Predictive value of the age-adjusted Charlston co-morbidity index on peri-operative complications, adjuvant chemotherapy usage and survival in patients undergoing debulking surgery after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Splenectomy as Part of Maximal-Effort Cytoreductive Surgery in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

INTRODUCTION

A splenectomy is frequently performed during debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Its impact on perioperative and survival outcomes remains questionable as current evidence is conflicting. In the present study, we sought to determine the factors that affect survival rates in ovarian cancer patients that undergo a splenectomy as part of maximal-effort cytoreduction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted that included all epithelial ovarian cancer patients that had surgical cytoreduction for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Differences among splenectomized and non splenectomized patients were evaluated as well as the impact of known risk factors on survival outcomes of splenectomized patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 245 patients were identified and 223 were included in the present series, of whom 91 had a splenectomy. Recurrence rates as well as death rates were comparable among splenectomized and non-splenectomized patients; however, both the disease-free survival (log-rank = 0.001), as well as the overall survival of splenectomized patients (log-rank = 0.006), was shorter. Thrombotic events as well as rates of pulmonary embolism were comparable. Sepsis was more common among splenectomized patients. The site of splenic metastases did not influence patients' survival. Among splenectomized patients, those offered primary debulking had longer progression-free survival (log-rank = 0.042), although their overall survival did not differ compared to patients submitted to interval debulking. Complete debulking significantly improved the overall survival compared to optimal debulking (log-rank = 0.047). Splenectomized patients that developed sepsis had worse overall survival (log-rank = 0.005).

DISCUSSION

The findings of our study support the feasibility of splenectomy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer; however, its impact on patients' survival is considerable. Therefore, every effort should be made to avoid splenic injury which will result in unintended splenectomy for non-oncological reasons.

Ovarian Cancer in the Elderly: Time to Move towards a More Logical Approach to Improve Prognosis-A Study from the FRANCOGYN Group

Background and objective: Elderly and/or frail women with ovarian cancer are often undertreated. The aim of the study is to compare the effects of age and frailty on surgical approaches, postoperative complications, and prognosis in elderly women with ovarian cancer. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study of women ≥70 years were treated for ovarian cancer at seven French university hospitals between 2007 and 2015. Results: Of the 1119 women treated for ovarian cancer during the study period, 147 were ≥70 years and had complete data. Of these women, 65 were aged 70–74 years, and 82 were aged ≥75 years. Overall, 77% of the younger women (49/65) received optimal treatment compared with 51% (40/82) of the older women (p = 0.018). Women ≥75 years underwent fewer bowel resections (32% vs. 67%, p < 0.001) and experienced fewer postoperative complications (22.6% vs. 38.9%, p < 0.001); 53.2% of the women in this age group were treated by primary surgery or surgery only. These women also received more chemotherapy with platinum only (15% [9/56] vs. 2% [1/57], p = 0.007) and less bevacizumab (9% [5/56] vs. 32% [18/57], p = 0.003). Patients with greater frailty (a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index [mCCI] score >3) had a five-year survival rate of 30% versus 62% for those with a score ≤3 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Surgeons modify their approach to treating ovarian cancer in women ≥75 years probably to reduce immediate postoperative complications. The prognosis is significantly worse in patients with greater frailty. Improvements to the sequence of treatments administered, with priority given to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with greater frailty, could help increase the number of women who receive optimal treatment and improve their prognosis.

Socioeconomic differences impact overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) prior to achievement of standard therapy

PURPOSE

Survival difference between socioeconomic groups with ovarian cancer has persisted in the United Kingdom despite efforts to reduce disparities in care. Our aim was to delineate critical episodes in the patient journey, where deprivation has most impact on survival.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 834 patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) between 16/8/07-16/2/17 at a large cancer centre serving one of the most deprived areas of the UK. Using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), patients were categorised into five groups.

RESULTS

Surgery was more common in less deprived patients (p < 0.00001). Across IMD groups, there were no differences in complete (R0) cytoreduction rate (r = 0.18, p > 0.05), age, or comorbidity. The R0/total cohort rate increased with increasing IMD group (p < 0.0001). Patients refusing any intervention belonged exclusively to the three most deprived groups; 5/7 patients who refused surgery belonged to the most deprived IMD group. Overall survival in the total patient group was less in IMD group 1-2 compared to 9-10 (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, IMD group was not an independent predictor of survival (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic differences in survival manifest in patients not receiving surgical treatment for AOC and are not purely explained by comorbidity, age, stage, or histological factors.

The NICE classification for 'Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery for advanced ovarian cancer' guidance does not meaningfully predict postoperative complications: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine which descriptors of cytoreductive surgical extent in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) best predict postoperative morbidity.

DESIGN

Retrospective notes review.

SETTING

A gynaecological cancer centre in the UK.

POPULATION

Six hundred and eight women operated on for AOC over a period of 114 months at a tertiary cancer centre, between 16 August 2007 and 16 February 2017.

METHODS

Outcome data were analysed by six approaches to classify the extent of surgery: standard/ultra-radical surgery; standard/radical/supra-radical surgery; presence/absence of gastrointestinal resections; low/intermediate/high surgical complexity score (SCS); presence of bowel anastomoses and/or diaphragmatic surgery; and the presence/absence of multiple bowel resections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Major (grades 3-5) postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-three (7.1%) patients experienced major complications. Grade-5 complications occurred in six patients (1.0%). Patients who underwent multiple bowel resections had a relative risk (RR) of 7.73 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 3.92-15.26), patients with a high SCS had an RR of 6.12 (95% CI 3.25-11.52), patients with diaphragmatic surgery and gastrointestinal anastomosis had an RR of 5.57 (95% CI 2.65-11.72), patients with 'any gastrointestinal resection' had an RR of 4.69 (95% CI 2.66-8.24), patients with ultra-radical surgery had an RR of 4.65 (95% CI 2.26-8.79), and patients with supra-radical surgery had an RR of 4.20 (95% CI 2.35-7.51) of grades 3-5 morbidity, compared with patients undergoing standard surgery as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK. No significant difference was seen in the rate of major morbidity between standard (6/59, 10.2%) and ultra-radical (9/81, 11.1%) surgery within the cohort who had intermediate complex surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of procedures performed significantly correlate with major morbidity. The number of procedures performed better predicted major postoperative morbidity than the performance of certain 'high risk' procedures. We recommend using SCS to define a higher risk operation. NICE should re-evaluate the use of the term 'ultra-radical' surgery.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Multiple bowel resection is the best predictor of morbidity and is more predictive than 'ultra-radical surgery'.

Confounders other than comorbidity explain survival differences in Danish and Swedish ovarian cancer patients - a comparative cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Danish ovarian cancer (OC) patients have previously been found to have worse prognosis than Swedish patients, and comorbidity has been suggested as a possible explanation for this survival difference. We aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of comorbidity in surgically treated OC patients in Denmark and Sweden.

METHODS

This comparative cohort study was based on data from 3118 surgically treated OC patients diagnosed in 2012-2015. The Swedish subcohort (n = 1472) was identified through the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery, whereas the Danish subcohort (n = 1646) originated from the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database. The clinical databases have high coverage and similar variables included. Comorbidity was classified according to the Ovarian Cancer Comorbidity Index and overall survival was the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analyses. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.

RESULTS

We found comparable frequencies of the following comorbidities: Hypertension, diabetes and 'Any comorbidity'. Arteriosclerotic cardiac disease and chronic pulmonary disease were more common among Swedish patients. Univariable survival analysis revealed a significant better prognosis for Swedish than for Danish patients (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.74-0.95], p < .01). In adjusted multivariable analysis, Swedish patients had nonsignificant better prognosis compared to Danish patients (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.80-1.04], p = .16). Comorbidity was associated with survival (p = .02) but comorbidity did not explain the survival difference between the two countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Danish OC patients have a poorer prognosis than patients in Sweden but the difference in survival seems to be explained by other factors than comorbidity.