Background: This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and prognostic impact of the consecutive steps of imaging, frailty assessment, and diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: Patients diagnosed with EOC during 2012-2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Surgical and survival outcomes were compared between three treatment groups: patients without high tumor dissemination (HTD) who underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS group); patients with HTD who underwent DLS (DLS group); and patients with HTD diagnosed by cytological confirmation of malignancy followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT group). Results: Of 181 patients, 85, 38, and 58 underwent PDS, DLS, and NACT, respectively. Among the 38 consecutive patients who initially underwent DLS, 6 were considered suitable for PDS; the remaining 32 were eligible for NACT followed by interval debulking surgery. The median operative times of debulking surgery in the PDS, DLS, and NACT groups were 365 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 216.5-476.5 min), 266.2 min (IQR: 160.3-193.5 min), and 339.0 min (IQR: 205-425 min; P = 0.042), respectively, with respective median estimated blood loss volumes of 962.2 mL (IQR: 300-1037.5 mL), 267.1 mL (IQR: 150-450 mL), and 861.7 mL (IQR: 150-1200 mL; P = 0.023). The DLS group had significantly reduced transfusion requirements and intensive care unit admission rates (P = 0.006). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated significantly poor PFS in the NACT group. However, there was no significant difference in OS among the three groups. Conclusions: The consecutive steps of imaging, frailty assessment, and DLS might facilitate rapid assessments of peritoneal disease extent and resectability; this novel algorithm might also be used to individualize treatment.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported by a grant from basic science research program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2015R1A2A2A01008162; NRF-2015R1C1A2A01053516). None of the funding bodies had any part in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cancer Research