Laparoscopic surgical staging in women with early stage epithelial ovarian cancer performed by recently certified gynecologic oncologists

Is minimally invasive surgical approach a reasonable option in apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer restaging? Results from a multicentric retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

To perform surgical staging of early stage ovarian cancer (EOC), conventional laparoscopy (LS) and robot-assisted laparoscopy (RLS) appear to be reliable procedures compared to open surgery. But oncologicals results with long-term follow up are limited in the literature. The objective of this study is to evaluate the surgical and long-term survival for patients managed by minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicentric retrospective study in 6 institutions. All patients referred for epithelial EOC (apparent stage I-IIa) managed with LS and RLS were involved.

RESULTS

From December 2008 to December 2017, 140 patients were included (109 in LS group and 31 in RLS group). A total of 27 (19.2 %) patients were upstaged to an advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stage > IIA), and 73 % of patients received chemotherapy. Mean operative time was 265,8 ± 88,4 min and significantly longer in RLS group (LS = 254,5 ± 86,8; RLS = 305,6 ± 85,5; p = 0,008). Rate of severe post-operative complications (grade 3) was 5,7 %. Thirteen conversion to laparotomy occurred, including one per-operative hemorrhaege. After a mean follow-up of 60,7 months, 29 (20.7 %) patients recurred, with a time to recurrence was >24 months in 51,7 % of cases. Overall survival (OS) was 88.6 % and disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.3 %. Oncologic outcomes were similar between LS and RLS group (OS: p = 0,504 and DFS: p = 0,213).

CONCLUSION

Surgical staging of EOC by LS or RLS approach has long-term equivalent surgical and oncological approach. These results seem to be equivalent to open surgery according to literature review.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer treatment: a narrative review

Objectives

The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available evidence on the use of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Background

MIS is currently performed to stage and treat EOC at different stage of presentation. We will evaluate risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery for early stage EOC treatment, then potential advantages provided by staging laparoscopy in identifying patients suitable for primary cytoreductive surgery (PDS) will be discussed. Finally we will investigate the growing role of MIS in the treatment of advanced EOC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and in the treatment of EOC recurrence.

Methods

An electronic database search was performed on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar for relevant studies up to December 2022.

Conclusion

LPS represents a feasible surgical procedure for the staging and treatment in early, advanced and EOC relapse in selected patients treated in high-volume oncological centers by surgeons with adequate experience in advanced surgical procedures. Despite the increasing use of MIS over the last few years, randomized clinical trials are still needed to prove its effectiveness.

Minimally Invasive Staging of Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer versus Open Surgery in Terms of Feasibility and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Epithelial ovarian cancer is women's fourth most common oncological cause of death. One of the main prognostic factors in ovarian cancer is the tumor stage. For instance, surgical staging of the disease is focal when choosing the best therapeutic option for each case. Although open surgery is the prevalent approach for staging and treating ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has found recent application in staging or restaging cases of early disease. Our work compares oncological outcomes after MIS staging for FIGO I epithelial ovarian cancer with the laparotomic approach. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations, we systematically searched the Pub Med and Scopus databases in February 2023. No temporal nor geographical limitation was made. We included the articles containing data about Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS), Recurrence Rates (RR), and Upstaging Rates (UpR). We used comparative studies for the meta-analysis. After the database search and article selection, 19 works matched the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Eleven of these were comparative studies between MIS and Open Surgical Staging (OSS) approaches for ovarian cancer staging and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the MIS and the OSS group concerning DFS, OS, and RR. Only Upstaging Rate ≥ FIGO Stage II was statistically significative higher in the OSS group. Likewise, MIS is confirmed to be an approach with a lower profile of surgical complications. In conclusion, our study did not show one approach to be safer than the other. However, the lack of dedicated studies limits the evidence of our study. For instance, we recommend adequately selecting the specimen, minimizing the risk of spillage, and optimizing surgical staging.

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.

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.

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 Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Women With Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Objective

This study evaluated the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of early-stage ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

We conducted an observational study of women diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2014 stage I ovarian cancer who underwent surgery at the West China Second University Hospital from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, those with non-epithelial histopathological types, or those with insufficient data were excluded. Using propensity score matching, data from consecutive laparoscopic patients treated by laparoscopy were matched 1:2 with a cohort of patients undergoing open surgery. The operative and survival outcomes among the matched cohorts were examined using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

Among 200 eligible patients, 74 patients undergoing laparoscopy were compared with a cohort of 126 patients undergoing open surgery. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups after matching. Patients who had laparoscopy had a shorter operative time (P = 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P <0.001), and lower blood loss (P = 0.001) than patients who had open surgery. The median (range) follow-up period was 43.0 (38.8–47.2) and 45.0 (36.0–54.0) months for cases and controls, respectively (P <0.001). There are no significant differences in progression-free survival (P = 0.430, log-rank test) and overall survival (P = 0.067, log-rank test) between the two groups.

