Journal List > J Gynecol Oncol > v.30(2) > 1116853

TOOLS
Li, Xu, Liu, Cheng, Wang, Lu, and Xie: The management of hydatidiform mole with lung nodule: a retrospective analysis in 53 patients
Original Article

J Gynecol Oncol 2019;30(2):e16.

Published online: 4 March 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e16

The management of hydatidiform mole with lung nodule: a retrospective analysis in 53 patients

Xiao Li1, 2, Yaping Xu2, 3, Yuanyuan Liu1, 2, Xiaodong Cheng1, 2, Xinyu Wang1, 2, Weiguo Lu1, 2, 4, Xing Xie1, 2

1Women's Reproductive Health Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

2Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

3Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, China

4Center for Uterine Cancer Diagnosis & Therapy Research of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China

Correspondence to Xiao Li Women's Reproductive Health Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 1 Xueshi Road, Hangzhou 310006, China. E-mail: 5198008@zju.edu.cn

Conflict of Interest No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Received 31 August 2018       Revised 7 October 2018       Accepted 23 October 2018

Copyright © 2019 Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the significance of lung nodule in hydatidiform mole, we retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of those patients treated with different strategies.

Methods

The patients were divided into three groups: chemotherapy immediately once lung nodule was detected (group 1, n=17), delayed chemotherapy until human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) level met the diagnostic criteria for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) (group 2, n=18), and hCG surveillance alone until hCG level was normalized spontaneously (group 3, n=18). The clinical parameters of these patients were collected and analyzed.

Results

Totally 53 (4.0%) patients were included from 1,323 cases with molar pregnancy during past 16 years. Among them, the diameters of lung nodules were 0.3–2.5 cm. Chemotherapy cycles for achieving hCG normalization and the failure rate of first-line chemotherapy in group 1 were significantly increased than that in group 2 (5 vs. 3 cycles, p=0.000, 58.8% vs. 11.1%, p=0.005). The hCG level of all 18 cases in group 3 was normalized spontaneously within 6 months. Of those, lung nodules of 9 patients disappeared spontaneously, accounting for 25% (9/36) of patients who initially selected observation. The proportion of single nodule in group 3 was significantly higher than that in group 2 (10/18 vs. 2/18, p=0.012).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that lung nodule alone is not an adequate indication of chemotherapy in molar pregnancy. hCG surveillance is safe for patients with lung nodule, especially with single nodule, as long as their hCG levels do not meet International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics diagnostic criteria for GTN.

Keywords: Hydatidiform Mole, Pulmonary Nodule, Chemotherapy, Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia, Chorionic Gonadotrophin

References

1. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. 4th ed.Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC);2014.
2. Denny L, Quinn M. FIGO cancer report 2015. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015; 131(Suppl 2):S75.
crossref
3. Ngan HY, Kohorn EI, Cole LA, Kurman RJ, Kim SJ, Lurain JR, et al. Trophoblastic disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012; 119(Suppl 2):S130–6.
crossref
4. Rice LW, Berkowitz RS, Lage JM, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR. Persistent gestational trophoblastic tumor after partial hydatidiform mole. Gynecol Oncol. 1990; 36:358–62.
crossref
5. Page NM, Kemp CF, Butlin DJ, Lowry PJ. Placental peptides as markers of gestational disease. Reproduction. 2002; 123:487–95.
crossref
6. Darby S, Jolley I, Pennington S, Hancock BW. Does chest CT matter in the staging of GTN? Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112:155–60.
7. Braga A, Torres B, Burlá M, Maestá I, Sun SY, Lin L, et al. Is chemotherapy necessary for patients with molar pregnancy and human chorionic gonadotropin serum levels raised but falling at 6months after uterine evacuation? Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 143:558–64.
8. Eysbouts YK, Bulten J, Ottevanger PB, Thomas CM, Ten Kate-Booij MJ, van Herwaarden AE, et al. Trends in incidence for gestational trophoblastic disease over the last 20 years in a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 140:70–5.
9. Newlands ES. The management of recurrent and drug-resistant gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003; 17:905–23.
crossref
10. Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Berkowitz RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Lancet. 2010; 376:717–29.
crossref
11. Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Fisher RA, Golfier F, Massuger L, Sessa C, et al. Gestational trophoblastic disease: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24(Suppl 6):vi39–50.
crossref
12. Bolze PA, Attia J, Massardier J, Seckl MJ, Massuger L, van Trommel N, et al. Formalised consensus of the European Organisation for Treatment of Trophoblastic Diseases on management of gestational trophoblastic diseases. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51:1725–31.
crossref
13. Sebire NJ, Seckl MJ. Gestational trophoblastic disease: current management of hydatidiform mole. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1193.
crossref
14. Kohorn EI. Negotiating a staging and risk factor scoring system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. A progress report. J Reprod Med. 2002; 47:445–50.
15. Niimi K, Yamamoto E, Nishino K, Fujiwara S, Ino K, Kikkawa F. Spontaneous regression of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017; 21:98–100.
crossref
16. Tanaka T, Yanagida S, Yanaihara N. The general rules for clinical and pathological management of trophoblastic diseases–2011, the 3rd edition. Nihon Rinsho. 2012; 70(Suppl 4):695–8.
17. Ring AM. The concept of benign metastasizing hydatidiform moles. Am J Clin Pathol. 1972; 58:111–7.
crossref
18. Roberts KE, Hamele-Bena D, Saqi A, Stein CA, Cole RP. Pulmonary tumor embolism: a review of the literature. Am J Med. 2003; 115:228–32.
crossref
19. Hertz R. Spontaneous regression in choriocarcinoma and related gestational trophobalstic neoplasms. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1976; 44:59–60.
20. Shaaban AM, Rezvani M, Haroun RR, Kennedy AM, Elsayes KM, Olpin JD, et al. Gestational trophoblastic disease: clinical and imaging features. Radiographics. 2017; 37:681–700.
crossref
21. Hanamiya M, Aoki T, Yamashita Y, Kawanami S, Korogi Y. Frequency and significance of pulmonary nodules on thin-section CT in patients with extrapulmonary malignant neoplasms. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81:152–7.
crossref
22. Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Takahashi M, Mizutani H, Miyazaki K, Matsuura K, et al. Contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging of postmolar gestational trophoblastic disease. Acta Radiol. 1995; 36:188–92.
crossref
23. Tidy JA, Hancock B, Ansink A, Hammond CB, Ilancheran A, Jauniaux ER, et al. The management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, guideline No. 38. London: RCOG Press;2010.
24. Gerulath AH, Ehlen TG, Bessette P, Jolicoeur L, Savoie R, et al. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Gestational trophoblastic disease. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002; 24:434–46.
25. Soper JT, Mutch DG, Schink JC. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Diagnosis and treatment of gestational trophoblastic disease: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 53. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 93:575–85.

