Impact of Complete Cytoreduction Leaving No Gross Residual Disease Associated with Radical Cytoreductive Surgical Procedures on Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer
- First Online:
- 772 Downloads
To analyze the impact of radical cytoreductive surgery—as part of primary tumor debulking—on the amount of residual tumor and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer and to evaluate the prognostic significance of no gross residual disease (RD) after surgery.
Medical records of 203 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC–IV ovarian cancer were reviewed. All patients underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by taxane- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Various clinicopathologic characteristics were collected.
Of 203 patients, 119 patients underwent simple surgery, while radical surgery was performed in 84 patients. Advanced age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.06, P < 0.01), FIGO stage IV disease (HR 3.61, 95 % CI 1.48–8.83, P < 0.01), and grossly visible RD (HR 3.24, 95 % CI 1.90–5.53, P < 0.01) were identified as significant factors associated with poor prognosis in the entire cohort of 203 patients. Radical surgery (HR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.37–0.87, P = 0.01) was associated with improved survival. In the subgroup of patients with stage IIIC disease with peritoneal carcinomatosis, independent prognostic factors were advanced age (HR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01–1.06, P = 0.01), radical surgery (HR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.35–0.96, P = 0.03), and grossly visible RD (HR 2.86, 95 % CI 1.55–5.30, P < 0.01). Patients with no gross RD had the longest overall survival (86 months) compared with RD 0.1–1 cm (46 months) and RD >1.0 cm (37 months) (P < 0.01).
No gross RD is associated with improved overall survival, and radical surgery was effective for achieving no gross RD.
- 13.Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Aletti GD, et al. Role of maximal primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian and tubal cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes. Single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:259–64.Google Scholar
- 20.du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115:1234–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Wimberger P, Wehling M, Lehmann N, et al. Influence of residual tumor on outcome in ovarian cancer patients with FIGO stage IV disease: an exploratory analysis of the AGO-OVAR (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group). Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1642–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Elattar A, Bryant A, Winter-Roach BA, Hatem M, Naik R. Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD007565.Google Scholar
- 29.Ang C, Chan KK, Bryant A, Naik R, Dickinson HO. Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(4):CD007697.Google Scholar