| Literature DB >> 30254490 |
Hengzi Sun1, Xiaoning Bi1, Dongyan Cao1, Jiaxin Yang1, Ming Wu1, Lingya Pan1, Huifang Huang1, Ge Chen2, Keng Shen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyze the underlying causes and application of splenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and assess its effect on the surgical satisfaction and prognosis of these patients.Entities:
Keywords: chemosensitivity; metastasis; optimal debulking surgery; postoperative complication; prognosis; splenic involvement
Year: 2018 PMID: 30254490 PMCID: PMC6140729 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S172687
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Characteristics of patients
| Characteristics | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| 53 (34–75) | ||
| Primary | 7 | 18.4 |
| Secondary | 24 | 63.2 |
| Tertiary | 6 | 15.8 |
| Beyond tertiary cytoreduction | 1 | 2.6 |
| I–II | 2 | 5.3 |
| III | 27 | 71.0 |
| IV | 9 | 23.7 |
| Serous | 28 | 73.7 |
| Endometrioid | 4 | 10.5 |
| Clear cell | 3 | 7.9 |
| Müllerian ductal | 3 | 7.9 |
| G1 | 9 | 26.3 |
| G2 | 10 | 26.3 |
| G3 | 14 | 31.6 |
| Unknown | 5 | 15.8 |
| Achieve optimal cytoreduction | 37 | 97.4 |
| Intraoperative trauma | 1 | 2.6 |
| Thromboembolic | 1 | 2.6 |
| Pulmonary infection | 2 | 5.2 |
| Optimal | 34 | 91.9 |
| Suboptimal | 3 | 8.1 |
| Implantation metastasis | 27 | 73 |
| Hematogenous metastasis | 10 | 27 |
| Platinum sensitive | 22 | 59.5 |
| Platinum resistance | 15 | 40.5 |
Note:
Cases in which splenectomy was performed due to intraoperative trauma were excluded.
Figure 1The overall survival and postsplenectomy survival by splenectomy.
Figure 2The overall survival and postsplenectomy survival by splenectomy of the cases of splenic involvement presenting implanted metastasis vs hematogenous metastasis.
Figure 3The overall survival and postsplenectomy survival by splenectomy of the cases with platinum sensitivity vs platinum resistance.
Figure 4The overall survival and postsplenectomy survival by splenectomy of the cohort of patients who underwent suboptimal and optimal cytoreduction.
Multivariate analysis of postsplenectomy survival in cytoreductive surgery (P=0.01)
| Covariate | Risk | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-line chemotherapy | |||
| Sensitive | 1 | ||
| Resistance | 4.73 | 1.19–18.7 | 0.027 |
| Residual disease | |||
| Optimal | 1 | ||
| Suboptimal | 8.78 | 1.42–54.5 | 0.020 |
Summary of literature review of splenectomy as a part of cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer
| Study | Patient (n) | Negative control group | FIGO stage | Histological | Cytoreductive surgery | Residual disease | Major complications (overall morbidity, mortality) | Reason for splenectomy | Median survival (range) | Independent risk factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al | 35 | No | I=8.6% | Serous= 78.8% | Primary=37%secondary=63% | Optimal=91.4% | Fever; effusion(23.1%–28.6%, 2.8%) | Metastasis=100% | Secondary=41 months | No mention |
| Ayhan et al | 34 | No | III=100% | Serous= 67.6% | Primary=100% | Optimal =100% | Fever; thrombocytosis(29.4%, 8.8%) | Metastasis =52.9% | Splenic metastasis= 28.9 months | Histologic type; performance status |
| Eisenkop et al | 49 | Splenectomy not required | III=100% | Serous= 79.6% | Primary=100% | Optimal =100% | Coagulopathy; sepsis (–, –) | Metastasis =100% | Splenectomy= 56.4 months; control group=76.8 months | Completeness of cytoreduction; sum of rankings |
| Magtibay et al | 112 | No | I=3% | Serous= 53% | Primary=58.9%secondary=41.1% | Optimal=37% | Thrombocytosis;wound infections;sepsis(15%, 5%) | Metastasis=87%injury=13% | Primary=21.6 months secondary=20.3 months | Residual disease status inthe primary group |
| Manci et al | 24 | No | III=87.5% | Serous= 58% | Secondary=100% | Optimal=67% | Embolism; small bowel obstruction(29%, –) | Metastasis=100% | Progression free=34 months;OS=56 months | Completely cytoreduced;platinum-basedchemotherapy;DFI |
| Hanprasertpong and Fujiwara | 6 | No | I=16.7% | Serous= 50% | Secondary=100% | Optimal=83.3% | N(0%, 0%) | Metastasis=100% | Short to date follow up time | Isolated lesion; recurrencefree interval |
| McCann et al | 44 | With nosplenectomy | III=66% | Serous= 89% | Primary=100% | Optimal=84% | Ileus; septicembolism(−, −) | Metastasis=82%injury =18% | Splenectomy=30 months;control group =36 months | Only in entire cohort:optimal cytoreduction |
| Zapardiel et al | 33 | With nosplenectomy | III=51.5% | Serous= 72.7% | Primary=100% | Optimal=81.8% | Pleural effusion(−, −) | Metastasis=100% | Mean follow-up time =32months | No difference |
| Bacalbasa et al | 66 | No | III=71.2% | Serous= 92.4% | Primary=100% | Optimal=86.4% | Pancreatic fistulas;abdominal abscess(30%, 7%) | Metastasis=100% | Peritoneal seeding=58.4 months; parenchymatous=24.5 months | Peritoneal seeding |
| Xiang et al | 18 | No | III=78.8% | Serous=100% | Primary=50%secondary=50% | Optimal=100% | Pancreatic fistula(44%, 0%) (with distalpancreatectomy) | Metastasis=100% | 2-year PFS=40.2%2-year OS=84.8% | No mention |
| This study | 38 | No | I–II=5.3% | Serous= 73.7% | Primary=18.4%secondary=63.2%tertiary=15.8% | Optimal=91.9% | Pulmonary infections(8.1%, 0%) | Metastasis=97.4%injury =2.6% | Median survival=106 months secondary=101 months | Chemosensitivity residualdisease |
Notes: No mention of the specific figure.
Abbreviations: PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; DFI, disease-free interval.