Beyhan Ataseven1, Christoph Grimm2, Philipp Harter3, Florian Heitz3, Alexander Traut3, Sonia Prader3, Andreas du Bois3. 1. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: b.ataseven@kliniken-essen-mitte.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of debulking surgery (DS) and residual disease (RD) on outcome in patients with FIGO stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This exploratory study included 326 consecutive patients with FIGO IV EOC treated in our centers from 2000 to 2014. Data were extracted from our prospectively maintained registry. RESULTS: In patients, who underwent DS (n=286; 87.7%), complete macroscopic resection was achieved in 54.9% (RD0; n=157), RD of 1-10mm in 30.8% (RD1-10; n=88), and RD of >10mm in 14.3% (RD>10, n=41). Forty patients without surgery (NoCS; 12.3%) underwent either primary chemotherapy or palliative care only. Median overall survival (OS) in NoCS was 19months compared to 16, 25, and 50months in RD>10, RD1-10, and RD0, respectively (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed an inferior OS for NoCS (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25-3.57; p=0.001), RD>10 (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.43-3.70; p=0.002), and RD1-10 (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01-2.23; p=0.046) when compared with RD0. Additional independent prognostic factors were poor performance status, ascites >500mL, and advanced intraabdominal tumor stage. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the prognostic impact of optimal DS in FIGO stage IV disease. Survival benefit was greatest for patients with complete resection. Although not to the same extent patients do benefit from DS with RD≤10mm. Of note, patients with RD>10mm after DS seemed not to profit from surgery showing comparable OS to patients without DS. Selecting patients who benefit from DS is as crucial in stage IV EOC patients as it is in any other patients with advanced EOC.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of debulking surgery (DS) and residual disease (RD) on outcome in patients with FIGO stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This exploratory study included 326 consecutive patients with FIGO IV EOC treated in our centers from 2000 to 2014. Data were extracted from our prospectively maintained registry. RESULTS: In patients, who underwent DS (n=286; 87.7%), complete macroscopic resection was achieved in 54.9% (RD0; n=157), RD of 1-10mm in 30.8% (RD1-10; n=88), and RD of >10mm in 14.3% (RD>10, n=41). Forty patients without surgery (NoCS; 12.3%) underwent either primary chemotherapy or palliative care only. Median overall survival (OS) in NoCS was 19months compared to 16, 25, and 50months in RD>10, RD1-10, and RD0, respectively (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed an inferior OS for NoCS (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25-3.57; p=0.001), RD>10 (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.43-3.70; p=0.002), and RD1-10 (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01-2.23; p=0.046) when compared with RD0. Additional independent prognostic factors were poor performance status, ascites >500mL, and advanced intraabdominal tumor stage. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the prognostic impact of optimal DS in FIGO stage IV disease. Survival benefit was greatest for patients with complete resection. Although not to the same extent patients do benefit from DS with RD≤10mm. Of note, patients with RD>10mm after DS seemed not to profit from surgery showing comparable OS to patients without DS. Selecting patients who benefit from DS is as crucial in stage IV EOC patients as it is in any other patients with advanced EOC.
Authors: Hye Jin Lee; Emily B Ehlerding; Dawei Jiang; Todd E Barnhart; Tianye Cao; Weijun Wei; Carolina A Ferreira; Peng Huang; Jonathan W Engle; Weibo Cai Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Andrew Bryant; Shaun Hiu; Patience T Kunonga; Ketankumar Gajjar; Dawn Craig; Luke Vale; Brett A Winter-Roach; Ahmed Elattar; Raj Naik Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-26
Authors: Alaa A Elzarkaa; Bassma El Sabaa; Doaa Abdelkhalik; Hassan Mansour; Mahmoud Melis; Waleed Shaalan; Mohamed Farouk; Eduard Malik; Amr A Soliman Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: G M Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer; W Hofhuis; N Reesink-Peters; S Willemsen; I A Boere; I G Schoots; J M J Piek; L N Hofman; J J Beltman; W J van Driel; H M J Werner; A Baalbergen; A M L D van Haaften-de Jong; M Dorman; L Haans; I Nedelcu; P C Ewing-Graham; H J van Beekhuizen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Kyung Jin Eoh; Young Shin Chung; So Hyun Lee; Sun-Ae Park; Hee Jung Kim; Wookyeom Yang; In Ok Lee; Jung-Yun Lee; Hanbyoul Cho; Doo Byung Chay; Sunghoon Kim; Sang Wun Kim; Jae-Hoon Kim; Young Tae Kim; Eun Ji Nam Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.679