Sherif A M Shazly1, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso2, Sean C Dowdy3, Abimbola O Famuyide4. 1. Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women Health Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut Egypt. 2. Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: famuyide.abimbola@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We describe current evidence for staging low malignant potential ovarian tumors and their conformity to current consensus guidelines and practice from an international perspective. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and April 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies on low malignant potential ovarian tumors that evaluated the prognostic value of disease stage, staging vs no staging, complete vs incomplete staging, or discrete components of staging were eligible. Studies that described only crude survival rates were excluded. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Eligible studies were categorized according to their outcome (disease stage, staging procedure, or discrete staging elements). Data were abstracted using a standard form. Inconsistencies on data abstraction were resolved by consensus among the authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 1116 studies, 702 were excluded for irrelevance and 364 for not meeting inclusion criteria. Nine studies were excluded for describing crude survival rates without a comparative conclusion. We found that studies supporting the value of defining disease stage or staging procedures (mostly conducted in northern Europe) included more patients than studies that did not find disease stage or staging useful (predominantly from North America, 4072 vs 3951). Disease stage correlated with survival in 13 of 25 studies, whereas none of the studies that evaluated the value of staging found it beneficial (9 studies, 1979 patients). Studies that evaluated isolated components of staging found no benefit to these procedures. Regional guidelines and consensus reviews drew conclusions based on a limited number of studies that generally originated from the same region. CONCLUSIONS: Although the correlation of stage with survival was mixed, performing staging procedures for low malignant potential ovarian tumors is not supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines in support of staging based their recommendations on a few regional studies and conflict with better-quality data that do not support staging procedures. An international consensus statement is needed to standardize the surgical management of low malignant potential ovarian tumors.
OBJECTIVE: We describe current evidence for staging low malignant potential ovarian tumors and their conformity to current consensus guidelines and practice from an international perspective. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and April 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies on low malignant potential ovarian tumors that evaluated the prognostic value of disease stage, staging vs no staging, complete vs incomplete staging, or discrete components of staging were eligible. Studies that described only crude survival rates were excluded. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Eligible studies were categorized according to their outcome (disease stage, staging procedure, or discrete staging elements). Data were abstracted using a standard form. Inconsistencies on data abstraction were resolved by consensus among the authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 1116 studies, 702 were excluded for irrelevance and 364 for not meeting inclusion criteria. Nine studies were excluded for describing crude survival rates without a comparative conclusion. We found that studies supporting the value of defining disease stage or staging procedures (mostly conducted in northern Europe) included more patients than studies that did not find disease stage or staging useful (predominantly from North America, 4072 vs 3951). Disease stage correlated with survival in 13 of 25 studies, whereas none of the studies that evaluated the value of staging found it beneficial (9 studies, 1979 patients). Studies that evaluated isolated components of staging found no benefit to these procedures. Regional guidelines and consensus reviews drew conclusions based on a limited number of studies that generally originated from the same region. CONCLUSIONS: Although the correlation of stage with survival was mixed, performing staging procedures for low malignant potential ovarian tumors is not supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines in support of staging based their recommendations on a few regional studies and conflict with better-quality data that do not support staging procedures. An international consensus statement is needed to standardize the surgical management of low malignant potential ovarian tumors.
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: Jaimin S Shah; Michael Mackelvie; David M Gershenson; Preetha Ramalingam; Marylee M Kott; Jubilee Brown; Polly Gauthier; Elizabeth Nugent; Lois M Ramondetta; Michael Frumovitz Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: David J Nusbaum; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Hiroko Machida; Shinya Matsuzaki; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson; Koji Matsuo Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 2.344