Laparoscopy for primary cytoreduction with multivisceral resections in advanced ovarian cancer: prospective validation. "The times they are a-changin"?

Laparoscopic Treatment of Bulky Nodes in Primary and Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Surgical Technique and Outcomes from Two Specialized Italian Centers

(1) Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents a feasible approach in early-stage ovarian cancer, while this question is still unsolved for advanced and recurrent disease. (2) Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we present a series of 21 patients who underwent MIS for primitive or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with bulky nodal metastasis and discuss surgical technique and outcomes in relation to the current literature. (3) Results: Complete cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery was obtained in 86% of cases. No complication occurred in our patients intraoperatively and only 11.1% of our patients experienced grade 2 and 3 postoperative complications. Notably, all the patients with isolated lymph nodal recurrence (ILNR) were successfully treated with a minimally invasive approach with no intra- or postoperative complications. (4) Conclusions: The results of our study are consistent with those reported in the literature, demonstrating that MIS may represent a safe approach in advanced and recurrent EOC with nodal metastasis if performed on selected patients by expert surgeons with an adequate setting and appropriate technique.

"Things Have Changed"-Laparoscopic Cytoreduction for Advanced and Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: The Experience of a Referral Center on 108 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To report the feasibility of laparoscopic cytoreduction surgery for primary and recurrent ovarian cancer in a select group of patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of patients with FIGO stage IIIA-IV advanced ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic primary debulking surgery (PDS), interval debulking surgery (IDS), or secondary debulking surgery (SDS) between June 2008 and January 2020. The primary endpoint was achieving optimal cytoreduction, defined as residual tumor less than 1 cm. Secondary endpoints included evaluating surgical complications and long-term survival, assessed at three-month intervals during the initial two years and then every six months.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 108 patients, among whom, 40 underwent PDS, 44 underwent IDS, and 24 underwent SDS. Optimal cytoreduction rates were found to be 95.0%, 97.7%, and 95.8% for the PDS, ISD, and SDS groups, respectively. Early postoperative complications (<30 days from surgery) occurred in 19.2% of cases, with 7.4% of these cases requiring reintervention. One patient died following postoperative respiratory failure. Late postoperative complications (<30 days from surgery) occurred in 9.3% of cases, and they required surgical reintervention only in one case. After laparoscopic optimal cytoreduction with a median follow-up time of 25 months, the overall recurrence rates were 45.7%, 38.5%, and 39.3% for PDS, ISD, and SDS, respectively. The three-year overall survival rates were 84%, 66%, and 63%, respectively, while the three-year disease-free survival rates were 48%, 51%, and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cytoreduction surgery is feasible for advanced ovarian cancer in carefully selected patients, resulting in high rates of optimal cytoreduction, satisfactory peri-operative morbidity, and encouraging survival outcomes. Future studies should focus on establishing standardized selection criteria and conducting well-designed investigations to further refine patient selection and evaluate long-term outcomes.

A single institution's experience with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and a systematic meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for well-selected epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients.

METHODS

We performed a review of data prospectively collected from a single center from 2017 to 2022. Only patients with histologically confirmed EOC, with a tumor diameter of less than 10 cm, were eligible. We also performed a meta-analysis of similar studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy. We used MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) to assess the risk of bias and calculated the odds ratio or mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included; 13 in re-staging group, four in PDS group, and one in IDS group. All achieved complete cytoreduction. One case was converted to laparotomy. The median number of removed pelvic lymph nodes was 25 (range 16-34), and 32 (range 19-44) for para-aortic nodes. There were two (15.4%) intraoperative urinary tract injuries. The median follow-up was 35 months (range 1-53). Recurrence was observed in one case (7.7%). Thirteen articles for early-stage ovarian cancer were included in our meta-analysis. Analysis of the pooled results found that MIS had a higher frequency of spillage (OR, 2.15; 95% CI 1.27-3.64). No differences were observed in recurrence, complications, or up-staging.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience supports the possibility of conducting MIS for EOC in well-selected patients. Except for spillage, our meta-analysis findings are consistent with previous reports, the majority of which were also retrospective. Ultimately, randomized clinical trials will be needed to authenticate the safety.

Urologic Complication after Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Gynecology Oncology: A Single-Center Analysis and Narrative Review of the Literature

Background and Objectives: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has recently increased its application in the treatment of gynecological malignancies. Despite technological and surgical advances, urologic complications (UC) are still the main concern in gynecology surgery. Current literature reports a wide range of urinary tract injuries, and consistent scientific evidence is still lacking or dated. This study aims to report a large single-center experience of urinary complications during laparoscopic hysterectomy for gynecologic oncologic disease. Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancy at the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the University Hospital of Parma from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively included. Women with endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine sarcoma, or borderline ovarian tumors were included. Patients undergoing robotic surgery with incomplete anatomopathological data or patients lost during follow-up were excluded from the analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative UC were analyzed and ranked according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: Two hundred-sixty patients were included in the study: 180 endometrial cancer, 18 cervical cancer, nine ovarian cancer, two uterine sarcomas, and 60 borderline ovarian tumors. Nine (3.5%) UCs were reported (five intraoperative and four postoperative complications). No anamnestic variables showed a statistical correlation with the surgical complication in the univariable analyses. C1 radical hysterectomy, a higher FIGO stage, and postoperative adjuvant treatment (p-value = 0.001, p-value = 0.046, and p-value = 0.046, respectively) were independent risk factors associated with the occurrence of UC. Conclusions: The urological complication rates in patients with oncological disease are relatively rare events in the expert hands of dedicated surgeons. Radical hysterectomy, FIGO stage, and adjuvant treatment are independent factors associated with urinary complications.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Ovarian Neoplasms - What is Possible, What is Useful?

The use of minimally invasive surgical techniques is becoming increasingly important in gynecologic oncology due to technical advances and the increasing level of surgical expertise. In addition to laparoscopic approaches for the treatment of benign neoplasms, minimally invasive surgical methods have also become established in some areas for treating gynecologic malignancies. For tumor entities such as endometrial and cervical carcinoma, there are conclusive studies emphasizing the role of laparoscopy in surgical therapy. By contrast, due to a lack of prospective data with survival analyses, no clear conclusions can be drawn on the significance of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of ovarian carcinoma. However, some smaller, mostly retrospective case-control studies and cohort studies open the way for a discussion, positing the possibility that laparoscopic surgical procedures, particularly for early ovarian carcinoma, are technically feasible and of a quality equivalent to that of conventional longitudinal laparotomy, and may also be associated with lower perioperative morbidity. In this article we discuss the most important aspects of using minimally invasive surgical techniques for ovarian carcinoma based on the current literature. In particular we look at the relevance of laparoscopy as a primary approach for surgical staging of early ovarian carcinoma, and we evaluate the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the operability of advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Laparotomy for Interval Debulking Surgery of Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and A Meta-Analysis

Objective

The selection of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open laparotomy for ovarian cancer (OC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open laparotomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced OC, so as to provide another option to select optimal surgical procedures for patients with OC.

Methods

Relevant literature studies about the risks of progression or mortality between women receiving MIS and open laparotomy for interval debulking surgery (IDS) were searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with the following keywords: “ovarian neoplasms”, “minimally invasive surgical procedures”, “laparotomy”, and “neoadjuvant therapy”. Eligible studies were screened out for further meta-analysis.

Results

Six eligible literature studies, with 643 patients in the MIS group and 2,885 patients in the open laparotomy group, were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences were detected in the overall survival (OS) of patients with OC who were treated with MIS or open laparotomy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59–1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.051, I² = 57.6%]. However, the progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with laparotomy (HR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.92; heterogeneity: P = 0.276, I² = 22.4%). The completeness of debulking removal (R0 rate) in the open laparotomy group was not statistically higher compared with the control group (RR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.098, I² = 52.3%), and no significant differences in residual disease of ≤1 cm (R1) (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.28; heterogeneity: P = 0.330, I² = 12.6%) and postoperative complications were found between the two groups (RR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.54; heterogeneity: P = 0.055, I² = 60.6%). Furthermore, the length of stays in hospital was significantly shorter in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with open laparotomy (Standard Mean Difference (SMD) = −1.21; 95% CI = −1.78 to −0.64; heterogeneity: P < 0.001, I² = 92.7%].

Conclusions

For IDS after NACT in patients with advanced OC, complete cytoreductive surgery with MIS is another feasible and effective choice

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022298519, identifier CRD42022298519

Perioperative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery, Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy, for Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

We aimed to compare the perioperative and survival outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery, traditional laparoscopy, and laparotomy approaches in ovarian cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched using multiple terms for ovarian cancer surgeries, including comparative studies in Chinese and English. Literatures are published before August 31, 2021. The outcomes include operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative/intraoperative/total complications, pelvic/para-aortic/total lymph nodes, transfusion, and five-year overall survival rate. The dichotomous data, continuous data, and OS data were pooled and reported as relative risk, standardized mean differences, and hazard ratio HRs with 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies.

