Article Data

  • Views 348
  • Dowloads 163

Reviews

Open Access Special Issue

Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive technology for interval cytoreductive surgery during advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

  • Hua Yang1
  • Yutao Wei1
  • Panxia Deng1
  • Honghui Ou1
  • Huilong Nie1
  • Yuan Zhuang1,*,

1Department of gynecology, the fifth affiliated hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 519000 Zhuhai, Guangdong, China

DOI: 10.22514/ejgo.2022.052 Vol.43,Issue 6,December 2022 pp.4-12

Submitted: 04 July 2022 Accepted: 23 August 2022

Published: 15 December 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Enhanced Recovery of Gynecological Oncology)

*Corresponding Author(s): Yuan Zhuang E-mail: zhuangy8@mail.sysu.edu.cn

Abstract

Ovarian cancer (OV) is usually diagnosed in its advanced stages (stages III or IV), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly being used to treat advanced OV due to several advantages over laparotomy. MIS represents a novel but controversial treatment approach for interval debulking surgery (IDS). The objective of this review was to clarify the feasibility and safety of MIS for IDS. WanFang database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science were searched up to June 2022, Clinical studies based on humans, including randomized controlled trials, quasi-RCTs, non-randomized trials, case-control studies, cohort studies and retrospective observational studies, were included without time restriction. 14 original articles published between 2015 and 2022 were included. In total, there were 13,788 patients enrolled, 2318 (16.8%) were treated with MIS. The pooled rate of laparotomy-conversion was 17.9%(112/711), the pooled rate of optimal cytoreduction was 84.0% (628/748) during MIS group compared with 77.3% (2204/2850) during laparotomy (LAP) group (p < 0.0001), and the pooled rate of perioperative complication was 8.85% (79/893) during MIS versus 4.6% (211/4586) during LAP group (p < 0.0001). We found no significant difference in mean progression-free survival (PFS) and mean overall survival (OS) between two groups. Based on the available retrospective studies, minimally invasive debulking surgery after NACT seemed to have similar perioperative, oncological and prognostic outcomes with laparotomy debulking surgery. MIS seemed to be feasible and safe in carefully selected patients who had good response to NACT, lower preoperative levels of CA12-5 and lower tumor burden. However, existed clinical evidence should be viewed with caution and objectivity. MIS for IDS should be cautiously suggested until the observed results are confirmed in the LANCE trial and other larger prospective trials.


Keywords

Minimally invasive surgery; Interval debulking surgery; Advanced ovarian cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic-assistant surgery


Cite and Share

Hua Yang,Yutao Wei,Panxia Deng,Honghui Ou,Huilong Nie,Yuan Zhuang. Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive technology for interval cytoreductive surgery during advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2022. 43(6);4-12.

References

[1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 7–33.

[2] Han L, Husaiyin S, Liu J, Maimaiti M, Niyazi M, Li L. Period analysis of intraracial differences in incidence and survival rates in epithelial ovarian cancer. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2021; 2021: 8032209.

[3] Chang S, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2013; 130: 493–498.

[4] Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 943–953.

[5] Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015; 386: 249–257.

[6] Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Chiantera V, et al. Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing primary surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with high tumour load (SCORPION trial): final analysis of peri-operative outcome. European Journal of Cancer. 2016; 59: 22–33.

[7] Hirte H, Poon R, Yao X, May T, Ethier JL, Petz L, et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy for newly diagnosed stage II-IV epithelial ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma: a practice guideline. Current Oncology. 2022; 29: 231–242.

[8] Nezhat FR, Pejovic T, Finger TN, Khalil SS. Role of minimally invasive surgery in ovarian cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2013; 20: 754–765.

[9] Heitz F, Harter P, du Bois A. Staging laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer: a metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 209: 592–593.

[10] SjÖVall K, Nilsson B, Einhorn N. Different types of rupture of the tumor capsule and the impact on survival in early ovarian carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 1994; 4: 333–336.

[11] Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Diaz JP, Levine DA, Brown CL, Chi DS, et al. The rate of port-site metastases after 2251 laparoscopic procedures in women with underlying malignant disease. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 111: 431–437.

