The Roles of Laparoscopy in Treating Ovarian Cancer

The minimally invasive resection of port-site metastasis of ovarian cancer after laparoscopy with cutaneous integrity: a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative wound recovery following laparotomy for port-site metastasis (PSM) resection is a concern. Reports indicate that wound healing disorders occur in patients with PSM. The challenges associated with PSM resection include the complete removal of the lesion, ensuring rapid wound healing, and maintaining the integrity of the abdominal wall. To date, there have been no reports on a minimally invasive approach for PSM resection following ovarian cancer through the inner side of the abdominal wall.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 66-year-old G2P1 patient with a history of high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinoma IIA presented with two abdominal wall masses, suspected to be PSM. She underwent laparoscopic resection of the lesions under general anesthesia. The excised masses measured approximately 10 cm and 5 cm, and margins were negative. The surgery lasted 1 hour and 33 minutes, with minimal intraoperative bleeding and no complications. The postoperative recovery was smooth. No recurrence was observed during the 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In our view, laparoscopy may be used as a minimally invasive technique that allows for PSM in the abdominal wall.

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.

Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Management of Early-stage Ovarian Cancer

Objectives

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer (EOC) by comparing the surgical and survival outcomes between laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center observational study that included all patients who underwent surgical staging for EOC by laparoscopy or laparotomy between 2010 and 2019.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included; of which 20 underwent laparoscopy, 26 laparotomy, and three conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding operative time, number of lymph nodes dissected, or intraoperative tumor rupture rate, while estimated blood loss and transfusion requirements were lower in the laparoscopy group. The complication rate tended to be higher in the laparotomy group. Patients in the laparoscopy group had a faster recovery, with earlier urinary catheter and abdominal drain removal, shorter hospital stay, and a trend toward earlier tolerance of oral diet and mobilization. At a mean follow-up of 45.7 months, 14 patients had disease recurrence, with no differences in the mean progression-free survival between the two groups (36 months for laparoscopy vs. 35.5 months for laparotomy, P = 0.22).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery performed by a trained gynecological oncologist is a safe and effective surgical approach for comprehensive staging of EOC, with the additional benefits of a faster recovery compared to laparotomy.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging compared to conventional laparoscopic staging and laparotomic staging in clinical early stage ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging (RALS) is increasingly used for staging epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Evidence of its safety is limited. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of RALS in clinical early-stage EOC to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy and to assess the level of evidence that is currently available to adopt this surgical technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only retrospective studies comparing staging by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy are available. Both RALS and conventional laparoscopic staging shorten length of hospital stay (LHS, mean -2.9 days) and decrease estimated blood loss (EBL, mean -79 ml less) compared to laparotomy. Complication rates and number of lymph nodes collected are similar in all surgical staging techniques. Survival outcomes after staging by MIS cannot be compared to staging by laparotomy because of the lack of evidence but RALS is probably noninferior to conventional laparoscopic staging.

SUMMARY

RALS probably improves perioperative outcomes in patients with clinical early stage EOC similar to conventional laparoscopic staging. Whether oncologic outcomes of RALS are comparable to open and conventional approaches is uncertain as there is only level C evidence and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the current retrospective findings.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in early ovarian cancer

Despite having revolutionized the management of multiple types of gynecologic cancers laparoscopy and robotic surgery have had limited utility in ovarian cancer until recently. The development in medical technology allows surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery (MIS) not only in early ovarian cancer, but also in advanced ovarian cancer. Thus far, most prospective studies showed feasible results of MIS in ovarian cancer. Even with many proven advantages of the MIS, there is no concrete evidence of the disparity in survival rate between laparoscopic, robotic surgery and laparotomy surgery. We reviewed the results of MIS in ovarian cancer thus far and suggest how the gynecologists can apply MIS in ovarian cancer in the future. Until the further prospective studies show solid evidence of safety in the MIS in ovarian cancer, comprehensive discussion about the benefits and risk with the patient and the level of surgical skill of the gynecologist should be considered in determining the type of surgery.

Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment.

METHODS

The included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect measures were presented with weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity test was assessed using Q test and I2 statistics to determine the use of the random effects model or fixed effects model. Egger's test was used to assess the publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies was included in this meta-analysis with a MINORS score of 16-18. In the random effects model, estimated blood loss (EBL) of robotic surgery was significantly less compared with laparotomy (WMD = - 521.7027, 95% CI - 809.7816; - 233.6238). In the fixed effects model, length of hospital stay (LHS) (WMD = - 5.2225, 95% CI - 6.1485; - 4.2965) and postoperative complication (PC) (OR = 0.4710, 95% CI 0.2537; 0.8747) of robotic surgery were significantly less, and overall survival (OS) rate (OR = 6.4355, 95% CI 1.6722; 24.7678, P = 0.0070) of robotic surgery was significantly higher compared with laparotomy. There was no difference in the effect size of all variables between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. Meanwhile, a publication bias (t = 6.8290, P = 0.002405) was only identified for PC in robotic surgery and laparotomy groups; no publication bias was identified for the other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the above results, it failed to show oncological safety and recurrence by pathological stages or histologic types in this meta-analysis, and those confounding factors might affect the clinical outcome. Future meta-analyses with a larger number of eligible randomized controlled trial studies were needed to determine the most suitable treatment method for patients with different stages and types of ovarian cancer.

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.

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.

Unexpected epithelial ovarian cancers arising from presumed endometrioma: A 10-year retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence and prognosis of unexpected epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) occurring in presumed benign endometrioma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent primary surgery at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between November 2003 and October 2013 were searched with the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine code followed by chart review.

RESULTS

The incidence of unexpected EOCs in presumed ovarian endometrioma was 0.14%, as 11 patients were revealed after reviewing 497 patients of pathology-proven EOCs in the current series. All patients were aged ≥ 40 years; seven (63.6%) had inward mass within ovarian cyst in preoperative images, six had cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) > 200 U/mL, and two with CA-125 > 1500 U/mL. Ten patients underwent laparoscopy initially, including five with ovarian preservation at the beginning. Ten patients subsequently completed concurrent or secondary staging surgery, including four totally with laparoscopy. The histologic subtypes had clear-cell (8/11), endometrioid (1/11), mixed clear-cell and endometrioid (1/11), and low-grade serous adenocarcinoma (1/11). Seven patients had endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinoma (EAOC), while the other four were non-EAOC with no endometriosis component. The only mortality was a patient of non-EAOC in Stage IIIc, whereas the other 10 in Stage I were alive. The overall survival rate was 90.9% (10/11) with follow-up ranging from 23 months to 130 months.

CONCLUSION

Unexpected EOCs occurring in presumed ovarian endometrioma was rare and, if present, the prognosis was good in Stage I disease with laparoscopic management. Combining parameters of patient's age, CA-125 level, and inward solid mass at imaging could help to raise the precautions.

Clinical outcome after laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy with transvaginal uterosacral ligament fixation

OBJECTIVE

We report here the clinical outcome of a simplified method to suspend the vaginal cuff during laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Fifty patients underwent laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy and received transvaginal uterosacral ligament fixation for vaginal cuff support (LAVHUS). Follow-up examinations were conducted for at least 24 months and included vaginal examination with prolapse grading using the POP-Q system. Subjective outcomes were measured using a questionnaire that asked patients to describe postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms and satisfaction with the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 106 weeks (range 102-120 weeks).The postoperative POP-Q point C and total vaginal length were effectively sustained during this period. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, and no adverse postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms were reported.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated satisfactory subjective and objective clinical outcomes following LAVHUS.

Comparisons of Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Costs Between Laparotomy and Laparoscopy in Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes, complications, and costs between laparoscopic staging and laparotomic staging for early-stage ovarian cancer.

Methods:

We evaluated 113 patients who underwent laparoscopy (n = 26) or laparotomy (n = 87) for staging. We retrospectively analyzed patients' demographics and operative variables, including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital stay, complications, postoperative pain, and return to normal activity. In addition, costs for laparoscopy and laparotomy groups were also compared.

Results:

The mean operation time was longer in laparoscopy group compared to laparotomy group (227.6 minutes vs 184.6 minutes, P = 0.016). The laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss, less transfusion requirement, shorter postoperative hospital stay, earlier general diet intake, shorter time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and lower postoperative pain score after 6, 24, and 48 hours compared with the laparotomy group. The mean number of lymph node retrievals was comparable between the groups. The incidence of operative complications was lower in the laparoscopy group (7.7%) relative to the laparotomy group (23.0%). The total average cost for staging completed via laparotomy was $1237 and that via laparoscopy was $1998, with significant difference.

Conclusions:

Complete surgical staging by laparoscopy was achieved in all cases with comparable operative time and less operative complications compared with laparotomy for selected patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. However, the operation costs for laparoscopy were significantly higher than the operation costs for laparotomic staging surgery.