Kevin H Eng1, Kayla Morrell2, Kristen Starbuck3, Chandra Spring-Robinson4, Aalia Khan3, Dana Cleason5, Levent Akman6, Emese Zsiros3, Kunle Odunsi3, J Brian Szender3. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. Electronic address: kevin.eng@roswellpark.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 4. Sisters of Charity Hospital Buffalo, NY, United States. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ege University Medical School, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The presence of miliary disease during initial ovarian cancer debulking may reflect a distinct mode of peritoneal spread independent from size-based tumor staging and may explain variation in response to treatment and survival outcomes. To infer the prevalence, presentation and clinical implications of miliary disease we reviewed existing surgical records. METHODS: Reports were available for 1008 primary debulking surgeries for ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer between 2001 and 2015 (685 reports from 2005 to 2015). Clinical outcome data was available for 938 patients. We analyzed a high-stage sub-cohort for survival (N=436). RESULTS: Most records were evaluable for miliary disease (761/938); for these, the miliary phenotype was highly prevalent (249/761, 32.7%) and often accompanied by ascites (185/249, 74%). While optimal debulking rates were unaffected by miliary disease, total resection (R0) rates were poorer. Liver, stomach, spleen or bladder appeared to be sporadically involved while the omentum, mesentery, bowel, peritoneum and diaphragm were affected simultaneously (Spearman rho>0.5). Overall, miliary disease was associated with worse progression free survival, overall survival, and time from relapse to death independent of stage. Survival effects were particularly strong for Stage IV disease where median overall survival varied by over 30months (log-rank p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Miliary disease is an identifiable surgical phenotype reflecting a distinct clinical trajectory that adds prognostic information to standard disease burden-based staging. These findings should permit further retrospective investigation in a wider cohort and prompt the consideration of prospective structured operative reporting standards and treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVE: The presence of miliary disease during initial ovarian cancer debulking may reflect a distinct mode of peritoneal spread independent from size-based tumor staging and may explain variation in response to treatment and survival outcomes. To infer the prevalence, presentation and clinical implications of miliary disease we reviewed existing surgical records. METHODS: Reports were available for 1008 primary debulking surgeries for ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer between 2001 and 2015 (685 reports from 2005 to 2015). Clinical outcome data was available for 938 patients. We analyzed a high-stage sub-cohort for survival (N=436). RESULTS: Most records were evaluable for miliary disease (761/938); for these, the miliary phenotype was highly prevalent (249/761, 32.7%) and often accompanied by ascites (185/249, 74%). While optimal debulking rates were unaffected by miliary disease, total resection (R0) rates were poorer. Liver, stomach, spleen or bladder appeared to be sporadically involved while the omentum, mesentery, bowel, peritoneum and diaphragm were affected simultaneously (Spearman rho>0.5). Overall, miliary disease was associated with worse progression free survival, overall survival, and time from relapse to death independent of stage. Survival effects were particularly strong for Stage IV disease where median overall survival varied by over 30months (log-rank p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS:Miliary disease is an identifiable surgical phenotype reflecting a distinct clinical trajectory that adds prognostic information to standard disease burden-based staging. These findings should permit further retrospective investigation in a wider cohort and prompt the consideration of prospective structured operative reporting standards and treatment strategies.
Authors: Neil S Horowitz; Austin Miller; Bunja Rungruang; Scott D Richard; Noah Rodriguez; Michael A Bookman; Chad A Hamilton; Thomas C Krivak; G Larry Maxwell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna Fagotti; Gabriella Ferrandina; Francesco Fanfani; Giorgia Garganese; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Vito Carone; Maria Giovanna Salerno; Giovanni Scambia Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Robert J Morgan; Deborah K Armstrong; Ronald D Alvarez; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Kian Behbakht; Lee-May Chen; Larry Copeland; Marta Ann Crispens; Maria DeRosa; Oliver Dorigo; David M Gershenson; Heidi J Gray; Ardeshir Hakam; Laura J Havrilesky; Carolyn Johnston; Shashikant Lele; Lainie Martin; Ursula A Matulonis; David M O'Malley; Richard T Penson; Sanja Percac-Lima; Mario Pineda; Steven C Plaxe; Matthew A Powell; Elena Ratner; Steven W Remmenga; Peter G Rose; Paul Sabbatini; Joseph T Santoso; Theresa L Werner; Jennifer Burns; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H M Verheijen; Maria E L van der Burg; Angel J Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; Leen Verleye; Gavin C E Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick S Reed Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rudy S Suidan; Pedro T Ramirez; Debra M Sarasohn; Jerrold B Teitcher; Svetlana Mironov; Revathy B Iyer; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Harold Paul; Masayoshi Hosaka; Carol A Aghajanian; Mario M Leitao; Ginger J Gardner; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Hedvig Hricak; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Diogo Torres; Chen Wang; Amanika Kumar; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Gottfried E Konecny; Ellen L Goode; William A Cliby Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Diogo Torres; Amanika Kumar; Sumer K Wallace; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Gottfried E Konecny; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Ellen L Goode; William A Cliby; Chen Wang Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tiffany R Emmons; Thejaswini Giridharan; Kelly L Singel; Anm Nazmul H Khan; Jason Ricciuti; Kaitlyn Howard; Stephanie L Silva-Del Toro; Ivy L Debreceni; Cathelijn E M Aarts; Mieke C Brouwer; Sora Suzuki; Taco W Kuijpers; Ilse Jongerius; Lee-Ann H Allen; Viviana P Ferreira; Anna Schubart; Holger Sellner; Jörg Eder; Steven M Holland; Sanjay Ram; James A Lederer; Kevin H Eng; Kirsten B Moysich; Kunle Odunsi; Michael B Yaffe; Emese Zsiros; Brahm H Segal Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 12.020