[12] Zeff N. Role of laparoscopy in initial tumour staging in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Pleura and Peritoneum. 2018; 3: 20180106.

[13] Ghirardi V, De Felice F, Rosati A, Ergasti R, Gueli Alletti S, Mascilini F, et al. A laparoscopic adjusted model able to predict the risk of intraoperative capsule rupture in early-stage ovarian cancer: laparoscopic ovarian cancer spillage score (LOChneSS Study). Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2022; 29: 961–967.

[14] Radosa JC, Radosa MP, Schweitzer PA, Juhasz-Boess I, Rimbach S, Solomayer E. Report of the survey on current opinions and practice of german society for gynecologic endoscopy (AGE) members regarding the laparoscopic treatment of ovarian malignancies. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2018; 297: 1255–1264.

[15] Childers JM, Lang J, Surwit EA, Hatch KD. Laparoscopic surgical staging of ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 1995; 59: 25–33.

[16] Angioli R, Muzii L, Battista C, Terranova C, Oronzi I, Sereni MI, et al. The role of laparoscopy in ovarian carcinoma. Minerva Ginecologica. 2009; 61: 35–43.

[17] Weber S, McCann CK, Boruta DM, Schorge JO, Growdon WB. Laparoscopic surgical staging of early ovarian cancer. Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011; 4: 117–122.

[18] Han ES, Scheib SA, Patzkowsky KE, Simpson K, Wang KC. The sticky business of adhesion prevention in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017; 29: 266–275.

[19] Lusuardi L, Kunit T, Janetschek G. Minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Journal of Endourology. 2018; 32: S97–S104.

[20] Chiofalo B, Bruni S, Certelli C, Sperduti I, Baiocco E, Vizza E. Primary debulking surgery vs. interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Minerva Medica. 2019; 110: 330–340.

[21] Rosenoff SH, Young RC, Anderson T, Bagley C, Chabner B, Schein PS, et al. Peritoneoscopy: a valuable staging tool in ovarian carcinoma. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1975; 83: 37–41.

[22] Knisely A, Gamble CR, St. Clair CM, Hou JY, Khoury-Collado F, Gockley AA, et al. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the care of women with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 537–543.

[23] Favero G, Macerox N, Pfiffer T, Köhler C, da Costa Miranda V, Estevez Diz MDP, et al. Oncologic concerns regarding laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncology. 2015; 89: 159–166.

[24] Gueli Alletti S, Petrillo M, Vizzielli G, Bottoni C, Nardelli F, Costantini B, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard laparotomic interval debulking surgery in ovarian neoplasm: a single-institution retrospective case-control study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 143: 516–520.

[25] Brown J, Drury L, Crane EK, Anderson WE, Tait DL, Higgins RV, et al. When less is more: minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy for interval debulking after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2019; 26: 902–909.

[26] Morton M, Chambers LM, Costales AB, Chichura A, Gruner M, Horowitz MP, et al. Assessing feasibility and perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy for interval debulking surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2021; 160: 45–50.

[27] Zhang Y, Grant MS, Zhang X, Paraghamian SE, Tan X, Clark LH. Comparing laparotomy with robot-assisted interval debulking surgery for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 1237–1243.

[28] Lecointre L, Pellerin M, Venkatasamy A, Fabacher T, Eberst L, Gantzer J, et al. Complete laparoscopic interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer achieves similar survival outcomes to open approach: a propensity-matched study. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2022; 35: 1394–1401.

[29] Matsuo K, Klar M, Mandelbaum RS, Matsuzaki S, Matsushima K, Roman LD, et al. Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for metastatic ovarian cancer: a national study in the United States. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020; 301: 863–866.

[30] Melamed A, Nitecki R, Boruta DM 2nd, del Carmen MG, Clark RM, Growdon WB, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for debulking ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017; 129: 861–869.

[31] Fagotti A, Gueli Alletti S, Corrado G, Cola E, Vizza E, Vieira M, et al. The INTERNATIONAL MISSION study: minimally invasive surgery in ovarian neoplasms after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2019; 29: 5–9.

[32] Zheng L, Cui C, Shi O, Lu X, Li Y, Wang W, et al. Incidence and mortality of ovarian cancer at the global, regional, and national levels, 1990–2017. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 159: 239–247.

