Incorporating robotic surgery into the management of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Surgery Advances in Gynecologic Tumors: The Evolution and Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers in a Tertiary Center

The integration of innovation into routine clinical practice is faced with many challenges. In 2007, we received the mandate to evaluate how the introduction of a robotic program in gynecologic oncology affected patient-centered care by studying its impact on clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization. Here we summarize the history and experience of developing a robotic surgery program for gynecologic cancers over 16 years. Analysis of the data indicates that robotic surgery improved perioperative patient clinical parameters, decreased blood loss, complications, and hospital stay, maintained the oncologic outcome, and is cost-effective, resulting in it becoming the dominant surgical approach in gynecologic oncology in a tertiary cancer care institution.

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer

With the increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, it has also become apparent that some patients will require a less extensive interval cytoreductive surgery which could be performed as a minimally invasive procedure. This observation, and expertise with minimally invasive surgery for other indications in gynecologic oncology, has driven surgeons in the United States and other countries to perform an increasing portion of interval cytoreductive surgery using minimally invasive techniques. Further observational and trial data will continue to inform which patients are best suited for this approach.

Robotic surgery in Gynecology: the present and the future

Since its introduction, laparoscopic surgery has been often preferred over open surgery in obstetrics and gynecology due to its advantages, such as less bleeding, lower incidence of adhesions, reduced postoperative pain, short hospital stay, and quick return to daily life. However, in the case of complex surgeries, laparoscopy presented some limitations. Nonetheless, since the 1980s, medical robots have been introduced to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy and start a new age for minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we explore the indications and advantages and disadvantages of robotic surgery in the field of gynecology, and try to assess the recent trend of robotic surgery.

Robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology: a bibliometric study

We aimed to identify the trends and patterns of robotic surgery research in obstetrics and gynecology since its implementation. We used data from Clarivate's Web of Science platform to identify all articles published on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 838 publications were included in the analysis. Of these, 485 (57.9%) were from North America and 281 (26.0%) from Europe. 788 (94.0%) articles originated in high-income countries and none from low-income countries. The number of publications per year reached a peak of 69 articles in 2014. The subject of 344 (41.1%) of articles was gynecologic oncology, followed by benign gynecology (n = 176, 21.0%) and urogynecology (n = 156, 18.6%). Articles discussing gynecologic oncology had lower representation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (32.0% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.001) compared with high income countries. After 2015 there has been a higher representation of publications from Asia (19.7% vs. 7.7%) and from LMIC (8.4% vs. 2.6%), compared to the preceding years. In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.30 (1.16-1.41)], gynecologic oncology subject [aOR 95% CI 1.73 (1.06-2.81)] and randomized controlled trials [aOR 95% CI 3.67 (1.47-9.16)] were associated with higher number of citations per year. In conclusion, robotic surgery research in obstetrics & gynecology is dominated by research in gynecologic oncology and reached a peak nearly a decade ago. The disparity in the quantity and quality of robotic research between high income countries and LMIC raises concerns regarding the access of the latter to high quality healthcare resources such as robotic surgery.

An overview of the current debate between using minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for interval cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer

The standard of care for treatment of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer is primarily surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, with the operative goal to achieve complete gross resection. Cytoreductive surgeries for epithelial ovarian cancer historically were performed via open laparotomy; however, as minimally invasive techniques became more widely accepted within gynecologic oncology, interest in employing this approach in the setting of cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer has grown. The purpose of this review was to examine the current debate between the use of minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy as an approach to interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. While numerous retrospective and feasibility studies have found comparable outcomes with respect to complete gross residual disease, progression-free survival, and overall survival between minimally invasive and laparotomy approaches to interval cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer, methodological challenges limit the utility of these data. Given potential risks of underestimating disease burden and failing to achieve complete resection using a minimally invasive approach, further rigorous studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery in this setting and to better define the subset of patients who would receive the greatest benefit from a minimally invasive approach.

Impact of robotic surgery on patient flow and resource use intensity in ovarian cancer

There is an emerging focus on the role of robotic surgery in ovarian cancer. To date, the operational and cost implications of the procedure remain unknown. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of integrating minimally invasive robotic surgery on patient flow, resource utilization, and hospital costs associated with the treatment of ovarian cancer during the in-hospital and post-discharge processes. 261 patients operated for the primary treatment of ovarian cancer between January 2006 and November 2014 at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital were included in this study. Outcomes were compared by surgical approach (robotic vs. open surgery) as well as pre- and post-implementation of the robotics platform for use in ovarian cancer. The in-hospital patient flow and number of emergency room visits within 3 months of surgery were evaluated using multi-state Markov models and generalized linear regression models, respectively. Robotic surgery cases were associated with lower rates of postoperative complications, resulted in a more expedited postoperative patient flow (e.g., shorter time in the recovery room, ICU, and inpatient ward), and were between $10,376 and $7,421 less expensive than the average laparotomy, depending on whether or not depreciation and amortization of the robotic platform were included. After discharge, patients who underwent robotic surgery were less likely to return to the ER (IRR 0.42, p = 0.02, and IRR 0.47, p = 0.055, in the univariate and multivariable models, respectively). With appropriate use of the technology, the addition of robotics to the medical armamentarium for the management of ovarian cancer, when clinically feasible, can bring about operational efficiencies and entails cost savings.

Robotic surgery in early and advanced ovarian cancer: Case selection for surgical staging and interval debulking surgery

OBJECTIVE

During the last decade several case series have been published on robotic surgery in early and advanced stage ovarian cancer. Although most studies lack a significant oncological follow-up, more importantly criteria for patient selection for both robotic surgical staging (R-SS) and robotic interval debulking surgery (R-IDS) are not well defined. The objective of this study was to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes, using well-defined selection criteria, between robotic and open surgery in early and advanced stage ovarian cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center retrospective case cohort study including 96 ovarian cancer patients. For early stage ovarian cancer, patients were selected for R-SS after laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy of a suspicious adnexal mass. For advanced stage ovarian cancer, only patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IDS were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were the presence of residual peritoneal disease after NACT and/or patients requiring additional complex surgical procedures.

RESULTS

For early stage ovarian cancer, similar median operative times were seen between R-SS and open surgical staging (O-SS), 132 min and 120 min respectively. Pelvic/para-aortic lymph node yield was similar between R-SS and O-SS, 22/11 nodes and 18/8 nodes respectively. Surgical upstaging occurred in 11.5% in the R-SS group and in 27.6% in the O-SS group. In advanced stage ovarian cancer, the BMI was significantly higher in the R-IDS group compared to the O-IDS group (27.8 vs 23.5; p =.006). The median follow was 52 months in the R-IDS group and 31 months in the O-IDS group. Recurrent disease occurred in 42.9% of the R-IDS group and in 45% of the O-IDS group. The length of hospitalization was significantly longer in the O-SS and O-IDS group (p <.00001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with clinically early stage ovarian cancer, confirmed after laparoscopic removal of a suspicious adnexal mass, are candidates for R-SS whilst maintaining similar surgical and oncological outcome measures as O-SS. In advanced ovarian cancer, suitable candidates for R-IDS are those who receive NACT with good response and no residual peritoneal disease, especially in patients with a high BMI, but large prospective randomized trials with well-defined criteria are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Laparotomy for Interval Debulking Surgery of Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and A Meta-Analysis

Objective

The selection of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open laparotomy for ovarian cancer (OC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open laparotomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced OC, so as to provide another option to select optimal surgical procedures for patients with OC.

Methods

Relevant literature studies about the risks of progression or mortality between women receiving MIS and open laparotomy for interval debulking surgery (IDS) were searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with the following keywords: “ovarian neoplasms”, “minimally invasive surgical procedures”, “laparotomy”, and “neoadjuvant therapy”. Eligible studies were screened out for further meta-analysis.

Results

Six eligible literature studies, with 643 patients in the MIS group and 2,885 patients in the open laparotomy group, were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences were detected in the overall survival (OS) of patients with OC who were treated with MIS or open laparotomy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59–1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.051, I² = 57.6%]. However, the progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with laparotomy (HR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.92; heterogeneity: P = 0.276, I² = 22.4%). The completeness of debulking removal (R0 rate) in the open laparotomy group was not statistically higher compared with the control group (RR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.098, I² = 52.3%), and no significant differences in residual disease of ≤1 cm (R1) (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.28; heterogeneity: P = 0.330, I² = 12.6%) and postoperative complications were found between the two groups (RR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.54; heterogeneity: P = 0.055, I² = 60.6%). Furthermore, the length of stays in hospital was significantly shorter in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with open laparotomy (Standard Mean Difference (SMD) = −1.21; 95% CI = −1.78 to −0.64; heterogeneity: P < 0.001, I² = 92.7%].

