OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, EMBASE, and reference lists for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced stage EOC. The trials had to report survival of women who had primary surgery and had IDS performed between cycles of chemotherapy comparing to survival of women who had conventional treatment (primary debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy). Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was performed using fixed effects models. RESULTS: Three RCTs, involving 853 women of whom 781 were evaluated, met the inclusion criteria. OSs were substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2)=58%). Subgroup analysis in two trials, wherein the primary surgery was not performed by the gynecologic oncologists, or was less extensive, showed benefit of IDS: hazard ratio=0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.9, I(2)=0%). Substantial heterogeneity between two trials for PFS evaluating 702 women was also shown (I(2)=75%). Toxic reactions to chemotherapy were similar in both arms (RR=1.3, 95% CI: 0.4 to 3.6). Only one trial reported quality of life, which was generally similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Our review could not conclude whether IDS would improve the survival of women with advanced EOC compared with conventional treatment. IDS appeared to yield benefit only in the patients whose primary surgery was not performed by expert surgeons.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, EMBASE, and reference lists for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced stage EOC. The trials had to report survival of women who had primary surgery and had IDS performed between cycles of chemotherapy comparing to survival of women who had conventional treatment (primary debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy). Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was performed using fixed effects models. RESULTS: Three RCTs, involving 853 women of whom 781 were evaluated, met the inclusion criteria. OSs were substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2)=58%). Subgroup analysis in two trials, wherein the primary surgery was not performed by the gynecologic oncologists, or was less extensive, showed benefit of IDS: hazard ratio=0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.9, I(2)=0%). Substantial heterogeneity between two trials for PFS evaluating 702 women was also shown (I(2)=75%). Toxic reactions to chemotherapy were similar in both arms (RR=1.3, 95% CI: 0.4 to 3.6). Only one trial reported quality of life, which was generally similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Our review could not conclude whether IDS would improve the survival of women with advanced EOC compared with conventional treatment. IDS appeared to yield benefit only in the patients whose primary surgery was not performed by expert surgeons.
Authors: Naveen S Vasudev; Ioannis Trigonis; David A Cairns; Geoff D Hall; David P Jackson; Timothy Broadhead; John Buxton; Richard Hutson; David Nugent; Timothy J Perren Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2010-08-29 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Wenhui Li; Di Shao; Lei Li; Ming Wu; Shuiqing Ma; Xianjie Tan; Sen Zhong; Fengming Guo; Zhe Wang; Mingzhi Ye Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 4.234
Authors: Yan You; Lei Li; Junliang Lu; Huanwen Wu; Jing Wang; Jie Gao; Ming Wu; Zhiyong Liang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 6.244