Results

Thirty-eight studies, including 8,367 patients and three different surgical approaches (robotic-assisted laparoscopy surgery, traditional laparoscopy, or laparotomy approaches), were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis shows that the operating time of laparotomy was shorter than laparoscopy. The robotic-assisted laparoscopy has the least estimated blood loss during the surgery, followed by laparoscopy, and finally laparotomy. Compared with laparotomy, the incidence of blood transfusion was lower in the robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy groups, and the length of hospital stay is shorter. Laparotomy had a significantly higher incidence of total complications than robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy and higher postoperative complications than laparoscopy. For the number of pelvic/para-aortic/total lymph nodes removed by different surgical approaches, our analysis revealed no statistical difference. Our analysis also revealed no significant differences in intraoperative complications and 5-year OS among the three surgical approaches.

Conclusion

Compared with laparotomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy had a shorter hospital stay, decreased blood loss, fewer complications, and transfusion happened. The 5-year OS of ovarian cancer patients has no difference between robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy, and laparotomy groups.

Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC.

METHODS

According to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2).

RESULTS

A total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

As regards ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery has steadily increased over the years. Reluctance persists, however, about its oncological outcomes. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the three and five-year mortality of patients operated by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ovarian cancer to those operated by conventional open surgery (OPS), as well as their respective perioperative outcomes. PubMed, Cochrane library and CinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched, using the terms laparoscopy, laparoscopic or minimally invasive in combination with ovarian cancer or ovarian carcinoma. We finally included 19 observational studies with a total of 7213 patients. We found no statistically significant difference for five-year (relative risk (RR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.53-1.49, p = 0.62)) and three-year mortality (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.12, p = 0.52) between the patients undergoing MIS and those operated by OPS. When five and three-year recurrences were analyzed, no statistically significant differences were also observed. Analysis in early and advanced stages subgroups showed no significant difference for survival outcomes, suggesting oncological safety of MIS in all stages. Whether the surgery was primary or interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, did not influence the comparative results on mortality or recurrence. Although the available studies are retrospective, and mostly carry a high risk for bias and confounding, an overwhelming consistency of the evidence suggests the likely effectiveness of MIS in selected cases of ovarian cancer, even in advanced stages. To validate the use of MIS, the development of future randomized interventional studies should be a priority.

Laparotomy vs. minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer recurrence: a systematic review

The objective of the present review is to thoroughly investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the setting of secondary cytoreduction for ovarian cancer recurrence, comparing this approach to traditional open surgery. PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus and Web of Science databases (between 1st January 1989 and 1st January 2020), have been systematically queried to identify all articles reporting either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted secondary surgical cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer. We also manually searched the reference lists of the identified studies. Only English language papers were considered. Two independent reviewers screened and identified the reports. A sub-analysis was performed including studies comparing MIS vs. open abdominal secondary cytoreduction. A total of 617 articles were considered. Among them, we included 12 retrospective studies on minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction, enrolling 372 patients (260 of whom were submitted to whether robotics or laparosopy). Three studies compared 69 patients who underwent MIS vs. 112 cases of open abdominal secondary cytoreduction. Other 9 articles described a total of 191 patients who had minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer without a comparative arm. The quality of the evidence was low. The decision regarding the use of MIS was left to surgeon's discretion; in general, the candidates to MIS were selected patients with single-site disease or few localizations of relapse. Compared to open surgery, MIS was associated with significantly lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay and less postoperative complications; the rate of complete cytoreduction to residual tumor =0 was 95.5% in MIS cases vs. 87.5% in laparotomy cases. The risk of complications was generally low. Disease-free and overall survival were comparable between groups. There is no consensus on the criteria to select patients for laparoscopic or robotic secondary cytoreduction. Intra-operative ultrasound has been proposed as a possible tool to better identify the site of recurrence and for confirmation of complete resection of disease. In conclusion, MIS is an option in selected patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, provided there is no widespread disease. Selection of patients appears of utmost importance to obtain satisfactory survival outcomes.

Aggressive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer performed by a multidisciplinary team: A retrospective analysis on a large series of patients

Background

To evaluate the impact of extended surgical treatment performed by a team of gynecologists and general surgeons on postoperative morbidity and survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Methods

We collected data of 156 patients with advanced ovarian cancer stage IIb-III-IV according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification and treated with primary cytoreduction. End points were perioperative and postoperative complications and cancer-related survival.

Results

In 51 cases (51/156, 32.7%) a multivisceral resection was completed. Postoperative complications occurred in 52 cases (33.3%). The duration of the surgical procedure as well as the need for diaphragmatic peritonectomy were the factors independently associated with the development of postoperative complications. Five-year cancer-related survival rate was of 50.7%: only histotype and residual tumor resulted significantly associated.

Conclusions

Our results highlight the importance of a team of gynecologists and general surgeons with specific interests and skills to achieve cytoreduction as rapidly as possible, even when it implies very complex maneuvers.

Laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, laparoscopy has been progressively introduced in the management of advanced-stage ovarian cancer (AOC) to evaluate tumor resectability, avoiding an explorative laparotomy, to identify non-responders to submit to second-line chemotherapy and to perform primary or interval minimally invasive debulking surgery in selected patients. This review aims to deeply focus on the differences between laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of advanced ovarian cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The electronic database search provided a total of 80 results. Out of these, 63 results were excluded because considered not relevant to the review, for linguistic reasons or case reports. A total of 17 articles were considered eligible for the review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Many studies have assessed the value of laparoscopy in predicting the optimal resectability of AOC patients avoiding exploratory laparotomies. More recently, its role in primary and interval cytoreduction has been investigated for selected patients in terms of safety, feasibility and oncological outcomes. Published data are comparable to the standard laparotomic management in terms of oncological outcomes but with improved perioperative and psychological results. The selection of patients is crucial to perform a successful surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, laparoscopy has replaced the primary laparotomic approach in the evaluation of optimal resectability. As far as primary and interval minimally invasive debulking surgery are concerned, instead, most of the works report an overlap of oncological outcomes compared to traditional surgery. The selection of patients is a crucial point to reach a successful minimally invasive surgical treatment, taking into account surgical complexity and surgical adequacy.

Sexual function and quality of life of patients affected by ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

The sexual function (SF) in patients affected by malignancies represents an important aspect influencing the quality of life (QoL). The most frequent symptoms reported are the decreased sexual desire, dyspareunia, and/or problems with arousal or achieving orgasm. The present study is aimed at analyzing the available scientific evidence regarding the QoL and especially SF of patients affected by ovarian cancer who underwent surgical and medical treatment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A preliminary research was conducted using Pubmed database with specific keywords combinations regarding SF, QoL and ovarian cancer. The principal findings considered in the present review were: the study design, the number of patients included in each study, the information about the malignancy (histology and stage of disease), the questionnaires administered and the principal findings concerning SF and QoL.

EVIDENCE SYNTESIS

The studies selected were 5 prospective series and 3 case control cross-sectional studies. The scores used were focused on SF, QOL, fatigue and psychological aspects. All studies reported a decreased SF and QOL. Different factors coexist in the influence on outcomes such as physical, hormonal, psychological, self body image, and mechanic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SF represents a fundamental aspect strictly related with QoL. Patients with ovarian cancer (as well all oncological patients) experience a reduction in their SF after diagnosis of malignancy and they should receive adequate counseling regarding this aspect.

Sarcopenia in Ovarian Cancer Patients, Oncologic Outcomes Revealing the Importance of Clinical Nutrition: Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynecological malignancies. Its usual clinical manifestation is at advanced stages, with nutritional impairment, weight loss, and a consequent decline in skeletal muscle mass and strength (defined as sarcopenia). The relationship between sarcopenia and decreased survival was demonstrated not only in ovarian cancer but also in other cancer types, such as hepatocellular, pancreatic, lung, colon, cervical, metastatic breast, and renal cancer. The aim of this study is to review the current evidence regarding the relationship between sarcopenia and the surgical and oncological outcomes in ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

The systematic search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRSIMA) statement. The terms "SARCOPENIA" AND "OVARIAN CANCER" were systematically used to search PubMed and Scopus databases. Original reports in English language were identified, with the purpose to include all relevant papers regarding the role of sarcopenia and indicators of skeletal muscle quality assessment in gynecological ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were considered eligible for the present review. The strength of recommendation was moderate and the level of evidence was low in all selected articles. No prospective studies were conducted and most of the papers were case-control series comparing ovarian cancer sarcopenic population vs. non sarcopenic population.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenia appears to have an important role in oncological outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. However, sarcopenia occurrence during disease history and mechanisms underlying the possible impairment in prognosis should be better investigated. Prospective trials are awaited in order to obtain a better insight in this topic.