OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of surgical second look (SSL) in epithelial ovarian cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-one patients clinically free of disease were assessed retrospectively. Ninety-eight (57.3%) patients underwent SSL and 73 (42.7%) were observed. Fifty-one (52.0%) of the SSL operations were negative, 31 (31.6%) microscopically positive, and 16 (16.3%) macroscopically positive. Cytoreduction and/or chemotherapy were administered after positive SSL. Negative SSL and observation group patients were observed without treatment until recurrence was detected. Disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of groups were compared. RESULTS: While DFS and OS of negative SSL group were better than the observation, microscopic and macroscopic positive SSL groups (p<.01), no significant difference was found between positive SSL and observation groups (p>.05). However, DFS and OS of the microscopic positive SSL group were significantly longer than the macroscopic positive SSL group (p<.01). Thirty-two patients have had recurrences (62.8%) after negative SSL. Only the use of paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy was seen to prevent recurrence after negative SSL (p<.05). Recurrence after negative SSL was not affected by stage, grade, age, CA-125 level, ascites volume, histologic type or optimal cytoreduction. CONCLUSION: Rate of recurrence after negative SSL remains high, and secondary efforts following positive SSL could not lead to an obvious survival benefit. Therefore, routine use of SSL seems ineffective and unnecessary.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of surgical second look (SSL) in epithelial ovarian cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-one patients clinically free of disease were assessed retrospectively. Ninety-eight (57.3%) patients underwent SSL and 73 (42.7%) were observed. Fifty-one (52.0%) of the SSL operations were negative, 31 (31.6%) microscopically positive, and 16 (16.3%) macroscopically positive. Cytoreduction and/or chemotherapy were administered after positive SSL. Negative SSL and observation group patients were observed without treatment until recurrence was detected. Disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of groups were compared. RESULTS: While DFS and OS of negative SSL group were better than the observation, microscopic and macroscopic positive SSL groups (p<.01), no significant difference was found between positive SSL and observation groups (p>.05). However, DFS and OS of the microscopic positive SSL group were significantly longer than the macroscopic positive SSL group (p<.01). Thirty-two patients have had recurrences (62.8%) after negative SSL. Only the use of paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy was seen to prevent recurrence after negative SSL (p<.05). Recurrence after negative SSL was not affected by stage, grade, age, CA-125 level, ascites volume, histologic type or optimal cytoreduction. CONCLUSION: Rate of recurrence after negative SSL remains high, and secondary efforts following positive SSL could not lead to an obvious survival benefit. Therefore, routine use of SSL seems ineffective and unnecessary.
Authors: D Luesley; F Lawton; G Blackledge; C Hilton; K Kelly; T Rollason; T Wade-Evans; J Jordan; J Fielding; T Latief Journal: Lancet Date: 1988-09-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Gadducci; E Sartori; T Maggino; P Zola; F Landoni; A Fanucchi; N Palai; C Alessi; A M Ferrero; S Cosio; R Cristofani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M O Nicoletto; S Tumolo; R Talamini; L Salvagno; S Franceschi; E Visonà; G Marin; F Angelini; G Brigato; C Scarabelli; A Carbone; A Cecchetto; A Prosperi; A Rosabian; M Giusto; G P Cima; S Morassut; O Nascimben; O Vinante; M V Fiorentino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mahesh A Varia; Frederick B Stehman; Brian N Bundy; Jo Ann Benda; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson; Ronald D Alvarez; Harry J Long Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S C Rubin; W J Hoskins; P E Saigo; D Chapman; T B Hakes; M Markman; B Reichman; L Almadrones; J L Lewis Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 5.482