Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 10, Supplement 1, pp 57–64 | Cite as

Impact of Radicality Versus Timing of Surgery in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer (Stage III C) Undergoing CRS and HIPEC—a Retrospective Study by INDEPSO

  • Aditi BhattEmail author
  • Snita Sinukumar
  • Firoz Rajan
  • Dileep Damodaran
  • Mukurdipi Ray
  • Shabber Zaveri
  • Praveen Kammar
  • Sanket Mehta
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

HIPEC in addition to interval CRS has shown a survival benefit of 12 months compared to CRS alone. However, there are many controversial issues pertaining to CRS itself which should be addressed first. To compare NACT and primary CRS approaches when CRS is categorized according to the extent of resection. To evaluate the feasibility of performing HIPEC at these two time points. A retrospective analysis of patients with stage III C ovarian cancer undergoing primary and interval CRS + HIPEC was performed. The surgical approach for interval CRS was classified as (1) resection of sites of residual disease alone or (2) resection of sites involved before NACT. The morphological response was divided into different categories, and surgeons had to state what they consider residual disease and what they do not. From January 2013 to December 2017, 54 patients were included (18-primary; 36-interval). Median PCI 11 vs 6.5 (p = 0.07); CC-0 was obtained in 77.7%. Three surgeons resected previously involved sites; three sites of residual disease only. All surgeons resected areas of scarring. Twenty percent patients had residual disease in “normal-looking” peritoneum. Morbidity (p = 0.09), median OS (p = 0.71), and median DFS (p = 0.54) were similar in the two groups. Early recurrence occurred in 50% with resection of residual disease alone compared to 16.6% when previous disease sites were resected (p = 0.07). Interval CRS should be performed to resect sites involved prior to NACT and not just sites of residual disease. HIPEC can be performed in both primary/interval settings with acceptable morbidity.

Keywords

Ovarian cancer Cytoreductive surgery Interval debulking HIPEC Radical surgery Interval CRS 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hennessy BT, Coleman RL, Markman M (2009) Ovarian cancer. Lancet 374:1371–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61338-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatt A, Glehen O (2016) the role of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec) in ovarian cancer: a review. Indian J Surg Oncol 7(2):188–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-016-0501-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakrin N, Classe JM, Pomel C, Gouy S, Chene G, Glehen O (2014) Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in ovarian cancer. J Visc Surg 151:347–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2014.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sikorska K, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Schreuder HWR, Hermans RHM, de Hingh IHJT, van der Velden J, Arts HJ, Massuger LFAG, Aalbers AGJ, Verwaal VJ, Kieffer JM, van de Vijver KK, van Tinteren H, Aaronson NK, Sonke GS (2018) Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 378:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chi DS, Bristow RE, Armstrong DK, Karlan BY (2011) Is the easier way ever the better way? J Clin Oncol 29:4073–4075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi DS, Musa F, Dao F, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM, Levine DA, Gardner GJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR (2012) 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 che- motherapy (NACT). Gynecol Oncol 124:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vasey P, Jayson G, Gordon A, Gabra H, Coleman R, Atkinson R et al (2004) Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel–carboplatin versus paclitaxel–carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(22):1682–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papademetriou K, Ardavanis A, Kountourakis P (2010) Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: focus on chemotherapy and biological targeted treatments’ armamentarium. J Thoracic Dis 2(3):160–170.  https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2010.02.03.8 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisenhauer EA (2011) Optimal assessment of response in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 22(Suppl_8):viii49–viii51  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr467 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kusamura S, Sinukumar S, Baratti D, Guaglio M, Guagdagni S, Deraco M (2017) Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in the first-line and interval time points of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 15(Suppl 1):11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-017-0148-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hynninen J, Lavonius M, Oksa S, Grenman S, Carpen O, Auranen A (2013) Is perioperative visual estimation of intra-abdominal tumor spread reliable in ovarian cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Gynecol Oncol 128:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fotopoulou C, Sehouli J, Aletti G, Harter P, Mahner S, Querleu D, Chiva L, Gabra H, Colombo N, du Bois A (2017) Value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: a European perspective. J Clin Oncol 35:587–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH (1996) Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res 82:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gouy S, Ferron G, Glehen O, Bayar A, Marchal F, Pomel C, Quenet F, Bereder JM, Le Deley MC, Morice P (2016) Results of a multicenter phase I dose-finding trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal cisplatin after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and complete cytoreductive surgery and followed by maintenance bevacizumab in initially unresectable ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 142(2):237–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA, Mahteme H, Sugarbaker PH (2011) Pharmacokinetic study of perioperative intravenous Ifosfamide. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:185092Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    United States Department of Public Health and Hu- man Services, NIH, NCI: common toxicity criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). National Cancer Insti- tute, June 2010. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE_ Vers._4.03_2010–06- 14;_QuickReference_5x7.pdf
  17. 17.
    Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, Lockley M, Brockbank E, Jeyarajah A, Fitzpatrick A, Ennis D, Dowe T, Santos JL, Cook LS, Tinker AV, le ND, Gilks CB, Singh N (2015) Chemotherapy response score: development and validation of a system to quantify histopathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 33:2457–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee J-Y, Chung YS, Na K, Kim HM, Park CK, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim SW, Kim YT, Kim HS (2017) External validation of chemotherapy response score system for histopathological assessment of tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol 28(6):e73.  https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E et al (2011) Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the gynecological cancer inter-group (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Levine DA, Guile MW, Bristow RE, Aghajanian C, Barakat RR (2009) Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol 114:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luyckx M, Leblanc E, Filleron T, Morice P, Darai E, Classe JM, Ferron G, Stoeckle E, Pomel C, Vinet B, Chereau E, Bergzoll C, Querleu D (2012) Maximal cytoreduction in patients with FIGO stage IIIC to stage IV ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer in day-to-day practice: a Retrospective French Multicentric Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(8):1337–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bristow RE, Puri I, Chi DS (2009) Cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 112:265–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chi DS, Zivanovic O, Levinson KL, Kolev V, Huh J, Dottino J, Gardner GJ, Leitao MM Jr, Levine DA, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Brown CL, Barakat RR (2010) 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 119:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    du Bois A, Reuss A, Harter P, Pujade-Lauraine E, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J (2010) Potential role of lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of three prospectively randomized phase III multicenter trials. J Clin Oncol 28:1733–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bachmann C, Brucker SY, Kraemer B, Rothmund R, Staebler A, Fend F, Wallwiener D, Grischke EM (2015) The prognostic relevance of node metastases in optimally cytoreduced advanced ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141:1475–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D et al (2017) LION: lymphadenectomy in ovarian neoplasms—a prospective randomized AGO study group led gynecologic cancer intergroup trial. J Clin Oncol 35(suppl):abstr 5500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Llueca A, Escrig J; MUAPOS working group (Multidisciplinary Unit of Abdominal Pelvic Oncology Surgery) (2018) Prognostic value of peritoneal cancer index in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):163–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.11.003
  28. 28.
    Elzarkaa AA, Shaalan W, Elemam D, Mansour H, Melis M, Malik E, Soliman AA (2018) Peritoneal cancer index as a predictor of survival in advanced stage serous epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective study. J Gynecol Oncol 29(4):e47.  https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyZydus HospitalAhmedabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyJehangir hospitalPuneIndia
  3. 3.Department of Surgical OncologyKovai Medical centerCoimbatoreIndia
  4. 4.Department of Surgical OncologyMVR Cancer Centre and Research InstituteCalicutIndia
  5. 5.Department of Surgical OncologyAll India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)New DelhiIndia
  6. 6.Department of Surgical OncologyManipal HospitalsBangaloreIndia
  7. 7.Department of Surgical OncologySaifee HospitalMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations