Current Treatment Options in Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 12–21

Considerations in the Surgical Management of Ovarian Cancer in the Elderly

Gynecologic Cancers (RJ Morgan, Section Editor)

Opinion statement

Elderly patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer present a complex treatment dilemma. On the one hand, patients can be treated with primary debulking surgery to achieve the ideal oncologic outcomes but at the expense of risk of surgical morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, they can be treated with alternative, less morbid approaches, reducing toxicity, but sacrificing the survival benefits of low residual disease by surgical cytoreduction. Retrospective studies have attempted to identify risk factors for poor surgical outcome. Although there is no consensus to define “elderly” or “frail,” current evidence identifies age, performance status, nutritional status, and surgical complexity as major risk factors for surgical morbidity. Accepting the shortcomings of these retrospective data, candidates for primary debulking surgery can be assessed for risk of surgical morbidity. Age is likely a contributor to morbidity, particularly in the face of comorbid conditions. Clinicians should strive to treat elderly patients with a standard approach of primary debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy when healthy and in the absence of other risk factors. Elderly patients with the following are poor surgical candidates and an alternative treatment approach should be considered: poor nutritional status (characterized by serum albumin <3.0 g/dL), or poor performance status (ASA ≥3), and stage IV disease. Several of these factors are modifiable by treating the underlying cancer. These patients should be treated with two to three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and reassessed for surgical debulking. Patients with improvement in their nutritional or performance status can undergo interval debulking with the goal to resect all visible disease.

Keywords

Ovarian cancer Elderly Oncogeriatrics Surgical cytoreduction Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Frailty index Surgical morbidity and mortality 

