Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 15–23 | Cite as

Treatments and overall survival in patients with Krukenberg tumor

  • Ruggero Lionetti
  • Marcello De Luca
  • Antonio TravaglinoEmail author
  • Antonio Raffone
  • Luigi Insabato
  • Gabriele Saccone
  • Massimo Mascolo
  • Maria D’armiento
  • Fulvio Zullo
  • Francesco Corcione
Review
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Krukenberg tumor (KT) is a rare secondary ovarian tumor, primarily localized at the gastrointestinal tract in most cases. KT is related to severe prognosis due to its aggressiveness, diagnostic difficulties and poor treatment efficacy. Several treatments have been used, such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS), adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and/or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). To date, it is still unclear which treatment or combination of treatments is related to better survival.

Objective

To assess the most effective therapeutic protocol in terms of overall survival (OS).

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for all studies assessing the association of treatments with OS in KTs. The effectiveness of each treatment protocol was evaluated by comparing the OS between patients treated with different treatment protocols.

Results

Twenty retrospective studies, with a total sample size of 1533 KTs, were included in the systematic review. Therapeutic protocols used were CRS in 18 studies, CT in 13 studies, HIPEC in 7 studies, neoadjuvant CT in 2 studies, and some combinations of these in 6 studies. Seven studies showed that CRS significantly improved OS compared to other treatments or association of treatments without it. 11 studies showed that CRS without residual (R0 CRS) had a significantly better OS than CRS with residual (R + CRS). Five studies showed that CT significantly improved OS, but other five showed it did not. Two studies showed that HIPEC in association with CRS improved OS, while another study showed that efficacy of HIPEC was comparable to CT. Two studies evaluated neoadjuvant CT, but results were conflicting.

Conclusion

CRS and in particular R0 CRS are the treatments showing the clearest results in improving OS in KT patients. Results about CT are conflicting. HIPEC appears effective both alone and in combination with CRS, and also related to fewer adverse effect than CT. The usefulness of neoadjuvant CT is still unclear. The association of R0 CRS with HIPEC seems to be the most effective and safe therapeutic protocol for KT patients.

Keywords

Cancer Metastasis Prognosis Management oncology hazard ratio Therapy 

Notes

Author contributions

RL: study conception, electronic search, eligibility of the studies, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis. MDL: electronic search, eligibility of the studies, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis, and manuscript preparation. AT, AR: study conception, disagreement resolution, and manuscript preparation. GS: electronic search, eligibility of the studies, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis. MM: methods supervision and manuscript preparation. LI: study design, methods supervision, and manuscript preparation. MDA: study design, manuscript preparation, and whole study supervision. FZ: study design, methods supervision, and whole study supervision. FC: study conception and whole study supervision.

Funding

No financial support was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Agha OM, Nicastri AD (2006) An in-depth look at Krukenberg tumor: an overview. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130(11):1725–1730Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kubeček O, Laco J, Špaček J et al (2017) The pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management metastatic tumors to the ovary: a comprehensive review. Clin Exp Metastasis 34(5):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Novak E, Gray LA (1938) Krukenberg tumors of the ovary: clinical and pathological study of 21 cases. Surg Gynecol Obstet 66:157–167Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu F, Zhao X, Mi B et al (2015) Clinical characteristics and prognostic analysis of Krukenberg tumor. Mol Clin Oncol 3(6):1323–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seow-En I, Hwarng G, Tan GHC, Ho LML, Teo MCC (2018) Palliative surgery for Krukenberg tumors—12-year experience and review of the literature. World J Clin Oncol 9(1):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu P, Huang L, Cheng G et al (2017) Treatment strategy and prognostic factors for Krukenberg tumors of gastric origin: report of a 10-year single-center experience from China. Oncotarget 8(47):82558–82570Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kammar PS, Engineer R, Patil PS, Ostwal V, Shylasree TS, Saklani AP (2017) Ovarian metastases of colorectal origin: treatment patterns and factors affecting outcomes. Indian J Surg Oncol 8(4):519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu KY, Gao H, Lian ZJ, Ding L, Li M, Gu J (2017) Clinical analysis of Krukenberg tumours in patients with colorectal cancer—a review of 57 cases. World J Surg Oncol 15(1):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCormick CC, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Gardner GJ et al (2007) The role of cytoreductive surgery for colon cancer metastatic to the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 105(3):791–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Chen J, Kim J, Choi SH, Noh SH (2004) Surgical management and outcome of metachronous Krukenberg tumors from gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 87(1):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganesh K, Shah RH, Vakiani E et al (2017) Clinical and genetic determinants of ovarian metastases from colorectal cancer. Cancer 123(7):1134–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosa F, Marrelli D, Morgagni P et al (2016) Krukenberg tumors of gastric origin: the rationale of surgical resection and perioperativetreatments in a multicenter western experience. World J Surg 40(4):921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cho JH, Lim JY, Choi AR et al (2015) Comparison of surgery plus chemotherapy and palliative chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer with krukenberg tumor. Cancer Res Treat 47(4):697–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu XJ, Yuan P, Li ZY et al (2013) Cytoreductive surgery and hypertermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves the survival of gastric cancer patients with ovarian metastasis and peritoneal dissemination. Tumour Biol 34(1):463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu LC, Shao YY, Hsu CH et al (2012) Metastasectomy of Krukenberg tumors may be associated with survival benefits in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Anticancer Res 32(8):3397–3401Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jun SY, Park JK (2011) Metachronous ovarian metastases following resection of the primary gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer. 11(1):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim WY, Kim TJ, Kim SE et al (2010) The role of cytoreductive surgery for non-genital tract metastatic tumors to the ovaries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 149(1):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang R, Tang J, Cheng X, Zang RY (2009) Surgical treatment for patients with different origins of Krukenberg tumors: outcomes and prognostic factors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 35(1):92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ayhan A, Guvenal T, Salman MC, Ozyuncu O, Sakinci M, Basaran M (2005) The role of cytoreductive surgery in nongenital cancers metastatic to the ovaries. Gynecol Oncol 98(2):235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Chen J, Kim J, Choi SH, Noh SH (2004) Survival benefit of metastasectomy for Krukenberg tumors from gastric cancer. Gynecol Oncol 94(2):477–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rayson D, Bouttell E, Whiston F, Stitt L (2000) Outcome after ovarian/adnexal metastectomy in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 75(3):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim HK, Heo DS, Bang YJ, Kim NK (2001) Prognostic factors of Krukenberg's tumor. Gynecol Oncol 82(1):105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guzel AB, Kucukgoz G, Paydas S et al (2012) Preoperative evaluation, clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of nongenital metastatic ovarian tumors: review of 48 patients. Eur J Gynaec Oncol 33(5):493–497Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruggero Lionetti
    • 1
  • Marcello De Luca
    • 1
  • Antonio Travaglino
    • 2
    Email author
  • Antonio Raffone
    • 3
  • Luigi Insabato
    • 2
  • Gabriele Saccone
    • 3
  • Massimo Mascolo
    • 2
  • Maria D’armiento
    • 4
  • Fulvio Zullo
    • 3
  • Francesco Corcione
    • 1
  1. 1.General Surgery Unit, Department of Public Health, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  4. 4.Pathology Unit, Department of Public Health, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations