Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic and Predictive Value of the Peritoneal Cancer Index in Primary Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients After Complete Cytoreductive Surgery: Study of Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The peritoneal cancer index (PCI) is used to refer gastrointestinal malignancy patients to either palliative or curative management of their peritoneal carcinomatosis. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the PCI in patients with primary advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) after complete cytoreductive surgery.

Methods

PCI quantitatively assesses cancer distribution on the peritoneum by calculating tumor sizes in each of 13 abdominopelvic regions. Correlation between PCI score and clinical factors were analyzed using Kendall's tau b. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression model, respectively.

Results

We retrospectively enrolled 80 consecutive patients with primary EOC treated in our gynecology department. All patients underwent complete cytoreductive surgery. Patients whose history included interval tumor debulking and completion cytoreductive surgery were excluded. Most tumors were of a serous histological subtype (96.3 %). Median age at diagnosis was 58.0 years. Their median PCI score was 12.0 (range 3–32). We found statistical correlations between PCI and ascites (p = 0.001), surgery duration (p < 0.001), T status of TNM staging (p = 0.036), and preoperative CA 125 (p = 0.025). In the univariate analysis, higher PCI scores were related to poor overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival rates (p = 0.036 and p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the association remained significant only for PFS (p = 0.005), not for OS (p = 0.162).

Conclusions

PCI did not portend OS in patients with primary ovarian cancer. Further prospective and multicenter studies are needed to validate these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Holschneider CH, Berek JS. Ovarian cancer: epidemiology, biology, and prognostic factors. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19(1):3–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;95(Suppl 1):S161–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Engel J, Eckel R, Schubert-Fritschle G, et al. Moderate progress for ovarian cancer in the last 20 years: prolongation of survival, but no improvement in the cure rate. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(18):2435–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meyers MA. Distribution of intra-abdominal malignant seeding: dependency on dynamics of flow of ascitic fluid. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1973;119(1):198–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilly FN, Carry PY, Sayag AC, et al. Regional chemotherapy (with mitomycin C) and intra-operative hyperthermia for digestive cancers with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hepatogastroenterology. 1994;41(2):124–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kajitani T. The general rules for the gastric cancer study in surgery and pathology. Part I. Clinical classification. Jpn J Surg. 1981;11(2):127–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sugarbaker PH, Jablonski KA. Prognostic features of 51 colorectal and 130 appendiceal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 1995;221(2):124–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verwaal VJ, van Tinteren H, van Ruth S, Zoetmulder FA. Predicting the survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin treated by aggressive cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Br J Surg. 2004;91(6):739–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Friedman RL, Lin WC, Pisani AL, Perticucci S. Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(2):390–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sehouli J, Konsgen D, Mustea A, et al. [“IMO”–intraoperative mapping of ovarian cancer]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2003;125(3–4):129–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sehouli J, Senyuva F, Fotopoulou C, et al. Intra-abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 patients with primary ovarian cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(7):424–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Fanfani F, et al. A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1156–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zivanovic O, Sima CS, Iasonos A, et al. The effect of primary cytoreduction on outcomes of patients with FIGO stage IIIC ovarian cancer stratified by the initial tumor burden in the upper abdomen cephalad to the greater omentum. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aletti GD, Eisenhauer EL, Santillan A, et al. Identification of patient groups at highest risk from traditional approach to ovarian cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(1):23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Verleye L, Ottevanger PB, van der Graaf W, et al. EORTC-GCG process quality indicators for ovarian cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(4):517–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Panici PB, Maggioni A, Hacker N, et al. Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(8):560–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sehouli J, Savvatis K, Braicu EI, Schmidt SC, Lichtenegger W, Fotopoulou C. Primary versus interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: results from a systematic single-center analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(8):1331–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cornelis S, Van Calster B, Amant F, Leunen K, van der Zee AG, Vergote I. Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer: survey results from the members of the European Society of Gynecological Oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(3):407–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grabowski JP, Harter P, Hils R, et al. Outcome of immediate re-operation or interval debulking after chemotherapy at a gynecologic oncology center after initially incomplete cytoreduction of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):54–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gagliardi AR, Fung MF, Langer B, Stern H, Brown AD. Development of ovarian cancer surgery quality indicators using a modified Delphi approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(2):446–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sugarbaker PH. Successful management of microscopic residual disease in large bowel cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1999;43(Suppl):S15–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elias D, Souadka A, Fayard F, et al. Variation in the peritoneal cancer index scores between surgeons and according to when they are determined (before or after cytoreductive surgery). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(6):503–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Morgan RJ Jr., Alvarez RD, Armstrong DK, et al. Ovarian cancer: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2008;6(8):766–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Portilla AG, Sugarbaker PH, Chang D. Second-look surgery after cytoreduction and intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: analysis of prognostic features. World J Surg. 1999;23(1):23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Elias D, Blot F, El Otmany A, et al. Curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from colorectal cancer by complete resection and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer. 2001;92(1):71–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Glehen O, Gilly FN, Boutitie F, et al. Toward curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from nonovarian origin by cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a multi-institutional study of 1,290 patients. Cancer. 2010;116(24):5608–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harmon RL, Sugarbaker PH. Prognostic indicators in peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal cancer. Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2005;2(1):3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tentes AA, Tripsiannis G, Markakidis SK, et al. Peritoneal cancer index: a prognostic indicator of survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29(1):69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Makar AP, Baekelandt M, Trope CG, Kristensen GB. The prognostic significance of residual disease, FIGO substage, tumor histology, and grade in patients with FIGO stage III ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;56(2):175–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eisenkop SM, Friedman RL, Wang HJ. Complete cytoreductive surgery is feasible and maximizes survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 1998;69(2):103–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975;42:101–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD, Nieberg RK, Elashoff RM. Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61(4):413–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Allen DG, Heintz AP, Touw FW. A meta-analysis of residual disease and survival in stage III and IV carcinoma of the ovary. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1995;16(5):349–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Le T, Krepart GV, Lotocki RJ, Heywood MS. Does debulking surgery improve survival in biologically aggressive ovarian carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 1997;67(2):208–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wimberger P, Lehmann N, Kimmig R, et al. Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival: an exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(1):69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Konigsrainer I, Zieker D, Glatzle J, et al. Experience after 100 patients treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18(17):2061–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sugarbaker PH. Management of peritoneal-surface malignancy: the surgeon’s role. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 1999;384(6):576–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Swellengrebel HA, Zoetmulder FA, Smeenk RM, Antonini N, Verwaal VJ. Quantitative intra-operative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a comparison of three prognostic tools. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(10):1078–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Koh JL, Yan TD, Glenn D, Morris DL. Evaluation of preoperative computed tomography in estimating peritoneal cancer index in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):327–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. De Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R, van Ruth S, Witkamp AJ, Zoetmulder FA. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86(2):64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dromain C, Leboulleux S, Auperin A, et al. Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs. PET/CT. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33(1):87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Esquivel J, Chua TC, Stojadinovic A, et al. Accuracy and clinical relevance of computed tomography scan interpretation of peritoneal cancer index in colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: a multi-institutional study. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(6):565–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pfannenberg C, Konigsrainer I, Aschoff P, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT to select patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1295–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This project was supported by a research grant form Berliner Krebsgesellschaft e. V.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Khayal Gasimli MD, Elena Ioana Braicu MD, Rolf Richter MPH, Radoslav Chekerov MD & Jalid Sehouli MD, PhD

  2. Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer Network (TOC), European Comprehensive Center for Ovarian Cancer, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCCC), Berlin, Germany

    Khayal Gasimli MD, Elena Ioana Braicu MD, Rolf Richter MPH, Radoslav Chekerov MD & Jalid Sehouli MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Khayal Gasimli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Ioana Braicu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rolf Richter MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Radoslav Chekerov MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jalid Sehouli MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khayal Gasimli MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gasimli, K., Braicu, E.I., Richter, R. et al. Prognostic and Predictive Value of the Peritoneal Cancer Index in Primary Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients After Complete Cytoreductive Surgery: Study of Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 2729–2737 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4329-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4329-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation