tanwar, Bharti Saxena, Radha Garg, Harsh Goyal, Des Deepak. (2020). Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study of 23 Cases. Cancer Research Journal, 8(3), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11
ACS Style
Rajendra Kumar Tanwar; Bharti Saxena; Radha Garg; Harsh Goyal; Des Deepak. Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study of 23 Cases. Cancer Res. J. 2020, 8(3), 45-50. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11
AMA Style
Rajendra Kumar Tanwar, Bharti Saxena, Radha Garg, Harsh Goyal, Des Deepak. Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study of 23 Cases. Cancer Res J. 2020;8(3):45-50. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11,
author = {Rajendra Kumar Tanwar and Bharti Saxena and Radha Garg and Harsh Goyal and Des Deepak},
title = {Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study of 23 Cases},
journal = {Cancer Research Journal},
volume = {8},
number = {3},
pages = {45-50},
doi = {10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.crj.20200803.11},
abstract = {Background – The aim of this study is to analyze the clinicopathological features, diagnosis and appropriate treatment outcome of patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a heterogenous group of disorder in a government tertiary care hospital center. Method– This is a retrospective study of 23 patients from 2002-2020 over 18 years. The patients were evaluated on the basis of their age, obstetric history and the treatment received. All the patients were scored according to Modified World Health Organization (WHO) prognostic scoring system as adapted by FIGO Year 2000. Low risk group patients were given injection Methotrexate + Calcium Leucovorin and high risk group were given EMACO regimen. After treatment, the patient follow up was till date or minimum up to 2 years. The response to treatment was evaluated by regular clinical and radiological examination and serum β-hCG level estimation. Results – Three out of 23 patients who relapsed after primary chemotherapy were given second line chemotherapy. All three patients achieved complete remission (CR) after salvage chemotherapy. Thus overall response rate is 100%. Conclusion – Proper diagnosis, close monitoring and follow up with β-hCG value is of utmost importance in the management of GTN, WHO/FIGO scoring should be done and managed with chemotherapy treatment according to the risk assessment.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study of 23 Cases AU - Rajendra Kumar Tanwar AU - Bharti Saxena AU - Radha Garg AU - Harsh Goyal AU - Des Deepak Y1 - 2020/08/10 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11 DO - 10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11 T2 - Cancer Research Journal JF - Cancer Research Journal JO - Cancer Research Journal SP - 45 EP - 50 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8214 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20200803.11 AB - Background – The aim of this study is to analyze the clinicopathological features, diagnosis and appropriate treatment outcome of patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a heterogenous group of disorder in a government tertiary care hospital center. Method– This is a retrospective study of 23 patients from 2002-2020 over 18 years. The patients were evaluated on the basis of their age, obstetric history and the treatment received. All the patients were scored according to Modified World Health Organization (WHO) prognostic scoring system as adapted by FIGO Year 2000. Low risk group patients were given injection Methotrexate + Calcium Leucovorin and high risk group were given EMACO regimen. After treatment, the patient follow up was till date or minimum up to 2 years. The response to treatment was evaluated by regular clinical and radiological examination and serum β-hCG level estimation. Results – Three out of 23 patients who relapsed after primary chemotherapy were given second line chemotherapy. All three patients achieved complete remission (CR) after salvage chemotherapy. Thus overall response rate is 100%. Conclusion – Proper diagnosis, close monitoring and follow up with β-hCG value is of utmost importance in the management of GTN, WHO/FIGO scoring should be done and managed with chemotherapy treatment according to the risk assessment. VL - 8 IS - 3 ER -
Information
Email: