A retrospective analysis of lymph node status in advanced ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17074-e17074
Author(s):  
Yoshio Itani ◽  
Sayuri Morita ◽  
Hitomi Sugimoto ◽  
Yoshiki Takeda ◽  
Yoshikazu Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Median Number ◽  
T Test ◽  
Lymph Node Status ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery

e17074 Background: The purpose of this study was to assess lymph node (LN) status; greatest dimension (D), D of metastatic LN (LN (+)) foci (MF), number of LN (+) of each patient, and MF area aggregated in each patient affected by LN metastasis in FIGO stage III and IV ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer. Methods: We researched the consecutive 25 patients who underwent primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by interval debulking surgery including systemic lymphadenectomy from 2004 to 2015. Non-serous histology was 20 % (5/25). LN (+) were detected in 12.6% (169/1344) of lymph node preparations. Results: The patients’ median age was 53 years. Median number of LN (+) and sum of MF area in each patient were 2 (range 0-37) and 2 mm2 (range 0- 498). Mean D of the entire LN and of the MF were 4.7mm (95%Confidence Interval (CI); 4.5,4.9) and 6.1mm(95% CI; 5.2, 7.0). The LN (+) displayed a significantly larger mean D value (7.9 mm, 95% CI: 7.4, 8.5) than the non-metastatic lymph nodes (LN (-)) (4.2 mm, 95% CI: 4.0, 4.4) (p<0.05; student t test). D of MF (mm) was approximated by LN (+) area (mm2) as follows; (D of MF) = 2.58+ 0.094*(LN (+) area)+ 0.062* ( ( LN (+) area)-43.2)2; R2=0.75; p<0.0001. The D of MF with NAC, 5.0 mm (95%CI: 3.6, 6.4) demonstrated smaller than that without NAC, 7.0 mm (95%CI: 5.8, 8.1) (p<0.05; student t test). The proportion of LN (-) patients was significantly higher in the NAC group (44%, 4/9) than in the non-NAC group (6%, 1/16) (p=0.022). D of LN (+), D of MF ≥10 mm, sum of MF area, and number of LN (+) ≥ 2 did not achieve statistical significance in analysis with the relative risk (RR) of death. Conclusions: LN (+) exhibits larger D than LN (-) and D of MF could be estimated by LN (+) area. Some MFs shrink after NAC, and hence, become difficult to detect pathologically. In advanced ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer LN size and sum of MF area could not show an impact on prognosis.

Interval Debulking Surgery After Neodjuvant Chemotherapy Vs Primary Debulking Surgery For Stage Iii Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
BM Ahmed ◽  
AT Amin ◽  
MK Khallaf ◽  
A Ahmed Refaat ◽  
SA Sileem
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Disease Free

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.

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Residual Tumor ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Tumor Load

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

Comparative phase II study of intraperitoneal (IP) versus intravenous (IV) carboplatin administration with IV paclitaxel in patients with bulky residual disease after primary debulking surgery for epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer: A Sankai Gynecology Study Group (SGSG) study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5584-5584
Author(s):  
K. Fujiwara ◽  
S. Nagao ◽  
J. Kigawa ◽  
J. Noma ◽  
N. Akamatsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Primary Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Initial Surgery

5584 Background: To assess the anti-tumor effect and safety of IP carboplatin (C) administration comparing with IV C administration in combination with IV infusion of paclitaxel (P). Methods: This is a non-randomized comparative phase II trial. Eligible patients were those with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer who received initial surgery and ended up with residual disease >= 2 cm. They must have reasonable hematological, hepatic, renal function before receiving chemotherapy. The patients received either of the following treatment arms; IP Arm: IV P 175 mg/m2 over 3h followed by IP C AUC6, IV Arm: IV P 175 mg/m2 over 3h followed by IV C AUC6. The treatments were scheduled to repeat 6–8 cycles. Interval debulking surgery was allowed after 3 to 5 cycle of treatment. Each participating institution had to declare, before the study was opened, which of the treatment arms the patients from the institution would be entered. Primary endpoint was a response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Target accrual was 30 patients in each arm. Results: Total accrual was 26 patients for IP arm and 30 patients for IV arm between 2001 and 2005. The study was closed early, because of the conflict of protocols for IP treatment. Eligible patients were 24 in IP Arm and 25 for IV arm. Median number of treatment cycle was 6 for both arms. Although the difference was not statistically significant, response rate was better in the IP Arm. Response rates were 83.3% (95%CI: 62.6%-95.3%) for IP Arm and 60.0% (95%CI: 38.7%-78.9%) for IV Arm. As of median followup of 31 months, median PFS is 25 months for IP Arm and 21 months for IV Arm,. Median OS is not reached for IP Arm, and 52 months for IV arm. Incidences of hematological and non-hematological toxicities were essentially the same on both arms. Conclusions: IP administration of C may be a better treatment strategy for epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer patients. A randomized phase III trial including bulky residual disease for comparison of IP and IV carboplatin treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION-NCT01461850)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1657-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Fagotti ◽  
Maria Gabriella Ferrandina ◽  
Giuseppe Vizzielli ◽  
Tina Pasciuto ◽  
Francesco Fanfani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Primary Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Tumor Load

