Okechukwu A Ibeanu1, Robert E Bristow. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related mortality in the United States. Surgical cytoreduction is the cornerstone of current treatment in patients with advanced disease, but it offers the best chances for overall survival when optimal cytoreduction is achieved. Clinicopathological and radiological models for predicting optimal resectability have not been universally applicable. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the existing surgical data on current serologic, radiological, and surgical tools used to predict the resectability of advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Systematic review of surgical studies on primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer reported in the English-language literature between 1980 and 2009. RESULTS: Seventeen retrospective studies using cancer antigen 125, and 8 retrospective studies using radiological imaging modalities to predict resectability of advanced ovarian cancer were reviewed. Five laparoscopic-based reports of ovarian cancer resectability were also reviewed as well as 5 studies examining the role of clinicopathological variables affecting surgical cytoreductive ability. These studies were analyzed according to the rate of optimal cytoreduction achieved and the reported sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values of predictive parameters described. Finally, the various conclusions were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of optimal cytoreduction vary among surgeons. A universally applicable clinical model that can predict which patients will undergo optimal cytoreduction remains elusive. More research is needed to devise a set of uniform criteria that can be used to predict ovarian cancer resectability among different patient populations.
INTRODUCTION:Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer-related mortality in the United States. Surgical cytoreduction is the cornerstone of current treatment in patients with advanced disease, but it offers the best chances for overall survival when optimal cytoreduction is achieved. Clinicopathological and radiological models for predicting optimal resectability have not been universally applicable. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the existing surgical data on current serologic, radiological, and surgical tools used to predict the resectability of advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Systematic review of surgical studies on primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer reported in the English-language literature between 1980 and 2009. RESULTS: Seventeen retrospective studies using cancer antigen 125, and 8 retrospective studies using radiological imaging modalities to predict resectability of advanced ovarian cancer were reviewed. Five laparoscopic-based reports of ovarian cancer resectability were also reviewed as well as 5 studies examining the role of clinicopathological variables affecting surgical cytoreductive ability. These studies were analyzed according to the rate of optimal cytoreduction achieved and the reported sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values of predictive parameters described. Finally, the various conclusions were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of optimal cytoreduction vary among surgeons. A universally applicable clinical model that can predict which patients will undergo optimal cytoreduction remains elusive. More research is needed to devise a set of uniform criteria that can be used to predict ovarian cancer resectability among different patient populations.
Authors: Gooitzen M van Dam; George Themelis; Lucia M A Crane; Niels J Harlaar; Rick G Pleijhuis; Wendy Kelder; Athanasios Sarantopoulos; Johannes S de Jong; Henriette J G Arts; Ate G J van der Zee; Joost Bart; Philip S Low; Vasilis Ntziachristos Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-09-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Edward J Tanner; Kara C Long; Qin Zhou; Rachel M Brightwell; Ginger J Gardner; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Alexia Iasonos; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John A Spencer; Michael J Weston; Samir A Saidi; Nafisa Wilkinson; Geoffrey D Hall Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Markus Riester; Wei Wei; Levi Waldron; Aedin C Culhane; Lorenzo Trippa; Esther Oliva; Sung-Hoon Kim; Franziska Michor; Curtis Huttenhower; Giovanni Parmigiani; Michael J Birrer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Monjri M Shah; Charles A Leath; Laura Rebecca Daily; Gerald McGwin; Jacob M Estes; Ronald D Alvarez; John Michael Straughn Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Rene Warschkow; Ignazio Tarantino; Jochen Lange; Sascha A Müller; Bruno M Schmied; Michael Zünd; Thomas Steffen Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2012-06-15
Authors: Scooter Willis; Victor M Villalobos; Olivier Gevaert; Mark Abramovitz; Casey Williams; Branimir I Sikic; Brian Leyland-Jones Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240