[33] Berek JS, Renz M, Kehoe S, Kumar L, Friedlander M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2021 update. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021; 155: 61–85.

[34] Zhou M, Wang D, Long Z, Zhang Y, Liu J. Role of laparotomy-based parameters in assessment of optimal primary debulking surgery and long-term outcomes in patients with stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer. Journal of Cancer. 2020; 11: 983–989.

[35] Vermeulen CKM, Tadesse W, Timmermans M, Kruitwagen RFPM, Walsh T. Only complete tumour resection after neoadjuvant chemother-apy offers benefit over suboptimal debulking in advanced ovarian cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2017; 219: 100–105.

[36] Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, Saito T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. European Journal of Cancer. 2020; 130: 114–125.

[37] Puliatti S, Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P. Training in robot-assisted surgery. Current Opinion in Urology. 2020; 30: 65–72.

[38] Binet A, Ballouhey Q, Chaussy Y, de Lambert G, Braïk K, Villemagne T, et al. Current perspectives in robot-assisted surgery. Minerva Pediatrics. 2018; 70: 308–314.

[39] Bourcier T, Dormegny L, Sauer A, Nardin M, Becmeur P, Chammas J, et al. State of the art in robot-assisted eye surgery. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2021; 238: 1290–1293.

[40] Moglia A, Georgiou K, Georgiou E, Satava RM, Cuschieri A. A systematic review on artificial intelligence in robot-assisted surgery. International Journal of Surgery. 2021; 95: 106151.

[41] Merlier M, Kerbage Y, Pierache A, Ramdane N, Canlorbe G, Bolze PA, et al. Impact on prognosis of the surgical route, laparoscopy or laparotomy, for the surgical staging of early stage ovarian cancer-a study from the FRANCOGYN group. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9: 3528.

[42] Kadhel P, Revaux A, Carbonnel M, Naoura I, Asmar J, Ayoubi JM. An update on preoperative assessment of the resectability of advanced ovarian cancer. Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation. 2020; 41: 20190032

[43] Fleming ND, Westin SN, Meyer LA, Shafer A, Rauh-Hain JA, Onstad M, et al. Correlation of surgeon radiology assessment with laparoscopic disease site scoring in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2021; 31: 92–97.

[44] Querleu D, Leblanc E. Laparoscopic infrarenal paraaortic lymph node dissection for restaging of carcinoma of the ovary or fallopian tube. Cancer. 1994; 73: 1467–1471.

[45] Jochum F, Aubry G, Pellerin M, Billard C, Faller E, Boisrame T, et al. Relevance of laparoscopic surgery for ovarian cancer in well-selected patients: a propensity-matched comparison with laparotomy. Anticancer Research. 2021; 41: 955–965.

[46] Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Barroilhet L, Behbakht K, Berchuck A, et al. Ovarian cancer, version 2.2020, nccn clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2021; 19: 191–226.

[47] Corrado G, Mancini E, Cutillo G, Baiocco E, Vici P, Sergi D, et al. Laparoscopic debulking surgery in the management of advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2015; 25: 1253–1257.

[48] Davidson BA, Broadwater G, Crim A, Boccacio R, Bixel K, Backes F, et al. Surgical complexity score and role of laparoscopy in women with advanced ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 152: 554–559.

[49] Persenaire C, Pyrzak A, Barber EL. Survival and surgical approach among women with advanced ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2022; 29: 375–384.

[50] Nitecki R, Rauh-Hain JA, Melamed A, Scambia G, Pareja R, Coleman RL, et al. Laparoscopic cytoreduction after Neoadjuvant ChEmotherapy (LANCE). International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2020; 30: 1450–1454.

[51] Viral P, Rajanbabu A, Pavithran K, Chithrathara K, Nair IR, Bhaskaran R, et al. Long-term survival outcome of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a single institutional study. Indian Journal of Cancer. 2021; 58: 342–348.

[52] Gueli Alletti S, Bottoni C, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Chiantera V, Costantini B, et al. Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery in ovarian neoplasm (MISSION trial-NCT02324595): a feasibility study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 214: 503.e1–503.e6.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top