Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of Extensive Cytoreduction Resulted in Improved Survival Outcomes for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced-Stage Ovarian, Tubal, and Peritoneal Cancers

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Background

Residual disease (RD) after primary debulking surgery (PDS) is one of the main factors driving ovarian cancer prognosis. The primary end point of this study was assessment of the impact that surgery had on survival outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Methods

Data on the effect of newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers were analyzed during two study periods (T1: 2001–2006 and T2: 2007–2012), in which the concepts of optimal and complete cytoreduction were introduced and implemented.

Results

In this study, 260 patients (36%) had surgery during T1 and 462 patients (64%) had surgery during T2. The rate of PDS increased, from 55.4% (144/260) during T1 to 85.5% (395/462) during T2 (p < 0.001). At the time of PDS, complete resection (RD0) was achieved for 45.1% of the patients during T1 and 76.7% of the patients during T2 (p < 0.001), whereas optimal resection (RD < 1 cm) was achieved for 60.4% of the patients during T1 and 85.3% of the patients during T2 (p < 0.001). Disease-free survival improved during the study periods (p = 0.006). Overall survival was similar in T1 and T2 (p = 0.18). The preoperative CA125 level, disease stage, and RD remained independently associated with disease-free survival (p ≤ 0.05). The performance of interval debulking surgery (IDS) instead of PDS correlated with worse survival outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24–1.92; p = 0.02), whereas achievement of RD0 and RD < 1 cm independently improved overall survival (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.22–0.91; p = 0.02 for RD0 and HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.96; p = 0.03 for RD0).

Conclusions

The implementation of extensive cytoreduction allows improvement of patient outcomes. Further studies are needed to assess the risk-to-benefit ratio between PDS and IDS and to identify patients who benefit much more from one treatment method than from another.

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. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sioulas VD, Schiavone MB, Kadouri D, et al. Optimal primary management of bulky stage IIIC ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma: are the only options complete gross resection at primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:974–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang SJ, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:493–8.

    Article  PubMed  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. Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:943–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015;386:249–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Onda T, Satoh T, Saito T, et al. Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV. Ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Eur J Cancer. 2016;64:22–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Vizzielli G, et al. Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing primary surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with high tumour load (SCORPION trial): final analysis of peri-operative outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2016;59:22–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mahner S, Trillsch F, Chi D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer revisited. Ann Oncol. 2016;1:i30–i32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hutter MM, Rowell KS, Devaney LA, Sokal SM, Warshaw AL, Abbott WM, Hondin RA. Identification of surgical complications and deaths: an assessment of the traditional surgical morbidity and mortality conference compared with the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:618–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ditto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, et al. Long-term safety of fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage ovarian cancer: comparison to standard radical surgical procedures. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:78–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raspagliesi F, Ditto A, Martinelli F, Haeusler E, Lorusso D. Advanced ovarian cancer: omental bursa, lesser omentum, celiac, portal and triad nodes spread as cause of inaccurate evaluation of residual tumor. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:92–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. ECOG performance status. http://ecog-acrin.org/resources/ecog-performance-status. Accessed 2 July 2016.

  15. Bogani G, Uccella S, Ghezzi F. Impact of comorbidity index on survival in endometrial cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014;37:642–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wagner U. Lymphadenectomy in Ovarian Neoplasms (LION) protocol (AGO-OVAR OP.3). www.clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed 2 July 2016.

  17. Ataseven B, Chiva LM, Harter P, Gonzalez-Martin A, du Bois A. FIGO stage IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer revisited. Gynecol Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.06.013.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC, Cliby WA. Relationship among surgical complexity, short-term morbidity, and overall survival in primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:676.e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bogani G, Multinu F, Dowdy SC, et al. Incorporating robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer staging: analysis of morbidity and costs. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141:218–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:26–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chi DS, Palayekar MJ, Sonoda Y, et al. Nomogram for survival after primary surgery for bulky stage IIIC ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:191–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, et al. Quality improvement in the surgical approach to advanced ovarian cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:614–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiva LM, Castellanos T, Alonso S, Gonzalez-Martin A. Minimal macroscopic residual disease (0.1–1 cm): is it still a surgical goal in advanced ovarian cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:906–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3460–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Aletti GD, Garbi A, Messori P, et al. Multidisciplinary approach in the management of advanced ovarian cancer patients: a personalized approach: results from a specialized ovarian cancer unit. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:468–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aletti GD, Santillan A, Eisenhauer EL, et al. A new frontier for quality of care in gynecologic oncology surgery: multi-institutional assessment of short-term outcomes for ovarian cancer using a risk-adjusted model. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Petrillo M, Paris I, Vizzielli G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with or without bevacizumab in unresectable high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:S952–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kessous R, Laskov I, Abitbol J, et al. Clinical outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:474–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Karam A, Ledermann JA, Kim JW, et al. Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: first-line interventions. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:711–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Di Donato V, Kontopantelis E, Aletti G, et al. Trends in mortality after primary cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and metaregression of randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1688–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Francesco Raspagliesi declared previous personal fees for board from Roche and PharmaMar. Giorgio Bogani declared previous personal fees for board from Novartis AG Pharma. Domenica Lorusso declared previous grants and personal fees for board from PharmaMar and previous personal fees for board from Roche and AstraZeneca. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecologic Oncology, IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Raspagliesi MD, Giorgio Bogani MD, PhD, Antonino Ditto MD, Fabio Martinelli MD, Valentina Chiappa MD, Chiara Borghi MD, Cono Scaffa MD, PhD, Giuseppa Maltese MD & Domenica Lorusso MD, PhD

  2. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Sant’Anna University Hospital, Ferrara, Italy

    Chiara Borghi MD

  3. Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy

    Federica Morano MD

Authors
  1. Francesco Raspagliesi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giorgio Bogani MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonino Ditto MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabio Martinelli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valentina Chiappa MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chiara Borghi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cono Scaffa MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Federica Morano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giuseppa Maltese MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Domenica Lorusso MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Bogani MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raspagliesi, F., Bogani, G., Ditto, A. et al. Implementation of Extensive Cytoreduction Resulted in Improved Survival Outcomes for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced-Stage Ovarian, Tubal, and Peritoneal Cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 24, 3396–3405 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6030-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6030-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation