Advertisement

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea
  • Yu Wang
  • Susan McGorray
  • Mohammed D. Saleem
  • Semiramis L. Carbajal Mamani
  • Ariel F. Pomputius
  • Merry-Jennifer Markham
  • Jacqueline C. Castagno
Review Article

Abstract

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery in other gynecologic cancers has shown benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. However, the biology and complexity of surgery for ovarian cancer may preclude this approach for ovarian cancer patients. Our objective is to assess feasibility to achieve complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIC–IV ovarian cancer patients via minimally invasive surgery. Our data sources include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biosis, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird estimator for the amount of heterogeneity to estimate the pooled outcomes. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to test publication bias. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. There were 6 studies (3 prospective, 3 retrospective) that met the criteria for meta-analysis with a total of 3231 patients, 567 were in the minimally invasive group and 2664 in the laparotomy group. Both groups were similar in stage and serous histology. Complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 74.50% (95% CI 40.41–97.65%) and 53.10% (95% CI 4.88–97.75%) of patients in the minimally invasive and laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between these 2 pooled proportions (p = 0.52). Three studies compared minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in obtaining complete cytoreductive surgery [OR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.70–1.16; p = 0.43)]. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated no publication bias. The pooled proportion for grade > 2 postoperative complications was not significant among the laparoscopy group [3.11% (95% CI 0.00–10.24%; p = 0.15)]. Complete cytoreductive surgery appears feasible and safe with minimally invasive surgery in selected advanced ovarian cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Keywords

Laparoscopy Robotic surgery Ovarian cancer Cytoreductive surgery Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Merry Markham reports research funding from Aduro Biotech and Astex Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

11701_2018_838_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vergote I, Trope CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363(10):943–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T et al (2015) Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 386(9990):249–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onda T, Satoh T, Saito T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, Nakamura K et al (2016) Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Eur J Cancer 64:22–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang SJ, Bristow RE (2012) Evolution of surgical treatment paradigms for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: redefining ‘optimal’ residual disease. Gynecol Oncol 125(2):483–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamilton CA, Miller A, Casablanca Y, Horowitz NS, Rungruang B, Krivak TC et al (2018) Clinicopathologic characteristics associated with long-term survival in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data study. Gynecol Oncol 148(2):275–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schorge JO, Bregar AJ, Durfee J, Berkowitz RS (2018) Meigs to modern times: The evolution of debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 149:447–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gueli Alletti S, Bottoni C, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Chiantera V, Costantini B et al (2016) Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery in ovarian neoplasm (MISSION trial-NCT02324595): a feasibility study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214(4):503 e1–503e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Practice Guidelines in Oncology: ovarian cancer. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2018
  10. 10.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim JC, Yang SS, Jang TY, Kwak JY, Yun MJ, Lim SB (2012) Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients. Int J Med Robot 8(4):468–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13(3):413–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gueli Alletti S, Petrillo M, Vizzielli G, Bottoni C, Nardelli F, Costantini B et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus standard laparotomic interval debulking surgery in ovarian neoplasm: a single-institution retrospective case-control study. Gynecol Oncol 143(3):516–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Favero G, Macerox N, Pfiffer T, Kohler C, da Costa Miranda V, Estevez Diz Mdel P et al (2015) Oncologic concerns regarding laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncology 89(3):159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tozzi R, Gubbala K, Majd HS, Campanile RG (2016) Interval laparoscopic en-bloc resection of the pelvis (L-EnBRP) in patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer: description of the technique and surgical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 142(3):477–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melamed A, Nitecki R, Boruta DM II, Del Carmen MG, Clark RM, Growdon WB et al (2017) laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for debulking ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Obstet Gynecol 129(5):861–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corrado G, Mancini E, Cutillo G, Baiocco E, Vici P, Sergi D et al (2015) Laparoscopic debulking surgery in the management of advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25(7):1253–1257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ackroyd SA, Thomas S, Angel C, Moore R, Meacham PJ, DuBeshter B (2017) Interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. J Robot Surg 12:245–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P (2011) Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 121(1):100–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eskander RN, Kauderer J, Tewari KS, Mannel RS, Bristow RE, O’Malley DM et al (2018) Correlation between Surgeon’s assessment and radiographic evaluation of residual disease in women with advanced stage ovarian cancer reported to have undergone optimal surgical cytoreduction: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 149(3):525–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blencowe NS, Cook JA, Pinkney T, Rogers C, Reeves BC, Blazeby JM (2017) Delivering successful randomized controlled trials in surgery: methods to optimize collaboration and study design. Clin Trials 14(2):211–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea
    • 1
  • Yu Wang
    • 2
  • Susan McGorray
    • 2
  • Mohammed D. Saleem
    • 3
  • Semiramis L. Carbajal Mamani
    • 3
  • Ariel F. Pomputius
    • 4
  • Merry-Jennifer Markham
    • 3
  • Jacqueline C. Castagno
    • 1
  1. 1.Division Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.University of Florida Health Science Center LibrariesGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations