Systematic Pelvic and Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients at the Time of Interval Debulking Surgery: A Double-Institution Case–Control Study

Fagotti, Anna; Iaco, Pierandrea De; Fanfani, Francesco; Vizzielli, Giuseppe; Perelli, Federica; Pozzati, F.; Perrone, Anna Myriam; Turco, Luigi Carlo; Scambia, Giovanni

doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2400-9

Cited by 40 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is concordant with other data suggesting that lymphadenectomy does not seem to play a role in OS [40,41,42]. In our study, owing to the lack of uniform recommendations concerning lymphadenectomy, over the whole period of the study, lymphadenectomy during IDS after NAC was left to the discretion of the surgeon [43,44,45]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Does the Number of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cycles before Interval Debulking Surgery Influence Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the overall survival (OS) of patients with initially inoperable advanced ovarian cancer, tubal carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma of stages III or IV undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by cytoreductive surgery, according to the number of cycles performed. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in three main oncology centres in the east of France, reviewing the charts of all patients who underwent NAC between January 1, 1998 and October 31, 2012. We performed an OS analysis using multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for potential confounders. We also analysed progression-free survival (PFS) as well as chemotherapy- and surgery-related morbidity. Results: Of the 204 patients included, 75 (36.8%) underwent ≤4 NAC cycles and 129 (63.2%) ≥5 NAC cycles. Characteristic data were similar in the two groups. Five-year OS was 35.0 and 25.8%, respectively. This difference was non-significant [HR = 1.06 (0.70-1.59), p = 0.79]. We also found no differences in PFS or morbidity between the two groups. Conclusions: The number of NAC cycles does not seem to play a role in the OS of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Further evidence and prospective data are needed to assess the value of a high/low number of NAC cycles among these patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Does the Number of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cycles before Interval Debulking Surgery Influence Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rate of grade I and II lower extremity lymphedema within 1 year after selective lymphadenectomy was significantly lower (6.2%) than that of systematic lymphadenectomy (33.1%) (p<0.001). The incidence of post-operative lymphocysts is 20%–30% 7. In the present study the overall incidence of lymphocysts was 6.2% vs 27.1%, with symptomatic lymphocysts occurring in 0 vs 5.9%, in Groups 1 and 2, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 40%

“…A case-control trial by Fagotti et al7 did not show any difference in progression-free survival or overall survival between selective or systematic lymphadenectomy groups during interval debulking surgery. The present study also demonstrated that there was no significant difference in lymph nodes metastasis between Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.43).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Therapeutic value of selective lymphadenectomy in interval debulking surgery for stage IIIc and IV epithelial ovarian cancer

Song

Gao

2019

Int J Gynecol Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe role of selective lymphadenectomy at the time of interval debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to evaluate the value of selective lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery in patients with radiologic evidence of lymph node metastasis at initial diagnosis that ultimately become negative on imaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsA retrospective analysis including patients with stage IIIC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer and suspicious pelvic or para-aortic lymph node metastasis by imaging at diagnosis that resolved after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study was conducted from January 1996 to June 2016 with R0 interval debulking surgery. The patients with disease progression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Suspicious metastatic lymph nodes at initial diagnosis by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were excised by selective lymphadenectomy. Survival curves were constructed by the Kaplan-Meier method, and a multivariate analysis was performed using Cox regression.ResultsThere were a total of 330 patients included in the analysis. Selective lymphadenectomy of suspicious nodes (Group 1) was performed in 145 patients. Systematic lymphadenectomy (Group 2) was performed in 118 patients. Sixty-seven patients did not undergo lymphadenectomy (Group 3). There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic features among the groups. Median progression-free survival was 28, 30.5, and 22 months in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (log-rank, p=0.049). No-lymphadenectomy was an independent factor affecting progression-free survival (Cox analysis, HR=1.729, 95% CI 1.213 to 2.464, p=0.002), with no difference between Groups 1 and 2 (Cox analysis, HR=1.097, 95% CI 0.815 to 1.478, p=0.541). Median overall survival was 50, 59, and 57 months in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Cox analysis, p=0.566). Patients who underwent selective lymphadenectomy had lower 1-year frequencies of lower extremity lymphedema and lymphocysts than those with systematic lymphadenectomy (6.2% vs 33.1%, p<0.001, and 6.2 % vs 27.1%, p<0.001, respectively).ConclusionsExtent of lymphadenectomy (systematic or selective) had no significant impact on progression-free survival or overall survival. In addition, the risks of lower extremity lymphedema and lymphocysts were lower in patients who underwent selective lymphadenectomy.

show abstract

“…However, a critical appraisal is needed regarding the surgical approach after neoadjuvant therapy. In fact, a variety of procedures are currently proposed at this time, ranging from standard cytoreductive procedures to the removal of all previously infiltrated tissues, including lymph nodes 10. Moreover, approaches may differ, with preliminary results showing minimally invasive surgery to be as effective as laparotomy at the time of interval surgery in patients with adequate response to chemotherapy 11 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The INTERNATIONAL MISSION study: minimally invasive surgery in ovarian neoplasms after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Fagotti

Alletti

Corrado³

et al. 2019

Int J Gynecol Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to investigate the extent, feasibility, and outcomes of minimally invasive surgery at the time of interval debulking surgery in different gynecological cancer centers.Methods/MaterialsIn December 2016, 20 gynecological cancer centers were contacted by e-mail, to participate in the INTERNATIONAL MISSION study. Seven centers confirmed and five were included, with a total of 127 patients diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and minimally invasive interval surgery. Only women with a minimum follow-up time of 6 months from interval surgery or any cancer-related event before 6 months were included in the survival analysis. Baseline characteristics, chemotherapy, and operative data were evaluated. Survival analysis was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method.Results All patients had optimal cytoreduction at the time of interval surgery: among them, 122 (96.1%) patients had no residual tumor. Median operative time was 225 min (range 60 – 600) and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range 70 – 1320). Median time to discharge was 2 days (1–33) and estimated median time to start chemotherapy was 20 days (range 15 – 60). Six (4.7%) patients experienced intraoperative complications, with one patient experiencing two serious complications (bowel and bladder injury at the same time). There were six (4.7%) patients with postoperative short-term complications: among them, three patients had severe complications. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 3.9 %. Median follow-up time was 37 months (range 7 – 86): 74 of 127 patients recurred (58.3%) and 31 (24.4%) patients died from disease. Median progression-free survival was 23 months and survival at 5 years was 52 % (95% CI: 35 to 67).ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery may be considered for the management of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy, when surgery is limited to low-complexity standard cytoreductive procedures.

show abstract

Systematic Pelvic and Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients at the Time of Interval Debulking Surgery: A Double-Institution Case–Control Study

Abstract: Lymphadenectomy at the time of IDS could be omitted, at least in high-risk patients.

Cited by 40 publications

References 22 publications

Does the Number of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cycles before Interval Debulking Surgery Influence Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

Does the Number of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cycles before Interval Debulking Surgery Influence Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer?

Therapeutic value of selective lymphadenectomy in interval debulking surgery for stage IIIc and IV epithelial ovarian cancer

The INTERNATIONAL MISSION study: minimally invasive surgery in ovarian neoplasms after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About