Jean M Hansen1, Anil K Sood1, Robert L Coleman1, Shannon N Westin1, Pamela T Soliman1, Pedro T Ramirez1, Bryan M Fellman2, Kathleen M Schmeler1, Nicole D Fleming3. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. Electronic address: nfleming@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the concordance between the laparoscopic scoring assessment and extent of disease identified at primary tumor reductive surgery (TRS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: From April 2013 to June 2017, we prospectively triaged patients with stage IIA to IVB ovarian cancer to laparoscopic scoring assessment. A validated predictive index value (PIV) score (range: 0-14) was assigned. Patients with PIV scores <8 were offered primary surgery and those with score ≥8 received NACT. Patients who underwent primary TRS had a second PIV score based on laparotomy findings. Concordance percentages were calculated between the two scores. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated to reflect the performance of the laparoscopic PIV score to predict R0 (complete gross resection) at TRS. RESULTS: 226 patients underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment, of which 139 (61.5%) had a PIV score <8 and 81 (35.8%) had a PIV score ≥8. 6 patients (2.7%) were unscoreable. There was 96% overall concordance between PIV scores at laparoscopy and primary TRS. Concordance scores by location were: bowel infiltration 74.7%, mesenteric disease 84.6%, liver surface involvement 86.5%, omental disease 89.7%, diaphragm disease 92.9%, stomach infiltration 94.7%, peritoneal carcinomatosis 94.8%. A laparoscopic PIV score of <8 had a PPV of 85.4% at predicting R0 at primary TRS. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic assessment of tumor burden is a feasible tool to predict R0 cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Concordance between PIV scores at laparoscopy and primary TRS varied by anatomic location, with the lowest concordance seen in predicting bowel infiltration.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the concordance between the laparoscopic scoring assessment and extent of disease identified at primary tumor reductive surgery (TRS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: From April 2013 to June 2017, we prospectively triaged patients with stage IIA to IVB ovarian cancer to laparoscopic scoring assessment. A validated predictive index value (PIV) score (range: 0-14) was assigned. Patients with PIV scores <8 were offered primary surgery and those with score ≥8 received NACT. Patients who underwent primary TRS had a second PIV score based on laparotomy findings. Concordance percentages were calculated between the two scores. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated to reflect the performance of the laparoscopic PIV score to predict R0 (complete gross resection) at TRS. RESULTS: 226 patients underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment, of which 139 (61.5%) had a PIV score <8 and 81 (35.8%) had a PIV score ≥8. 6 patients (2.7%) were unscoreable. There was 96% overall concordance between PIV scores at laparoscopy and primary TRS. Concordance scores by location were: bowel infiltration 74.7%, mesenteric disease 84.6%, liver surface involvement 86.5%, omental disease 89.7%, diaphragm disease 92.9%, stomach infiltration 94.7%, peritoneal carcinomatosis 94.8%. A laparoscopic PIV score of <8 had a PPV of 85.4% at predicting R0 at primary TRS. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic assessment of tumor burden is a feasible tool to predict R0 cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Concordance between PIV scores at laparoscopy and primary TRS varied by anatomic location, with the lowest concordance seen in predicting bowel infiltration.
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: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
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: Allison E Axtell; Margaret H Lee; Robert E Bristow; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Steven Raman; John P Weaver; Mojan Gabbay; Michael Ngo; Scott Lentz; Ilana Cass; Andrew J Li; Beth Y Karlan; Christine H Holschneider Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Petrillo; G Vizzielli; F Fanfani; V Gallotta; F Cosentino; V Chiantera; F Legge; V Carbone; G Scambia; A Fagotti Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Kari Bohlke; Deborah K Armstrong; Michael A Bookman; William A Cliby; Robert L Coleman; Don S Dizon; Joseph J Kash; Larissa A Meyer; Kathleen N Moore; Alexander B Olawaiye; Jessica Oldham; Ritu Salani; Dee Sparacio; William P Tew; Ignace Vergote; Mitchell I Edelson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicole D Fleming; Shannon N Westin; Larissa A Meyer; Aaron Shafer; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Michaela Onstad; Lauren Cobb; Michael Bevers; Bryan M Fellman; Jennifer Burzawa; Priya Bhosale; Behrouz Zand; Amir Jazaeri; Charles Levenback; Robert L Coleman; Pamela T Soliman; Anil K Sood Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.437