Upfront cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Indian patients

Can EPIC Be a Low-Cost Alternative to HIPEC in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Resource-Constraint Settings? Experience from Tertiary Care Oncology Center

Management of advanced ovarian cancer underwent a paradigm shift with advent of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy requires complex machinery and costly disposables, and increased operative time. Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy is a relatively less resource-intensive alternative way of intraperitoneal drug delivery. We started our HIPEC programme in 2013. In select cases, we offer EPIC. This study is an audit of outcomes to look into the feasibility of EPIC as alternative to HIPEC. We performed analysis of prospectively maintained database in the Department of Surgical oncology from January 2019 to June 2022. We had 15 patients who underwent CRS + EPIC and 84 CRS+ HIPEC. We did a propensity-matched analysis for demographics, baseline data and PCI and compared 15 CRS + EPIC with 15 CRS + HIPEC patients. We compared the perioperative outcomes-morbidity, mortality, length of ICU and hospital stay. Procedure time was significantly higher in the HIPEC compared to EPIC as HIPEC is an intraoperative procedure. Patients were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after surgery for a longer mean duration in HIPEC arm (1.4 + 0.7 days) compared to EPIC arm (1.2 + 0.41 days). Patients in HIPEC arm had a significantly shorter hospital stay (mean 7.93 vs. 9.93 days. Four patients in EPIC arm had Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 morbidity compared to 1 patient in HIPEC arm. Hematological toxicity was more common in EPIC group. CRS with EPIC can be explored as an alternative to HIPEC in centres lacking facilities and expertise for HIPEC.

Surgery in Advanced Ovary Cancer: Primary versus Interval Cytoreduction

Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has remained the only treatment of ovarian cancer with survival advantage since its development in the 1970s. However, survival advantage is only observed in patients who are optimally resected. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has emerged as an alternative for patients in whom optimal resection is unlikely and/or patients with comorbidities at high risk for perioperative complications. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence to date for PDS and NACT in the treatment of stage III/IV ovarian carcinoma. We systematically searched the PubMed database for relevant articles. Prior to 2010, NACT was reserved for non-surgical candidates. After publication of EORTC 55971, the first randomized trial demonstrating non-inferiority of NACT followed by interval debulking surgery, NACT was considered in a wider breadth of patients. Since EORTC 55971, 3 randomized trials-CHORUS, JCOG0602, and SCORPION-have studied NACT versus PDS. While CHORUS supported EORTC 55971, JCOG0602 failed to demonstrate non-inferiority and SCORPION failed to demonstrate superiority of NACT. Despite conflicting data, a subset of patients would benefit from NACT while preserving survival including poor surgical candidates and inoperable disease. Further randomized trials are needed to assess the role of NACT.