Long-term morbidity of adjuvant whole abdominal radiotherapy (WART) or chemotherapy for early stage ovarian cancer

5024 Background: Quality of life (QOL) assessments in early stage (stage I and II) ovarian cancer survivors (CS) are limited and have to date not focused on CS who have received adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy (CT). Methods: 55 early stage ovarian patients (pts) were identified from patient logs from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital. 54 pts. received CT. QOL and long-term medical sequelae were measured in pts who were > 3 years from diagnosis and had no evidence of recurrent cancer. Pts were interviewed by phone, and the following surveys were administered: EORTC QLQ-C30 (EORTC) and QLQ-OV28 (OV-28), MHI-17, CALGB sexual functioning, GOG Neuropathy, FACT Fatigue, Beck’s Hopelessness, Fear of Recurrence (FOR), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), PCL-C post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Unmet Needs, FACT-Spirituality (FACT-Sp), complementary therapy use, and MOS Social Support (MOS). Results: 55 pts were interviewed (mean age 58 yrs, range 34 to 77 yrs). Mean time between diagnosis and interview was 5.6 yrs. CS reported significantly higher MHI-17 scores than the population norm, and higher MHI-17 scores were associated with better overall QOL (EORTC, r = 0.57, p < 0.0001), increased social support (MOS, r = 0.54, p < 0.0001), and better marital relationships (DAS, r = 0.42, p < 0.001). Sexual problems (1.57 out of 6) and unmet needs (1.5 out of 14) were minimal. FOR was correlated with lowered overall QOL (EORTC, r = −0.63, p < 0.0001), increased abdominal symptoms (OV-28 abdominal scale, r = 0.48, p < 0.0002), increased hopelessness (Beck’s, r = 0.46, p < 0.0005), and increased spirituality (FACT-Sp, r = −0.57, p < 0.0001). CS were using 5.4 complementary therapies for QOL purposes and 5.8 for cancer treatment. Minimal negative socioeconomic impact was observed in CS (0.16 out of 4). However, 12.5% of pts had scores indicative of a diagnosis of PTSD. Conclusions: Long-term QOL follow-up of early stage ovarian cancer survivors demonstrated minimal long-term symptoms, excellent mental health, minimal unmet needs, and minimal socioeconomic impact. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic and Open Abdominal Staging for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer: Our Experience, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1097/igc.0000000000000214 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 24 (7) ◽

pp. 1241-1249 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Giorgio Bogani ◽

Antonella Cromi ◽

Maurizio Serati ◽

Edoardo Di Naro ◽

Jvan Casarin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Early Stage ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Rank Test ◽

Survival Outcomes ◽

Log Rank Test ◽

Early Stage Ovarian Cancer

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyze perioperative and long-term survival outcomes after either laparoscopic or open abdominal staging for apparent early-stage ovarian cancer.MethodsData of consecutive women with early-stage ovarian cancer undergoing comprehensive laparoscopic staging between 2003 and 2010 were matched with a historical cohort of patients undergoing open surgery. Five-year survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of comparative studies was performedResultsA total of 35 women undergoing staging via laparoscopy were compared with a cohort of 32 patients undergoing open surgery. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Spillage occurred in 6 and 4 patients in laparoscopic and open group, respectively (P = 0.59). Patients undergoing laparoscopy experienced longer operative time (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and lower postoperative complication rate (3% vs 28%; P = 0.005) than patients undergoing staging via open surgery. The median (range) follow-up period was 64 (37–106) and 100 (61–278) months for case and control, respectively (P < 0.001). Five-year disease-free survival (P = 0.12, log-rank test) and overall survival (P = 0.26, log-rank test) were not influenced by surgical approach. Pooled analyses of the literature results corroborate our results suggesting an improvement of perioperative results in the laparoscopic group in comparison with the open abdominal one. In comparison with open surgery, laparoscopy did not influenced spillage (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.73) and upstaging rate (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.38–1.27). No between-group differences in survival were observed (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21–1.21).ConclusionsLaparoscopy upholds open surgery in long-term oncologic control, reducing morbidity.

Download Full-text