Review Article

Prognostic Significance of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Serum Determination in Women with Ovarian Cancer

Table 2

Association between sVEGF and clinicopathological characteristics of patients.

VariableAuthor, yearNo. casesReported statistics for VEGFVariable typeStatistical significance of association

StageTempfer et al., 1998 [21]60mdI/II versus III/IVNO
Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53mdI versus II and III versus IVNO
Chen et al., 1999 [23]56mdI/II versus III/IVNO
Oehler and Caffier, 2000 [24]41mcategoricalNO
Cooper et al., 2002 [25]101mdI/II versus III/IVNO
Li et al., 2004 [26]50mI/II versus III/IVYES
Harloziňska
et al., 2004 [27]
86NAI/II versus III/IVNO
Hefler et al., 2006 [28]314mcategoricalNO

GradeTempfer et al., 1998 [21]60mdG1 versus G2/G3YES
Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53mdG1-G2 versus G3NO
Chen et al., 1999 [23]56mdG1 versus G2/G3YES
Cooper et al., 2002 [25]101mdG1-G2 versus G3NO
Li et al., 2004 [26]50mG1-G2 versus G3YES
Harloziňska
et al., 2004 [27]
86NAG1 versus G2/G3NO
Hefler et al., 2006 [28]314mcategoricalNO
Mahner et al., 2010 [29]37mdG2 versus G3NO

Residual tumour size (cm)Tempfer et al., 1998 [21]60md≥2 versus <2NO
Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53md≥2 versus <2NO
Chen et al., 1999 [23]56md≥2 versus <2NO
Oehler and Caffier, 2000 [24]41m≥2 versus <2NO
Cooper et al., 2002 [25]101md≥1 versus <1NO
Li et al., 2004 [26]50m≥2 versus <2YES
Hefler et al., 2006 [28]314m≥1 versus <1YES
Mahner et al., 2010 [29]37md≥0 versus <0NO

Lymph node involvementTempfer et al., 1998 [21]60mdyes versus noNO
Li et al., 2004 [26]50myes versus noYES
Hefler et al., 2006 [28]314myes versus noNO
Mahner et al., 2010 [29]37mdyes versus noNO

Histological typeTempfer et al., 1998 [21]60mdserous or mucinous versus othersNO
Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53mdserous versus othersNO
Chen et al., 1999 [23]56mdserous or mucinous versus othersNO
Oehler and Caffier, 2000 [24]41mcategoricalNO
Li et al., 2004 [26]50mcategoricalNO
Harloziňska
et al., 2004 [27]
86NAcategoricalNO

Ascites (mL)Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53mdpresence versus absenceYES
Cooper et al., 2002 [25]101mdpresence versus absenceYES
Li et al., 2004 [26]50m≥500 versus <500YES
Harloziňska
et al., 2004 [27]
86NApresence versus absenceNO
Mahner et al., 2010 [29]37md≥500 versus <500NO

Age (years)Tempfer et al., 1998 [21]60md≥50 versus <50NO
Gadducci et al., 1999 [22]53NANANO
Chen et al., 1999 [23]56md≥50 versus <50NO
Oehler and Caffier, 2000 [24]41m≥60 versus <60NO
Cooper et al., 2002 [25]101md≥64 versus <64NO
Hefler et al., 2006 [28]314mcontinuous variableNO
Mahner et al., 2010 [29]37md≥61 versus <61NO

Md: median, m: media, NA: not available data.