Timing of debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Vergote ◽  
T. Van Gorp ◽  
F. Amant ◽  
K. Leunen ◽  
P. Neven ◽  
...  

It is clear that primary debulking remains the standard of care within the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stage III and IV). This debulking surgery should be performed by a gynecological oncologist without any residual tumor load, or so-called “optimal debulking.” Over the last decades, interest in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy together with an interval debulking has increased. Neoadjuvant therapy can be used for patients who are primarily suboptimally debulked due to an extensive tumor load. In this situation, based on the randomized European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Gynaecological Cancer Group trial, interval debulking by an experienced surgeon improves survival in some patients who did not undergo optimal primary debulking surgery. Based on the GOG 152 data, interval debulking surgery does not seem to be indicated in patients who underwent primarily a maximal surgical effort by a gynecological oncologist. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can also be used as an alternative to primary debulking. In retrospective analyses, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery does not seem to worsen prognosis compared to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. However, we will have to wait for the results of future randomized trials to know whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is a good alternative to primary debulking surgery in stage IIIc and IV patients. Open laparoscopy is probably the most valuable tool for evaluating the operability primarily or at the time of interval debulking surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Shin Nishio ◽  
Kimio Ushijima

Abstract Primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard treatment of patients with stage III–IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an alternative treatment regimen that can be considered in selected patients. Complete cytoreduction, both through primary debulking surgery and interval debulking surgery, has a major positive effect on survival and should be the goal, even if this requires extensive surgery. When thorough assessment of tumor spread and performance status of the patient indicates that complete primary cytoreduction is not feasible without unacceptable morbidity, then alternative therapeutic strategies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, must be considered. Such patients can be offered the option of interval debulking surgery after checking their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resolution of the initial obstacles for primary debulking surgery (i.e. complete response of irresectable disease and improvement of the performance status). Current evidence suggests that a selected group of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III–IV ovarian cancer will benefit from NAC-IDS. Research is ongoing to identify patients who might derive the greatest benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, instead of primary debulking surgery, on the basis of radiological, genetic, pathological, and immunological variables. In this review, we discuss current knowledge about the clinical significance of primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer and discuss unanswered questions in the field.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-257
Author(s):  
Gloria Cordeiro Vidal ◽  
Sabrina Croce ◽  
Frédéric Guyon ◽  
Guillaume Babin ◽  
Denis Querleu

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to document the need of including the perigastric area when performing omentectomy in patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian tumors.Patients and MethodsPatients undergoing omentectomy in the setting of surgery for advanced epithelial serous ovarian cancer between February and September 2015 were included. Patients with macroscopic involvement of the perigastric area, nonepithelial serous tumors, and recurrences of ovarian cancer were excluded. The perigastric area was isolated and comprehensively processed for pathological examination.ResultsTwenty-four patients were included. Six patients underwent primary debulking surgery, and 18 patients underwent an interval debulking surgery. The mean number of pathologic blocks in the perigastric area was 24 (range, 8–41). Microscopic involvement of the perigastric omentum area was found in 62.5% of the cases. One patient had a low-grade serous carcinoma, with microscopic involvement of the perigastric area. Among the 23 patients with a high-grade serous carcinoma, 10 (83%) of 12 patients with a gross involvement of the rest of the omentum had a microscopic involvement of the perigastric area. The presence of microscopic disease in the perigastric arcade was found in 4 (36.3%) of 11 patients with a macroscopically normal omentum.ConclusionsIn this study, evidence is given that total omentectomy including the perigastric area is a necessary component of complete cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, whatever the macroscopic appearance of the omentum.


2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
BM Ahmed ◽  
AT Amin ◽  
MK Khallaf ◽  
A Ahmed Refaat ◽  
SA Sileem

Introduction: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy and is the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death among women. Approach to FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer remains challengeable. This study aims to evaluate the outcome of interval debulking surgery (IDS) vs. primary debulking surgery (PDS) for FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. Materials and Methods: During a period of six years (January 2014 to December 2019), we analyzed the patients for eligibility criteria, which were: (1) FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. (2) The age of 18 years or more (3) Patients underwent either PDS or IDS and received chemotherapy at South Egypt Cancer Institute. We divided them into two groups: (1) Those received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then underwent IDS plus three additional cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy and (2) Those who have PDS followed by six cycles of chemotherapy. Results: This study includes 380 eligible patients. The first group included 226 patients (59.47%) underwent PDS then 6 cycles of chemotherapy, while the group of IDS included 154 patients (40.53%). The treatment modality was not significant for overall survival (OS); however disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly reduced after IDS when compared to PDS (median DFS: 33 months; 95% CI 30.23-35.77 vs. 45 months; 95% CI 41.25-48.75 respectively; p= .000). Moreover, in subgroup analysis, OS and DFS were significantly dropped after IDS in elderly patients, patients with bad performance status, sub-optimal cytoreduction as well as high grade and undifferentiated tumors when compared to those who underwent PDS. Conclusion: Although treatment modality may not impact overall survival (OS), however, PDS results in a better disease-free survival than IDS. Moreover, IDS results in a significant drop in OS and DFS in special patients subgroups when compared to PDS. Therefore patients selection should be considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document