Conclusions

For IDS after NACT in patients with advanced OC, complete cytoreductive surgery with MIS is another feasible and effective choice

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022298519, identifier CRD42022298519

Perioperative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery, Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy, for Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

We aimed to compare the perioperative and survival outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery, traditional laparoscopy, and laparotomy approaches in ovarian cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched using multiple terms for ovarian cancer surgeries, including comparative studies in Chinese and English. Literatures are published before August 31, 2021. The outcomes include operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative/intraoperative/total complications, pelvic/para-aortic/total lymph nodes, transfusion, and five-year overall survival rate. The dichotomous data, continuous data, and OS data were pooled and reported as relative risk, standardized mean differences, and hazard ratio HRs with 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies.

Results

Thirty-eight studies, including 8,367 patients and three different surgical approaches (robotic-assisted laparoscopy surgery, traditional laparoscopy, or laparotomy approaches), were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis shows that the operating time of laparotomy was shorter than laparoscopy. The robotic-assisted laparoscopy has the least estimated blood loss during the surgery, followed by laparoscopy, and finally laparotomy. Compared with laparotomy, the incidence of blood transfusion was lower in the robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy groups, and the length of hospital stay is shorter. Laparotomy had a significantly higher incidence of total complications than robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy and higher postoperative complications than laparoscopy. For the number of pelvic/para-aortic/total lymph nodes removed by different surgical approaches, our analysis revealed no statistical difference. Our analysis also revealed no significant differences in intraoperative complications and 5-year OS among the three surgical approaches.

Conclusion

Compared with laparotomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy had a shorter hospital stay, decreased blood loss, fewer complications, and transfusion happened. The 5-year OS of ovarian cancer patients has no difference between robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy, and laparotomy groups.

Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of surgical approach on overall survival (OS) for women with advanced, epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with surgical approach.

DESIGN

The primary exposure was surgical approach to interval cytoreduction, minimally invasive versus open, and was evaluated by intention to treat. Primary outcome was OS. Associations were examined using Chi-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards.

SETTING

The National Cander Database was used to identify eligible patients.

PATIENTS

Women diagnosed with stage IIIC/IV EOC from 2010-2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were included if they were treated with NACT within 90 days of diagnosis before interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 8085 women were identified; 6713 (83%) underwent open interval CRS, and 1372 (17%) underwent minimally invasive interval CRS. The proportion undergoing minimally invasive CRS after NACT increased from 2% in 2010 to 11% in 2016, a nearly 6-fold increase. There was no difference in OS between women who underwent minimally invasive and open interval CRS (median OS 36.5 vs 35.2 months, HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, including age, race, ethnicity, income, and Charlson/Deyo score, no difference in OS was observed (HR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). Women of older age (OR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.14-1.88) had increased odds of receiving minimally invasive CRS after NACT, whereas low income (<$38000/year) women had decreased odds (OR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.60-0.97, p = .03). Length of stay differed for patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open interval CRS (3 vs 5 days, p <.01), but there was no difference in need for postoperative readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive CRS has similar survival outcomes to open CRS among women with EOC who have undergone NACT.

Nomogram to predict feasibility of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Currently, there is no clear guidance defining the ideal candidate for minimally invasive interval debulking surgery. This study aimed to identify predictive factors for a minimally invasive approach in patients with advanced ovarian cancer who are candidates for interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single institution retrospective study conducted between January 2014 and June 2020 Perioperative variables were used to predict the likelihood of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery using multivariable models. A nomogram was developed, and internal validation was performed using the bootstrapping correction technique. This nomogram was built to visualize the effect of perioperative variables on the estimated probability of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery in patients with a clinical response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used the four significant perioperative variables according to logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 108 (28.4%) and 272 (71.6%) patients underwent interval debulking surgery by a minimally invasive or open approach, respectively. Absence of omental cake (odds ratio (OR) 9.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.26 to 19.64, p<0.001), high volume surgeon (OR 5.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 10.71, p<0.001), less than two peritoneal sites involved (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.34 to 6.43, p=0.007), and CA125 normalization (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.36, p=0.049) correlated with the feasibility of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery at multivariate analysis. The calibration plot demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and actual probability of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery (p=0.93, Hosmer-Lemeshow test).

CONCLUSIONS

Our nomogram may serve as a useful tool to choose the surgical approach in patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval debulking surgery.

Mandate to evaluate robotic surgery implementation: a 12-year retrospective analysis of impact and future implications

The introduction of robotic surgery in hospitals has raised much debate given the various effects on care, costs, education and medical advancement. Purchasing discussions are often approached with more questions than answers and there is a need for reports that provide a case for whether or not such technologies are advantageous from multiple perspectives, and offer insights into ways such devices can be introduced into a hospital setting. This report provides an evidence-based review of a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital's 12-year experience with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology and delves into the various takeaways and challenges of implementing robotic surgery. Key findings were that robotic surgery significantly reduced complication rates, lengths of hospital stays for patients and overall hospital costs. Key obstacles were large upfront costs and the need for significant leadership and collaboration. Ongoing challenges to evaluating robotics include assessing long-term survival data, making comparisons with concurrently changing hospital conditions and determining how data can be generalized to other departments and institutions.

[Epithelial ovarian cancers and minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is associated with high mortality and often managed first with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by debulking surgery. Laparoscopic surgery with or without robotic assistance (Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)) may represent a beneficial option for these patients. The objective of this literature review is to clarify the place of MIS in the management of advanced EOC for selected patients.

METHOD

Pubmed, Cochrane and Clinicaltrials.gov online databases were used for this review, to select English or French published articles.

RESULTS

We selected 11 original articles published between 2015 and 2020, 6 of which compared MIS and laparotomy. Among these 11 studies, 8 were retrospective cohorts, 2 were phase II trials, and one was a case-control study. In total, there were 3721 patients, of which 854 (23%) were treated with MIS. The robotic assistance was used with 224 patients (26%) of those MIS patients. Looking specifically at MIS patients, the laparoconversion rate was 9.5%, the rate of complete resection (CC-0) was 83.4%. Finally, the MIS complication rate was 1% intraoperatively and 12% postoperatively. The rate of complete resection, postoperative complication, as well as overall survival (OS) were comparable between patients treated with MIS or laparotomy. One study found an improved disease-free survival (DFS) in MIS versus laparotomy (18 months versus 12 months; P=0.027).

CONCLUSION

MIS seems feasible, effective, and reliable in comparison to laparotomy for the completion of cytoreductive surgery after NACT without compromising oncological safety. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the role of MIS in advanced EOC.

Cancer Biology, Epidemiology, and Treatment in the 21st Century: Current Status and Future Challenges From a Biomedical Perspective

Since the second half of the 20th century, our knowledge about the biology of cancer has made extraordinary progress. Today, we understand cancer at the genomic and epigenomic levels, and we have identified the cell that starts neoplastic transformation and characterized the mechanisms for the invasion of other tissues. This knowledge has allowed novel drugs to be designed that act on specific molecular targets, the immune system to be trained and manipulated to increase its efficiency, and ever more effective therapeutic strategies to be developed. Nevertheless, we are still far from winning the war against cancer, and thus biomedical research in oncology must continue to be a global priority. Likewise, there is a need to reduce unequal access to medical services and improve prevention programs, especially in countries with a low human development index.

Assessing feasibility and perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy for interval debulking surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Objective

To determine peri-operative outcomes in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) via minimally invasive interval debulking surgery (MIS) or laparotomy (LAP).

Methods

A single institution, retrospective cohort study was performed in women with EOC who underwent IDS with HIPEC from 2017 to 2019 via MIS or LAP. Peri-operative outcomes were compared using univariate analysis.

Results

In total, 50 eligible women were identified; ten (20.0%) underwent MIS + HIPEC and 40 (80.0%) LAP + HIPEC. The median age of patients in the MIS group was 71.1 vs. 64.2 years in LAP (p = 0.031). There was no significant difference in pre-operative complete radiographic response following NACT (p = 0.18). Notably, there was no difference in the rate of R0 resection (70.0% vs. 77.5%; p = 0.39). There was no significant difference in ICU admission, estimated blood loss, operative time, or use of vasopressors between the cohorts. Similarly, there was no difference in 30-day adverse events for MIS vs. LAP, but length of stay was decreased for those who underwent minimally invasive procedures (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.016). Time to initiation of chemotherapy following surgery was not significantly different between groups (26.2 days vs 32.0 days, p = 0.090). With median follow-up of 15.1 months, there was no difference in recurrence free survival (median 15.0 vs 17.2 months log-rank, p = 0.30) for MIS vs. LAP.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, we demonstrate that in women with advanced EOC, HIPEC with MIS at the time of IDS following NACT is feasible. Our institutional experience demonstrates similar rates of R0 cytoreduction, compared to LAP. An MIS approach should not prevent surgeons from utilizing HIPEC where indicated for management of advanced EOC.