ObjectiveTo investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is superior to primary debulking surgery in terms of perioperative complications and progression-free survival, in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer patients with high tumor load.MethodsPatients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (stage IIIC-IV) underwent laparoscopy. Patients with high tumor load assessed by a standardized laparoscopic predictive index were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo either primary debulking surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (arm A), or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Co-primary outcome measures were progression-free survival and post-operative complications; secondary outcomes were overall survival, and quality of life. Survival analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat population.Results171 patients were randomly assigned to primary debulking surgery (n=84) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=87). Rates of complete resection (R0) were different between the arms (47.6% in arm A vs 77.0% in arm B; p=0.001). 53 major postoperative complications were registered, mainly distributed in arm A compared with arm B (25.9% vs 7.6%; p=0.0001). All patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. With an overall median follow-up of 59 months (95% CI 53 to 64), 142 (83.0%) disease progressions/recurrences and 103 deaths (60.2%) occurred. Median progression-free and overall survival were 15 and 41 months for patients assigned to primary debulking surgery, compared with 14 and 43 months for patients assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, p=0.73; HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.65, p=0.56).ConclusionsNeoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary debulking surgery have the same efficacy when used at their maximal possibilities, but the toxicity profile is different.

scholarly journals Correlation of Ecadherin Expression in Endometrial Carcinoma with Tumour Grade and Stage

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lizawati RH ◽  
Nur Maya Sabrina TL ◽  
Muhammad Fakhri MS ◽  
Nordashima AS ◽  
Azmawati MN
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Distant Metastasis ◽  
Lymphovascular Invasion ◽  
Myometrial Invasion ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Lymph Node Status ◽  
Tumour Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
E Cadherin

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is among the common malignancy in the female with adverse prognosis in the advanced stage. Prediction of its prognosis is important in stratifying EC patients to achieve optimum treatment and improve clinical outcomes. This study is aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of E-cadherin expression in patients with EC. The present study also investigated the correlation of E-cadherin expression in EC with its tumour grade and stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 cases of EC were included in the study within eleven years comprising 56 cases of endometrioid carcinoma, 2 cases of mucinous carcinoma, 10 cases of serous carcinoma and 2 cases of clear cell carcinoma. E-cadherin expression was immunohistochemically analysed and compared with clinicopathological parameters. RESULTS: E-cadherin loss of expression shows significant association with non endometrioid EC (p=0.003), high tumour grade (p<0.001) and tumour with distant metastasis (p=0.028). Tumour grade is the main predictor of down-regulation of Ecadherin expression (Grade 3: aOR 8.400, 95%CI 2.534-27.842). There was no significant association found between E-cadherin expression with myometrial invasion, FIGO stage, lymph node status and lymphovascular invasion. CONCLUSION: E-cadherin loss of expression correlates with poor prognostic factors namely high grade and high stage (metastasis) EC. This may serve as a potential prognostic marker for EC>< 0.001) and tumour with distant metastasis (p=0.028). Tumour grade is the main predictor of down-regulation of E-cadherin expression (Grade 3: aOR 8.400, 95%CI 2.534-27.842). There was no significant association found between E-cadherin expression with myometrial invasion, FIGO stage, lymph node status and lymphovascular invasion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document