Fig. 1.
The chemotherapy response for patients in group 1 and 2. (A) More chemotherapy cycles for achieving human chorionic gonadotrophin normalization were used in group 1 than that in group 2. (B) More failure rate of first-line chemotherapy in group 1 than that in group 2.
jgo-30-e16f1.tif
Table 1.
The clinical characteristics of patients in three groups
Variables Group 1 (n=17) Group 2 (n=18) Group 3 (n=18) p-value
Age (yr) 26 (17–53) 29.5 (17–53) 31.5 (16–54) 0.369
hCG level of pre-evacuation (IU/L) 464,672.0 (50,138.0–2,004,065.0) 152,386.0 (1,000.0–1,000,000.0) 140,880.5 (14,812.9–431,000.0) 0.107
Gestational age (day) 74 (46–147) 71 (37–270) 69 (30–112) 0.111
Pathology of molar pregnancy       0.231
 CHM 17 16 15  
 PHM 0 2 3  
Detected time of lung nodule*       0.281
 At evacuation 12 11 8  
 After evacuation 5 7 10  
The largest diameter of lung nodule (cm) 0.6 (0.3–1.7) 0.6 (0.3–2.5) 0.65 (0.3–1.7) 0.946
The quantity of lung nodule       0.018†
 Single 7 2 10  
 Multiple 10 16 8  

Values are presented as median (range) or number. CHM, complete hydatidiform mole; hCG, human chorionic gonadotrophin; PHM, partial hydatidiform mole.

* This variable means the number of patients whose lung nodule detected at evacuation or after evacuation;

† The p-value for the difference of the quantity of lung nodule between group 2 and 3 was 0.012 (Fisher's exact test).

Table 2.
The clinical characteristics related with chemotherapy in group 1 and 2
Variables Group 1 (n=17) Group 2 (n=18) p-value
Follow-up of lung nodule     0.102
 Disappear 8 5  
 Decrease 4 11  
 Persistence 5 2  
hCG level before chemotherapy (IU/L) 9,763.0 (632.1–1,144,162.0) 1,764.0 (137.1–59,843.0) 0.320
FIGO prognosis score 2 (0–8) 2 (0–8) 0.833
First-line chemotherapy     0.603
 Single reagent 16 15  
 Multiple reagents 1 3  
Chemotherapy cycles 5 (3–10) 3 (1–6) 0.000
Failure of first-line chemotherapy 10 2 0.005
Occurrence of relapse 1 0 –
Occurrence of death 0 0 –

Values are presented as median (range) or number. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; hCG, human chorionic gonadotrophin.

Table 3.
The response to chemotherapy for patients in group 1 and 2 by logistic regression analysis
Variables Chemotherapy cycles
 Failure to first-line chemotherapy
OR (95% CI) p-value OR (95% CI) p-value
Age 1.03 (0.97–1.09) 0.349 1.01 (0.96–1.07) 0.644
Gestational age 1.01 (0.99–1.03) 0.205 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.455
Detected time 2.18 (0.51–9.33) 0.292 0.52 (0.11–2.45) 0.407
Size 0.60 (0.14–2.56) 0.494 0.56 (0.11–2.93) 0.491
Quantity 1.71 (0.37–7.85) 0.494 0.30 (0.06–1.42) 0.128
hCG level 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.057 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.722

CI, confidence interval; hCG, human chorionic gonadotrophin; OR, odds ratio.

TOOLS
Similar articles