Conclusions

There is no difference in prognosis between laparoscopic and open surgery in women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer is safe and feasible for stage I epithelial ovarian cancer patients.

Ovarian cancer surgery in Germany: An analysis of the nationwide hospital file 2005–2015

Objectives:

Nationwide hospitalization data on the surgical management of ovarian cancer are scant. We assessed type of surgery, surgical approach, length of stay, surgery-related complications and in-hospital mortality among women with ovarian cancer in Germany. We analyzed nationwide hospitalization file of 2005 through 2015 including 77,589 ovarian cancer-related hospitalizations associated with ovarian surgery.

Methods:

We calculated the relative frequency of the surgical approaches by type of surgery and calendar time. We used log-binomial regression models to estimate relative risk of in-hospital mortality (including 95% confidence intervals) according to complications. About 63% of the hospitalizations included an additional hysterectomy besides ovariectomy.

Results:

About 85% of the surgeries were performed by laparotomy. However, from 2005–2006 through 2013–2015, the proportion of laparoscopic ovariectomies (±salpingectomy) increased from 14% to 35%. The in-hospital mortality risks for laparotomic and laparoscopic surgery were 2.9% and 0.4%, respectively. Adjusted mortality risk ratios varied from 1.35 (95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.94) for bleedings requiring blood transfusion to 3.65 (95% confidence interval = 3.31–4.03) for postoperative infections.

Conclusion:

We observed a tendency away from laparotomy toward laparoscopy for ovariectomies (±salpingectomy) over time. Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy was associated with lower risk of complications and death. All complications studied were associated with higher in-hospital mortality risk.

Primary Laparoscopic Surgery Does Not Affect the Prognosis of Early-Stage Ovarian Clear Cell Cancer

Purpose

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is performed frequently in early-stage ovarian cancer patients, especially in ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC). The aim of this study was to investigate whether primary laparoscopic surgery influences prognosis in patients with early-stage OCCC.

Patients and Methods

Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I  OCCC were retrospectively reviewed in two hospitals between April 2010 and August 2020. Clinical data were abstracted, and patients were followed up until February 2021. Patients were divided into open surgery (laparotomy) and laparoscopy groups, and the Kaplan–Meier method was applied to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the groups. Statistical differences were determined by the Log rank test.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were included in the study; 20 (22.5%) and 69 (77.5%) patients underwent laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. The patients’ characteristics were well-balanced except that patients in the laparoscopy group tended to have smaller tumors and lower frequency of omentectomy and lymphadenectomy compared with the open surgery group. The median follow-up duration was 42.6 and 36.5 months in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. Nine (10.1%) patients developed recurrence, and 4 (4.5%) died of the disease; all in the open surgery group. The estimated 2-year PFS rates were 100.0% and 90.1%, and the estimated 5-year OS rates were 100.0% and 91.9% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. No significant survival differences were found between the groups.

Conclusion

Survival was not compromised when primary laparoscopic surgery was performed in early-stage OCCC patients. A well-designed randomized controlled trial is warranted.

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.

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Care of Women with Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize evidence from studies investigating survival outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (traditional or robotic laparoscopy) compared with those for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing laparotomy.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to December 2019).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared risk of recurrence or death between women undergoing minimally invasive and open procedures for staging (10), interval cytoreduction (4), secondary cytoreduction (2), and evaluation of resectability (1) were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data on the number of participants, number of deaths and recurrences, and results of analyses of overall or progression-free survival were abstracted for all studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the results of studies comparing minimally invasive staging and open staging. The surgical approach (minimally invasive versus open) was not significantly associated with hazard of death or recurrence (pooled hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.38) or all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.89). One randomized trial demonstrated that diagnostic laparoscopy could triage patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and avoid suboptimal primary surgery, without affecting recurrence-free or overall survival. Most studies included in this review were observational and at high risk for bias, and few studies accounted for potential confounding.

