V Gallotta1, F Ghezzi2, E Vizza3, V Chiantera4, M Ceccaroni5, M Franchi6, A Fagotti7, A Ercoli8, F Fanfani9, C Parrino9, S Uccella2, G Corrado3, G Scambia9, G Ferrandina9. 1. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: gallottav@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Insubria, Del Ponte Hospital, Varese, Italy. 3. Department of Oncological Surgery, Gynecologic Oncologic Unit, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. 4. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Giovanni Paolo II", Campobasso, Italy. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology and Minimally-Invasive Pelvic Surgery, Sacred Heart Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 7. Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, St Maria Hospital-University of Perugia, Terni, Italy. 8. Policlinic of Abano Terme, Padova, Italy. 9. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the safety, adequacy, perioperative and survival figures in a large series of laparoscopic staging of patients with apparent early stage ovarian malignancies (ESOM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective data from seven gynecologic oncology service databases were searched for ESOM patients undergoing immediate laparoscopic staging or delayed laparoscopic staging after an incidental diagnosis of ESOM. Between May 2000 and February 2014, 300 patients were selected: 150 had been submitted to immediate laparoscopic staging (Group 1), while 150 had undergone delayed laparoscopic staging (Group 2) of ESOM. All surgical, pathologic, and oncologic outcome data were analyzed in each group and a comparison between the two was carried out. RESULTS: Longer operative time, higher blood loss, more frequently spillage/rupture of ovarian capsule and conversion to laparotomy occurred in Group 1. No significant differences of post-operative complications were observed between the two groups. Histological data revealed more frequently serous tumors (0.06), Grade 3 (p=0.0007) and final up-staging (p=0.001) in Group 1. Recurrence and death of disease were documented in 25 (8.3%), and 10 patients (3.3%%), respectively. The 3-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 85.1%, and 93.6%, respectively in the whole series. There was no difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of DFS (p value=0.39) and OS (p value=0.27). CONCLUSION: In this very large multi-institutional study, it appears that patients with apparent ESOM can safely undergo laparoscopic surgical management.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the safety, adequacy, perioperative and survival figures in a large series of laparoscopic staging of patients with apparent early stage ovarian malignancies (ESOM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective data from seven gynecologic oncology service databases were searched for ESOM patients undergoing immediate laparoscopic staging or delayed laparoscopic staging after an incidental diagnosis of ESOM. Between May 2000 and February 2014, 300 patients were selected: 150 had been submitted to immediate laparoscopic staging (Group 1), while 150 had undergone delayed laparoscopic staging (Group 2) of ESOM. All surgical, pathologic, and oncologic outcome data were analyzed in each group and a comparison between the two was carried out. RESULTS: Longer operative time, higher blood loss, more frequently spillage/rupture of ovarian capsule and conversion to laparotomy occurred in Group 1. No significant differences of post-operative complications were observed between the two groups. Histological data revealed more frequently serous tumors (0.06), Grade 3 (p=0.0007) and final up-staging (p=0.001) in Group 1. Recurrence and death of disease were documented in 25 (8.3%), and 10 patients (3.3%%), respectively. The 3-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 85.1%, and 93.6%, respectively in the whole series. There was no difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of DFS (p value=0.39) and OS (p value=0.27). CONCLUSION: In this very large multi-institutional study, it appears that patients with apparent ESOM can safely undergo laparoscopic surgical management.
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Tsuyoshi Takiuchi; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Nancy L Keating; Joel T Clemmer; Amy J Bregar; Jason D Wright; David M Boruta; John O Schorge; Marcela G Del Carmen; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 8.661