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf. Accessed August, 2012.
  2. 2.
    U.S. Census Bureau: Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj/. Accessed August, 2012.
  3. 3.
    Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3194–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. NEJM. 2006;354:34–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Takahashi F, et al. Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1331–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD, et al. Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61:413–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sigurdsson K, Alm P, Gullberg B. Prognostic factors in malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 1983;15:370–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swenerton KD, Hislop TG, Spinelli J, et al. Ovarian carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:264–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Redman JR, Petroni GR, Saigo PE, et al. Prognostic factors in advanced ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:515–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aletti GD, Podratz KC, Moriarty JP, et al. Aggressive and complex surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: an economic analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:16–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aletti GD, Santillan A, Eisenhauer EL, et al. A new frontier for quality of care in gynecologic oncology surgery: multi-institutional assessment of short-term outcomes for ovarian cancer using a risk-adjusted model. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chi DS, Franklin CC, Levine DA, et al. Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: a change in surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:650–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chi DS, Liao JB, Leon LF, et al. Identification of prognostic factors in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:532–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:974–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janda M, Youlden DR, Baade PD, et al. Elderly patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer: should they receive standard care? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:896–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.•
    Langstraat C, Aletti GD, Cliby WA. Morbidity, mortality and overall survival in elderly women undergoing primary surgical debulking for ovarian cancer: a delicate balance requiring individualization. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:187–91. This study assesses risk factors for surgical morbidity and OS in patients older than aged 65 years. Although age is a risk factor, nutritional status and surgical complexity have a higher impact on outcomes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winter WE, Maxwell GL, Tian C, et al. Tumor residual after surgical cytoreduction in prediction of clinical outcome in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:83–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.••
    Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Impact of complete cytoreduction leaving no gross residual disease associated with radical cytoreductive surgical procedures on survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;6:6.This study redefines the definition of “optimal” cytoreduction and demonstrates a survival benefit of no gross residual disease over 0.1-1 cm of residual disease.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC, et al. Relationship among surgical complexity, short-term morbidity, and overall survival in primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:676.e1–e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chi DS, Zivanovic O, Levinson KL, et al. The incidence of major complications after the performance of extensive upper abdominal surgical procedures during primary cytoreduction of advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:38–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kehoe SM, Eisenhauer EL, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. Incidence and management of pancreatic leaks after splenectomy with distal pancreatectomy performed during primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian, peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:496–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peiretti M, Bristow RE, Zapardiel I, et al. Rectosigmoid resection at the time of primary cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. A multi-center analysis of surgical and oncological outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:220–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.••
    Chi DS, Musa F, Dao F, et al. An analysis of patients with bulky advanced stage ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma treated with primary debulking surgery (PDS) during an identical time period as the randomized EORTC-NCIC trial of PDS vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:10–4. Patients treated with NACT had greatly decreased OS compared to patients treated with standard care.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thigpen T, Brady MF, Omura GA, et al. Age as a prognostic factor in ovarian carcinoma. The Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. Cancer. 1993;71:606–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cloven NG, Manetta A, Berman ML, et al. Management of ovarian cancer in patients older than 80 years of age. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:137–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Díaz-Montes TP, Zahurak ML, Giuntoli RL, et al. Surgical care of elderly women with ovarian cancer: a population-based perspective. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:352–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eisenhauer EL, Tew WP, Levine DA, et al. Response and outcomes in elderly patients with stages IIIC-IV ovarian cancer receiving platinum-taxane chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.•
    Jørgensen TL, Teiblum S, Paludan M, et al. Significance of age and comorbidity on treatment modality, treatment adherence, and prognosis in elderly ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:367–74. Elderly patients (≥70) are less likely to receive standard care for EOC. In patients treated with standard care, comorbidities, rather than age, predicted poor outcomes. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore KN, Reid MS, Fong DN, et al. Ovarian cancer in the octogenarian: does the paradigm of aggressive cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy still apply? Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:133–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    National Cancer Institute: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/. Accessed August 2012.
  31. 31.
    Markman M, Lewis JL, Saigo P, et al. Impact of age on survival of patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;49:236–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hightower RD, Nguyen HN, Averette HE, et al. National survey of ovarian carcinoma. IV: patterns of care and related survival for older patients. Cancer. 1994;73:377–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O'Malley CD, Cress RD, Bauer K, et al. The implications of age and comorbidity on survival following epithelial ovarian cancer: summary and results from a centers for disease control and prevention study. J Womens Health. 2012;21:887–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Omura GA, Brady MF, Homesley HD, et al. Long-term follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:1138–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, et al. Quality improvement in the surgical approach to advanced ovarian cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:614–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chi DS, Palayekar MJ, Sonoda Y, et al. Nomogram for survival after primary surgery for bulky stage IIIC ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:191–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gallotta V, et al. Upper abdominal surgery in advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer: role of diaphragmatic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:497–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Magtibay PM, Adams PB, Silverman MB, Cha SS, Podratz KC. Splenectomy as part of cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102:369–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zapardiel I, Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, et al. Splenectomy as part of primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:968–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chéreau E, Rouzier R, Gouy S, et al. Morbidity of diaphragmatic surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: retrospective study of 148 cases. EJSO. 2011;37:175–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dowdy SC, Loewen RT, Aletti G, et al. Assessment of outcomes and morbidity following diaphragmatic peritonectomy for women with ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:303–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eisenhauer EL, D'Angelica MI, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. Incidence and management of pleural effusions after diaphragm peritonectomy or resection for advanced Mullerian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:871–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Lin W-CM. Splenectomy in the context of primary cytoreductive operations for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:344–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.•
    Gerestein CG, Damhuis RAM, de Vries M, et al. Causes of postoperative mortality after surgery for ovarian cancer. Euro J of Cancer. 2009;45:2799–803. Post-operative complications occur in a heterogeneous group of patients. Age is a risk factor for surgical morbidity, but additional risk factors need to be characterized to better select patients for surgery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, et al. The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;118:262–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sharma S, Driscoll D, Odunsi K, et al. Safety and efficacy of cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer in elderly and high-risk surgical patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2077–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Powell MA. Morbidity of cytoreductive surgery in the elderly. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1398–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Audisio RA, et al. Shall we operate? Preoperative assessment in elderly cancer patients (PACE) can help: a SIOG surgical task force prospective study. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2008;65:156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Audisio RA, Zbar AP, Jaklitsch MT. Surgical management of oncogeriatric patients. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1924–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Farhat JS, Velanovich V, Falvo AJ, et al. Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72:1526–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Obeid NM, Azuh O, Reddy S, et al. Predictors of critical care-related complications in colectomy patients using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: exploring frailty and aggressive laparoscopic approaches. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72:878–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:901–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.•
    Robinson TN, Eiseman B, Wallace JI, et al. Redefining geriatric preoperative assessment using frailty, disability and co-morbidity. Ann Surg. 2009;250:449–55. In the elderly, assessment of frailty accurately predicts 6-month surgical mortality.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. NEJM. 2010;363:943–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Glasgow MA, Yu H, Rutherford TJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is an effective way of managing elderly women with advanced stage ovarian cancer (FIGO Stage IIIC and IV). J Surg Oncol. 2012. doi:10.1002/jso.23171.
  56. 56.•
    Mclean KA, Shah CA, Thompson SA, et al. Ovarian cancer in the elderly: outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreduction. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;118:43–6. Elderly patients treated with NACT had fewer complications with no difference in progression free or OS compared to patients who received standard of care.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations