Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic Significance of Splenectomy as Part of Initial Cytoreductive Surgery in Ovarian Cancer

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to examine how splenectomy as part of up-front cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer influences the postoperative course and affects survival.

Methods

We reviewed cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1994 to 2008 and found 44 patients who had a splenectomy as part of their up-front cytoreductive surgery. These were compared to 171 patients who did not undergo splenectomy. We evaluated age at diagnosis, estimated blood loss, percentage of patients whose disease was optimally cytoreduced (<1 cm), reason for splenectomy (oncologic vs. surgical), length of stay, time to first chemotherapy treatment, and survival.

Results

In the splenectomy cohort, the mean age at diagnosis was 64 (44–83) years. A total of 37 of 44 (84%) patients were optimally cytoreduced. Mean estimated blood loss was 1326 ml. The purpose of splenectomy was to accomplish an optimal cytoreduction (oncologic) in 82% of cases. Median length of stay was 13 (6–76) days. Median time to first chemotherapy was 13.5 (5–54) days. The median disease-free interval and overall survival of the splenectomy cohort were 8 and 30 months, respectively. The median overall survival for patients whose disease was optimally cytoreduced in the splenectomy cohort compared to the no-splenectomy group was 30 and 45 months (P < 0.045), respectively.

Conclusions

The addition of splenectomy to up-front cytoreductive surgery was feasible and safe. However, it appears to carry with it a shortened survival that is unrelated to postoperative morbidity. Our data raise the questions that splenectomy is needed for optimal cytoreduction in more biologically aggressive disease and that splenectomy may be an independent prognostic factor related to depressed immune function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Winter WE 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C, et al. Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3621–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975;42:101–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisenkop SM, Friedman RL, Wang HJ. Complete cytoreductive surgery is feasible and maximizes survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 1998;69:103–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eisenhauer EL, Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y, et al. The addition of extensive upper abdominal surgery to achieve optimal cytoreduction improves survival in patients with stages IIIC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:1083–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kehoe SM, Eisenhauer EL, Chi DS. Upper abdominal surgical procedures: liver mobilization and diaphragm peritonectomy/resection, splenectomy, and distal pancreatectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S51–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glockzin G, Schlitt HJ, Piso P. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: patients selection, perioperative complications and quality of life related to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World J Surg Oncol. 2009;7:5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meigs JV. Tumors of Female Pelvic Organs. New York: Macmillan Co; 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Le T, Krepart GV, Lotocki RJ, Heywood MS. Does debulking surgery improve survival in biologically aggressive ovarian carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 1997;67:208–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Makar AP, Baekelandt M, Trope CG, Kristensen GB. The prognostic significance of residual disease, FIGO substage, tumor histology, and grade in patients with FIGO stage III ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;56:175–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Covens AL. A critique of surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:269–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM. What are the current surgical objectives, strategies, and technical capabilities of gynecologic oncologists treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:489–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Lin WC. Splenectomy in the context of primary cytoreductive operations for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:344–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen LM, Leuchter RS, Lagasse LD, Karlan BY. Splenectomy and surgical cytoreduction for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:362–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sonnendecker EW, Guidozzi F, Margolius KA. Splenectomy during primary maximal cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:301–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nicklin JL, Copeland LJ, O’Toole RV, Lewandowski GS, Vaccarello L, Havenar LP. Splenectomy as part of cytoreductive surgery for ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;58:244–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bonenkamp JJ, Hermans J, Sasako M, et al. Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:908–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee KY, Noh SH, Hyung WJ, et al. Impact of splenectomy for lymph node dissection on long-term surgical outcome in gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:402–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Monig SP, Collet PH, Baldus SE, et al. Splenectomy in proximal gastric cancer: frequency of lymph node metastasis to the splenic hilus. J Surg Oncol. 2001;76:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oh SJ, Hyung WJ, Li C, et al. The effect of spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy on surgical outcomes of locally advanced proximal gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Otsuji E, Yamaguchi T, Sawai K, Ohara M, Takahashi T. End results of simultaneous splenectomy in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma. Surgery. 1996;120:40–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Adachi Y, Kamakura T, Mori M, Maehara Y, Sugimachi K. Role of lymph node dissection and splenectomy in node-positive gastric carcinoma. Surgery. 1994;116:837–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang K, Chen XZ, Hu JK, Zhang B, Chen ZX, Chen JP. Effectiveness and safety of splenectomy for gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:5352–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carrere N, Abid S, Julio CH, Bloom E, Pradere B. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein: a case-matched comparison with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. World J Surg. 2007;31:375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC. The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 2002;137:164–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Robinette CD, Fraumeni JF Jr. Splenectomy and subsequent mortality in veterans of the 1939–45 war. Lancet. 1977;2:127–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith TF, Johnston RB Jr. Functions of the spleen in host defense against infection. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1979;1:355–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Swirski FK, Nahrendorf M, Etzrodt M, et al. Identification of splenic reservoir monocytes and their deployment to inflammatory sites. Science. 2009;325:612–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Muggia FM, Braly PS, Brady MF, et al. Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:106–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tangjitgamol S, Manusirivithaya S, Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P. Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(10):CD006014.

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors have no actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Christopher K. McCann DO, Whitfield B. Growdon MD, Elizabeth G. Munro MD, Marcela G. Del Carmen MD, David M. Boruta MD, John O. Schorge MD & Annekathryn Goodman MD

Authors
  1. Christopher K. McCann DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Whitfield B. Growdon MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth G. Munro MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcela G. Del Carmen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David M. Boruta MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John O. Schorge MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Annekathryn Goodman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher K. McCann DO.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCann, C.K., Growdon, W.B., Munro, E.G. et al. Prognostic Significance of Splenectomy as Part of Initial Cytoreductive Surgery in Ovarian Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 2912–2918 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1661-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1661-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation