1
|
Greggi S, Falcone F, Scaffa C, du Bois A, Samartzis EPP, Pujade-Lauraine E, Cibula D, Mądry R, Korach J, Gungorduk K, McNeish IA, Zanagnolo V, Marth C, van Altena AM, Aravantinos G, Sehouli J, Vergote I, Gonzalez Martin A. Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30:819-824. [PMID: 32354792 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-001172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2020] [Revised: 01/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Laparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS A 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group. RESULTS A total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer. CONCLUSIONS This study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Greggi
- Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCSS, "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy
| | - Francesca Falcone
- Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCSS, "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy
| | - Cono Scaffa
- Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCSS, "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy
| | - Andreas du Bois
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Group and Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte gGmbH, Essen, Germany
| | | | - Eric Pujade-Lauraine
- Groupe des Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers de l'Ovaire, gynécologiques et du sein (GINECO) and Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - David Cibula
- Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group (CEEGOG) and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Radoslaw Mądry
- Polish Gynecologic Oncology Group (PGOG) and Department of Gynecological Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| | - Jacob Korach
- Israeli Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ISGO) and Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Kemal Gungorduk
- Turkish Society of Gynecologic Oncology (TRSGO) and Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Education and Research Hospital, Mugla, Turkey
| | - Iain A McNeish
- National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) and Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Vanna Zanagnolo
- Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology (MaNGO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy
| | - Christian Marth
- AGO-Austria and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Anne M van Altena
- Dutch Gynaecological Oncology Group (DGOG) and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Gerasimos Aravantinos
- Ηellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) and Second Department of Medical Oncology, Agii Anargiri Cancer Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Jalid Sehouli
- Nord-Ostdeutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie (NOGGO) and Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Belgium and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG) and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Antonio Gonzalez Martin
- Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO) and Department of Medical Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|