Differences in perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic management of benign and malignant adnexal masses

Minimally Invasive Staging of Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer versus Open Surgery in Terms of Feasibility and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Epithelial ovarian cancer is women's fourth most common oncological cause of death. One of the main prognostic factors in ovarian cancer is the tumor stage. For instance, surgical staging of the disease is focal when choosing the best therapeutic option for each case. Although open surgery is the prevalent approach for staging and treating ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has found recent application in staging or restaging cases of early disease. Our work compares oncological outcomes after MIS staging for FIGO I epithelial ovarian cancer with the laparotomic approach. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations, we systematically searched the Pub Med and Scopus databases in February 2023. No temporal nor geographical limitation was made. We included the articles containing data about Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS), Recurrence Rates (RR), and Upstaging Rates (UpR). We used comparative studies for the meta-analysis. After the database search and article selection, 19 works matched the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Eleven of these were comparative studies between MIS and Open Surgical Staging (OSS) approaches for ovarian cancer staging and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the MIS and the OSS group concerning DFS, OS, and RR. Only Upstaging Rate ≥ FIGO Stage II was statistically significative higher in the OSS group. Likewise, MIS is confirmed to be an approach with a lower profile of surgical complications. In conclusion, our study did not show one approach to be safer than the other. However, the lack of dedicated studies limits the evidence of our study. For instance, we recommend adequately selecting the specimen, minimizing the risk of spillage, and optimizing surgical staging.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Ovarian Neoplasms - What is Possible, What is Useful?

The use of minimally invasive surgical techniques is becoming increasingly important in gynecologic oncology due to technical advances and the increasing level of surgical expertise. In addition to laparoscopic approaches for the treatment of benign neoplasms, minimally invasive surgical methods have also become established in some areas for treating gynecologic malignancies. For tumor entities such as endometrial and cervical carcinoma, there are conclusive studies emphasizing the role of laparoscopy in surgical therapy. By contrast, due to a lack of prospective data with survival analyses, no clear conclusions can be drawn on the significance of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of ovarian carcinoma. However, some smaller, mostly retrospective case-control studies and cohort studies open the way for a discussion, positing the possibility that laparoscopic surgical procedures, particularly for early ovarian carcinoma, are technically feasible and of a quality equivalent to that of conventional longitudinal laparotomy, and may also be associated with lower perioperative morbidity. In this article we discuss the most important aspects of using minimally invasive surgical techniques for ovarian carcinoma based on the current literature. In particular we look at the relevance of laparoscopy as a primary approach for surgical staging of early ovarian carcinoma, and we evaluate the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the operability of advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For the first updated review, the search was extended to the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS to 6 December 2011. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from November 2011 to September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion as well as important data from other meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We performed no meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopic versus laparotomic surgery for adnexal masses: role in elderly

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare laparoscopy (LPS) and laparotomy (LPT), in terms of surgical outcomes, in elderly patients (>65 years) with adnexal masses.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a series of women older than 65 who had a diagnosis of adnexal masses. Then, all patients were divided into two different groups according to the type of surgery: 27 who underwent LPS (LPS group) and 24 who underwent LPT (LPT group). We took into consideration: age, comorbidity, histological diagnosis, surgery approach, and surgical outcome. Then, we calculated the percentages of all of these data and then χ (2) test and t-Student test were used to calculate the p value, to compare the two surgical techniques. A p value lower than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

At first, we evaluated the relation between the diagnosis and the surgery approach, and we obtained statistically significant results for serous cyst, adenocarcinoma serous/mucinous, and others, and the table highlights that some of the benign masses were mostly treated with LPS, while borderline and malignant masses were treated with LPT. Then, we evaluated the comorbidities of the patients, and we found that those cases had a significantly higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and metabolic diseases. Finally, we compared the surgery outcome of LPS versus LPT surgeries for adnexal masses in elderly women, and there were statistically significant results for postoperative complications, number of patients who needed drainage, and number of days of hospitalization after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that the patients who underwent LPS, compared to the patients who underwent LPT, have better outcomes in terms of postoperative complications (7.4 % with LPS and 37 % with LPT), number of patients who needed drainage (11.1 % with LPS and 62.5 % with LPT), and number of days of hospitalization after surgery, in term of mean (5 for LPS and 10.9 in term of LPT).

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic).

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For this updated review, we extended the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS searches to 6 December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective case-control studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We performed no meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopy as the most effective tool for management of postmenopausal complex adnexal masses when expectancy is not advisable

Postmenopausal women with adnexal masses suspicious for malignancy must undergo surgery for histopathologic confirmation. The low positive predictive value for malignancy of the currently available preoperative examinations results in 5 to 220 surgeries performed for each case of pelvic malignancy detected, depending on the evaluation method and patient selection. Although extensively reviewed as an effective tool for the investigation and treatment of adnexal masses, laparoscopy is still underused for this purpose in postmenopausal women. Some reasons are uncertainty about the incidental diagnosis of a malignant lesion during laparoscopy, concern about the effect of laparoscopy over the course of a pelvic malignant lesion, and inadequate referral of patients at high risk to specialized centers with oncologic gynecologists. Identification of patients at low risk might also be inadequate, causing them to undergo unnecessary laparotomy. Herein we demonstrate through a comprehensive literature review that laparoscopy is a highly effective tool for investigation and treatment of suspected adnexal masses in postmenopausal women, both in general medical settings without oncologic backup and in specialized centers. The indications for laparoscopy in this context can be further expanded without oncologic harm if patients at low and high risk are appropriately selected for surgery at general and specialized settings, respectively.