•

When comparing MIS and LAP at time of HIPEC, no differences are observed in adverse perioperative outcomes.

•

MIS was associated with shorter hospitalization and with no significant difference in the rate of R0 resections.

•

Patient candidacy for an MIS IDS should not prevent surgeons from utilizing HIPEC in appropriate candidates.

Robotic interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: current challenge or future direction? A systematic review

We evaluated the effectiveness, safety and efficacy of robotic interval debulking surgery (IDS) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We conducted a systematic review of the published relevant studies. Α total of 102 patients were evaluated. Mean operative time ranged from 164 to 312 min (mean ± SD: 246 ± 61 min) while mean estimated blood loss ranged from 106.9 to 262.5 ml (mean ± SD: 168 ± 68 ml) and postoperative blood transfusion rate was 19% (n = 19/98). Complete cytoreduction rate (R0 resection) was achieved in 75 patients (76.5%), whereas residual disease ≤ 1 cm in 21 women (21.5%). Mean hospital stay was 2.4 days. No intraoperative and six postoperative (14.6%) complications were reported. Laparotomy conversion rate was 9.2% (9/98) mostly in the terms of achieving complete cytoreduction and 30-day mortality rate was 9.2% (n = 9/98). The median overall survival varied from 39.7 to 47.2 months, while the progression-free survival ranged from 20.6 to 21.2 months during a median follow-up period from 2 to 86 months (median 25.3 months). A total of 60 women (61%) developed disease recurrence. One of the studies reported significantly improved OS and PFS in patients who underwent robotic IDS when compared to those who had laparotomy either during or before the addition of robotic surgery in the management of advanced ovarian cancer disease (47.2 vs 37.8 vs 37.9, p = 0.004 for OS and 20.6 vs 13.9 vs 11.9, p = 0.005 for PFS, respectively). The same was also observed when controlling the parameters of age and stage for patients in the robotic arm (p = 0.02). Robotic interval debulking surgery can be considered in the management of advanced ovarian cancer patients after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Larger meta-analyses including multicenter randomized control trials are necessary to specify the exact profile of the patients that could benefit from this treatment strategy.

Is ovarian cancer surgery stuck in the dark ages?: a commentary piece reviewing surgical technologies

Ovarian cancer surgery endeavours to remove all visible tumour deposits, and surgical technologies could potentially facilitate this aim. However, there appear to be barriers around the adoption of new technologies, and we hope this article provokes discussion within the specialty to encourage a forward-thinking approach to new-age surgical gynaecological oncology.

Clinical Utility of Preoperative Assessment in Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer, in part due to late presentation. Many women have vague early symptoms and present with disseminated disease. Cytoreductive surgery can be extensive, involving multiple organ systems. Novel therapies and recent clinical trials have provided evidence that, compared to primary cytoreduction, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has equivalent survival outcomes with less morbidity. There is increasing need for validated tools and mechanisms for clinicians to determine the optimal management of ovarian cancer patients.

CA-125 reduction during neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with success of cytoreductive surgery and outcome of patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

The objective was to assess whether an early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer may predict short- and long-term clinical outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all women with stage III-IV tubo-ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a single center in Montreal between 2003 and 2014. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and debulking success. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios and their respective 95% CI for death and recurrence. Harrell's concordance indices were calculated to evaluate which variables best predicted the chemotherapy-free interval and overall survival in our population.

RESULTS

In all, 105 women were included. Following the first, second, and third cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CA-125 levels had a median reduction of 43.2%, 85.4%, and 92.9%, respectively, compared with CA-125 levels at diagnosis. As early as the second cycle, CA-125 was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, per 50 U/mL increment). By the third cycle, CA-125 did not only predict overall survival (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), but it predicted overall survival better than the success of debulking surgery (Harrell's concordance index 0.646 vs 0.616). Both absolute CA-125 levels and relative reduction in CA-125 levels after 2 and 3 cycles predicted the chance to achieve complete debulking (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of CA-125 levels during neoadjuvant chemotherapy provides an early predictive tool that strongly correlates with successful cytoreductive surgery and long-term clinical outcome in women with advanced high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer.