Treatments and overall survival in patients with Krukenberg tumor
- 105 Downloads
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.
To assess the most effective therapeutic protocol in terms of overall survival (OS).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCancer Metastasis Prognosis Management oncology hazard ratio Therapy
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.
No financial support was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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