Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared
Do you wish to request the book?
Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Dutch Risk Classification and FIGO 2000 for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Compared
2016
Overview
ObjectiveOver the years, there has been a wide variety of classification systems in use worldwide to stratify patients between single-agent versus multi-agent chemotherapy, hindering comparison of international research results. The study presents a retrospective comparison of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2000 and Dutch risk classification system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.Methods and MaterialsAll patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia between January 2003 and December 2012 at the trophoblastic disease centre in London were retrospectively scored according to the Dutch classification system (N = 813).ResultsAn extensive overlap between both scoring systems was seen, even though items and relative value of items were quite distinct. The Dutch system seems to be simpler and easier to apply in all situation; a degree of overtreatment can however be presumed with the use of either system.ConclusionsAlthough it is likely that outcome is indeed affected by the individual factors used in both systems, many factors relate to tumor bulk and may not be independently prognostic. We therefore believe that further refinement of the classification systems and their underlying prognostic items plus any new items that seem promising would be useful.
Publisher
Elsevier Limited
Subject
