Laparoscopy in gynaecological cancer

An update on oncofertility in prepubertal females

Cancer is a life-threatening event for pediatric patients. Treatment advancements in pediatric cancer have improved prognosis, but some of these treatments have gonadotoxic potential and may affect fertility in different ways. Due to the growing interest of the research community in the life prospects of young cancer survivors, there has been a demand to intersect reproductive medicine and oncology, which is referred to as "oncofertility". There are various fertility preservation options according to gender and pubertal status, and shared decisions must take place at the time of diagnosis. This study aims to provide a critical review of current and emerging strategies for preserving and restoring fertility in prepubertal females, ranging from established methods to experimental approaches that can be offered before, during, and after anticancer therapies. Additionally, the author aims to review how clinicians' awareness of oncofertility options and the latest advancements in this field, timely referral, and proper consultations with patients and their families are vital in addressing their concerns, providing emotional support, and guiding them through the decision-making process, as well as potential barriers that may hinder the fertility preservation process.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For the first updated review, the search was extended to the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS to 6 December 2011. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from November 2011 to September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion as well as important data from other meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We performed no meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic).

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For this updated review, we extended the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS searches to 6 December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective case-control studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We performed no meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO Stage I ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Over the past ten years laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach for the surgical removal of early stage ovarian tumours. There remains uncertainty about the value of this intervention. This review has been undertaken to assess the available evidence of the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for the management of early stage ovarian cancer compared to laparotomy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007, MEDLINE (January 1990 to November 2007), EMBASE (1990 to November 2007), LILACS (1990 to November 2007), BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS (1990 to November 2007) and Cancerlit (1990 to November 2007). We also searched our own publication archives, based on prospective handsearching of relevant journals from November 2007. Reference lists of identified studies, gynaecological cancer handbooks and conference abstract were also scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies including patients with histologically proven stage I ovarian cancer according to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).Studies comparing laparoscopic surgery with laparotomy for early stage ovarian cancer were only available from 1990. It was anticipated that a very small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted studying the management of early stage ovarian cancer. Therefore, non-randomised comparative studies, cohort studies and case-controls studies, but not studies with historical controls, were also considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was performed independently by five review authors (LRM, DDR, MIR, MCB and MIE) who assessed study quality and quality of extracted data. Extracted data included trial characteristics, characteristics of the study participants, interventions and outcomes. The quality of non RCTs was assessed using appropriate quality evaluations tools from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and from the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for observational studies (NOS).

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs were identified. Three observational studies were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found no evidence to help quantify the value of laparoscopy for the management of early stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopic management of 641 adnexal tumors in Kiel, Germany

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic and laparotomic management of ovarian tumors.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

Six hundred forty-one women with benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopy and laparotomy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between January 1997 and December 1998, 493 (76.9%) ovarian tumors were treated laparoscopically and 138 (21.5%) by laparotomy. Criteria for laparotomy were high suspicion of malignancy and tumors larger than 10 cm that were technically too difficult for the laparoscopic approach. The mean size of tumors treated laparoscopically was 4.5 cm (range 1.1-11 cm) and by laparotomy 8.2 cm (range 3-20 cm). Mean operating times were 75.7 minutes (range 30-200 min) and 126 minutes (range 30-235 min), respectively, and mean blood loss was 193 ml (range 50-1200 ml) and 431 ml (range 50-2500 ml), respectively. Twelve laparoscopies were converted to laparotomy, six because of technical reasons such as severe adhesions, bleeding, or tumor size, and six for intraoperative suspicion of malignancy. Of the latter, four (66.7%) turned out to be ovarian carcinoma and two (33.3%) borderline tumors. Histologic evaluation clearly revealed predominance of functional ovarian cysts, endometriomas, and dermoid cysts in the group treated by laparoscopy, whereas ovarian carcinomas, large endometriomas, and serous cysts prevailed in the laparotomy group.

CONCLUSION

With careful preoperative screening, the rate of laparoscopies for treatment of benign ovarian cysts can be increased. (J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8(1):74-82, 2001)