CONCLUSION

Although existing studies do not demonstrate deleterious survival effects associated with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, these data must be viewed with caution given the significant methodologic shortcomings in the existing literature.

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

Background and objective: according to the latest ESMO−ESGO recommendations, laparotomy is the standard surgical approach to treat and stage patients with presumed early stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). A few studies have investigated the efficacy and the safety of laparoscopy for the staging of early stage EOC, and this question is still in the center of debates. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits of the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have still to be specified. The aim of this multicenter and retrospective study is to assess the survival outcomes of laparoscopic staging in comparison with laparotomic staging for patients presenting with an early stage EOC. Methods: data of patients with early stage EOC (FIGO I-IIA) who underwent primary surgery between 2000 and 2018 were extracted from the FRANCOGYN database. OS and RFS of these two groups, constituted according to the surgical route, were compared using Log rank test. Results: of the 144 patients included, 107 patients underwent laparotomy and 37 underwent laparoscopy for a staging purpose. The median follow-up was 36.0 months (18.0 to 58.0). For the laparoscopy and the laparotomy group, the median follow-up period was 24 (11.0 to 50.0) and 42.0 (24.0 to 66.0) months, respectively, (p < 0.001). Tumor recurrence occurred in 33 (23%) patients: 2 (5.4%) in the laparoscopy group and 31 (29%) in the laparotomy group (p = 0.08). The OS rate at 5 years was 97.3% after laparoscopy and 79.8% after laparotomy (p = 0.19). Conclusions: there is no difference associated with the laparoscopic approach for the staging of early stage EOC on RFS and OS in comparison with laparotomy. MIS may be proposed as a safe and adequate alternative to laparotomy when performed by well-trained surgeons.

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer: Association between hospital surgical volume and short-term perioperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends and associated characteristics and outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with early-stage ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was queried to examine early-stage ovarian cancer treated with MIS from 2001 to 2011. Annualized hospital surgical volume was defined in the unweighted model as the average number of procedures performed per year in which at least one case was performed. Trends, characteristics, and outcomes related to MIS use were assessed in the weighted model.

RESULTS

Among 73,707 oophorectomy cases, there were 4822 (6.5%) MIS cases. Utilization of MIS increased from 3.9% to 13.5% from 2001 to 2011 (3.5-fold increase, P < 0.001), and the number of MIS-offering centers also increased from 10.6% to 36.2% (3.4-fold increase, P < 0.001). MIS was associated with a decreased complication rate (20.3% versus 35.4%) and shorter hospital stay (median, 2 versus 4 days) compared to laparotomy (both, P < 0.001). Of the 472 hospitals at which MIS was performed, the majority were minimum-volume with one MIS oophorectomy per year (340 [72.0%], n = 1929 [40.0%]), followed by mid-volume (85 [18.0%], n = 1272 [26.4%]) and topdecile-volume (47 [10.0%] hospitals, n = 1621 [33.6%]). The topdecile-volume group had the highest rate of lymphadenectomy compared to other groups (62.2% versus 39.2-55.1%, P < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, a one increment increase in annualized hospital surgical volume was associated with an 11% decrease in multiple complications (adjusted-odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.82-0.97, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of MIS for early-stage ovarian cancer has significantly increased in the United States in 2000s. In 2011, one in eight surgeries performed for early ovarian cancer were performed via MIS. MIS procedures performed at hospitals with a higher surgical volume may be associated with improved short-term perioperative outcomes.

[Surgery in early-stage ovarian cancer: Article drafted from the French Guidelines in oncology entitled "Initial management of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer" developed by FRANCOGYN, CNGOF, SFOG, GINECO-ARCAGY under the aegis of CNGOF and endorsed by INCa]

Early stage ovarian epithelial cancer (stage I according to the FIGO classification, i.e. limited to ovaries) affects 20% to 33% of patients with ovarian cancer. This chapter only describes data on these presumed early stages. The rate of occult epiploic metastases varies from 2% to 4%, and leads to over-staging in stage III A of 3% to 11% of patients. Performing an omentectomy does not result in a change in survival in this situation (NP4). The rate of appendix metastasis ranges from 0% to 26.7% (NP4). In the mucinous subtype, this rate can reach 53% if the appendix is macroscopically abnormal (NP2). The rate of positive peritoneal cytology ranges from 20.9% to 27%. Positive peritoneal cytology is responsible for over-staging of patients in 4.3% to 52% of cases and appears as a poor prognostic factor on survival (NP4). The rate of occult peritoneal metastases varies from 1.1% to 16%. Performing these peritoneal biopsies results in over-staging of 4% to 7.1% (NP4). In the management of ovarian cancers at a presumed early stage, it is recommended to perform: omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies, cytology, appendectomy (grade C). In case of incomplete or incomplete initial staging, restaging including omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies and appendectomy (if not explored) is recommended; especially in the absence of a reported indication of chemotherapy. The lymph node invasion rate ranges from 6.3% to 22%. It is 4.5% to 18% for stages I and 17.5% to 31% in stages II. Between 8.5% and 13% of patients with suspected early stage ovarian cancer are reclassified to stage IIIA1 following the completion of lymphadenectomy (NP3). Pelvic and lumbo-aortic lymphadenectomy improves the survival of patients with ovarian cancer at a presumptive early stage (NP2). Pelvic and lumbo-aortic lymphadenectomy is recommended for presumed early ovarian stages (grade B). In case of initial treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer without lymph node staging, restadification including lymphadenectomy is recommended; especially in the absence of a stated indication of chemotherapy (grade B). No studies have shown any laparoscopic disadvantage compared to laparotomy for feasibility, safety, or postoperative rehabilitation (NP3) in surgical staging of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. For the initial surgical management of these patients, the choice between laparoscopy or laparotomy depends on local conditions (tumor size) and surgical expertise. If complete surgery without risk of tumor rupture is possible, the laparoscopic approach is preferred (grade C). In the opposite case, median laparotomy is recommended. As part of surgical restadification, the laparoscopic approach is recommended (grade C). Intraoperative tumor rupture leads to a decrease in disease free survival (hazard ratio=2.28) and overall survival (hazard ratio=3.79) (NP2). It is recommended that all precautions be taken to avoid perioperative ovarian tumor rupture, including the intraoperative decision of laparoconversion (grade C). There is no specific study to answer the question of the feasibility of a one-time or two-time surgery during an extemporane diagnosis of an early stage ovarian cancer. The high sensitivity and specificity of this extemporane examination in this situation makes it possible to consider a surgical management of staging during the same operating time.

Is It the Time for Laparoscopic Management of Early-stage Ovarian Malignancies?

The laparoscopic management of early-stage ovarian cancer remains controversial. Some surgeons hesitate to perform laparoscopic staging due to concern with the adequacy of staging, the possibility of tumor spillage and risk of port-site metastasis. Previous studies and literature reviews have reinforced the argument and supported the use of laparoscopy. However, the results were drawn with limited sample size obtained from case-series and case-control studies which result in difficult to make definite conclusions. Till date, the list of laparoscopic procedures has grown at a pace consistent with improvements in technology and technical skill of the surgeon. The number of studies with larger sample size, more prospective data, and longer duration of follow-up has been increasing. This review serves as an update on safety, feasibility, surgical, and oncological outcomes in cases of early-stage ovarian cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery of the literature published since 2008. We aim to clarify whether laparoscopy is safe and effective enough to be considered as standard management. Rely on nonrandomize studies, the current clinical evidence supports the role of laparoscopy in the management of early-stage ovarian cancer. Laparoscopy appears to offer several perioperative benefits without compromise of surgical morbidity and oncological outcome.

Impact of Surgical Route in Influencing the Risk of Lymphatic Complications After Ovarian Cancer Staging

Lymphatic complications are a common occurrence after staging surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer (eEOC). We investigated whether the introduction of minimally invasive surgery influences the risk of developing lymphoceles and lymphorrhea in patients undergoing staging for eEOC. For this purpose, data of consecutive patients affected by eEOC undergoing staging surgery between January 1980 and January 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review. Among 341 patients included in the present study, 47 severe postoperative complications occurred (13.7%), including 40 lymphatic complications: 31 symptomatic lymphoceles (9%) and 9 cases of lymphorrhea (2.6%), respectively. Laparoscopic staging correlated with a lower risk of developing any severe lymphatic complications in comparison with open surgery (p = .02). In particular, the laparoscopic approach and para-aortic node involvement were associated with a trend toward lower lymphoceles (odds ratio, .13; 95% confidence interval, .07-2.20; p = .05) and a trend toward higher risk of lymphorrhea developing (odds ratio, 4.02; 95% confidence interval, .93-17.3; p = .06), respectively. In conclusion, the implementation of a minimally invasive approach might result in a slight reduction of lymphatic complications after eEOC staging.