Extra-peritoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy : a prospective cohort study of 293 patients with endometrial cancer

Objective: To determine if extra-peritoneal laparoscopic para-aortic (PA) lymphadenectomy allows a reliable assessment of PA nodes in patients with endometrial cancer (EC). Methods: In October of 2005, a single surgeon began performing extra-peritoneal laparoscopic PA lymphadenectomy for patients with EC. A prospective cohort study was initiated from October 2005 through October 2007. Staging of Group A included extra-peritoneal laparoscopic PA lymphadenectomy, while Group B underwent staging via laparotomy. Results: In a 24\ua0month period, 293 patients underwent surgical treatment for EC, 203 of them underwent complete staging as determined by previously published criteria. Extra-peritoneal laparoscopic PA lymphadenectomy to the renal veins was successful in 35/38 patients (92%). Mean BMI was 33.0 for Group A and 32.3 for Group B (p = NS). Mean EBL and hospital stay were lower in Group A compared to Group B (163 vs 373\ua0cm3, p 35, (21.6 vs 13.1), while in Group B fewer nodes were removed in obese patients (17.8 vs 20.5). Conclusions: Extra-peritoneal laparoscopy is a reliable method to routinely reach the level of the renal veins, even in obese patients. This approach was feasible in over 90% of unselected patients and well-tolerated

Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE: Residual disease after initial surgery for ovarian cancer is the strongest prognostic factor for survival. However, the extent of surgical resection required to achieve optimal cytoreduction is controversial. Our goal was to estimate the effect of aggressive surgical resection on ovarian cancer patient survival. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery was conducted between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1998. The main outcome measures were residual disease after cytoreduction, frequency of radical surgical resection, and 5-year disease-specific survival. RESULTS: The study comprised 194 patients, including 144 with carcinomatosis. The mean patient age and follow-up time were 64.4 and 3.5 years, respectively. After surgery, 131 (67.5%) of the 194 patients had less than 1 cm of residual disease (definition of optimal cytoreduction). Considering all patients, residual disease was the only independent predictor of survival; the need to perform radical procedures to achieve optimal cytoreduction was not associated with a decrease in survival. For the subgroup of patients with carcinomatosis, residual disease and the performance of radical surgical procedures were the only independent predictors. Disease-specific survival was markedly improved for patients with carcinomatosis operated on by surgeons who most frequently used radical procedures compared with those least likely to use radical procedures (44% versus 17%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall, residual disease was the only independent predictor of survival. Minimizing residual disease through aggressive surgical resection was beneficial, especially in patients with carcinomatosis

Role of Rectosigmoidectomy and Stripping of Pelvic Peritoneum in Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Background: The peritoneum of the cul-de-sac is frequently affected in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Stripping of the pelvic peritoneum (SoP) combined with rectosigmoidectomy (RS) in patients with confluent tumor are safe techniques that can eradicate macroscopic disease. We evaluated the therapeutic value of this maximal surgical effort in advanced ovarian cancer. Study design: Data from all consecutive patients with stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, primarily operated on from 1994 through 1998, were collected and analyzed using the chi-square test, Cox regression analysis, and Kaplan-Meier curves including log-rank test. Results: Two hundred forty-four eligible patients were identified; 209 patients had tumor involving the peritoneum of the cul-de-sac. For this subgroup, those who were managed with stripping of the peritoneum (SoP, n = 77) or rectosigmoidectomy (RS, N = 57) had improved 5-year overall survivals relative to those who were not (n = 75). (SoP = 37% versus RS = 39% versus neither = 6%; p < 0.0001). In the subgroup of patients with cul-de-sac involvement optimally cytoreduced, we noted a survival benefit for those who were managed with a maximal pelvic surgical effort (5-year overall survival, 38% [SoP] versus 38% [RS] versus 15% [neither]; p = 0.02). When evaluating patients with no macroscopic residual disease, a survival advantage for patients managed with RS compared with SoP was observed (5-year overall survival, 89% (RS) versus 50% (RS); p = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgical resection of cul-de-sac disease by SoP and RS is associated with improved survival in ovarian cancer patients. Tumor resection with en bloc RS may be preferable to allowing microscopic or infiltrative residual tumor

Ovarian cancer surgical resectability: Relative impact of disease, patient status, and surgeon

Objectives. Currently, we are unable to predict which patients are most likely to undergo successful debulking of ovarian cancer. We investigated the impact of clinical and surgical-pathologic factors at the time of initial exploration on the ability to achieve optimal cytoreduction. Methods. All consecutive patients with IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer operated at Mayo Clinic between 1994 and 1998 were included. The following pre- and intraoperative factors were included as dichotomous variables: age, ASA, CA125, ascites volume, carcinomatosis, diaphragm and mesentery involvement, and tendency of the operating surgeon (defined by the performance of radical procedures in more vs. less than 50% of patients operated). Pearson \u3c72test and logistic regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results. ASA, ascites, carcinomatosis, diaphragmatic tumor, mesentery involvement, and surgeon tendency all significantly correlated with residual disease (RD) in univariate analysis. However, only ASA, carcinomatosis and surgeon were independently associated with optimal RD. The subset of patients having ASA 3 or 4 and carcinomatosis comprised a high-risk group with just 46% achieving optimal RD overall. Even within this high-risk group, the rate of optimal cytoreduction ranged from 67% to 42% dependent upon surgeon tendency to employ radical procedures. Conclusions. High-risk factors such as patient condition and extent of disease impact the ability to achieve optimal RD. However, this is greatly influenced by surgical effort. Models to predict optimal surgical outcomes based only on tumor and patient characteristics will be highly practice-dependent: thus, their utility in selecting patient for non-traditional primary approach to ovarian cancer must be looked at cautiously

Role of lymphadenectomy in the management of grossly apparent advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that are related to the performance of lymph node assessment and its impact on prognosis in ovarian cancer. Study design: This was a retrospective analysis of stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer in patients who had undergone primary surgery between 1994 and 1998. Simple statistics and univariate and multivariable analysis were performed. Results: Two hundred nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria; lymph node assessment was performed for 93 of these patients (41%). Sixty-one patients (65.5%) underwent complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and 32 patients (34.5%) underwent a more limited lymph node sampling. In patients with residual disease >1 cm, lymph node assessment was an independent predictor of outcome. In this same subgroup, lymphadenectomy appeared to be superior to lymph node sampling (5-year overall survival, 50% (lymphadenectomy) vs 33% (lymph node sampling) vs 29% (no lymph node assessment); P = .01). Considering survival of the subgroup who underwent lymph node assessment, we observed a significantly worse outcome for those with lymphatic involvement (5-year overall survival, 31.5% [positive for nodal metastases] vs 54% [negative for nodal metastases]; P = .003). Although multiple factors were correlated with the decision to perform lymph node assessment in univariate analysis, only the surgeon (P < .001), low residual disease (P = .004), American Society of Anesthesiology 1 or 2 (P = .004), and the absence of carcinomatosis (P = .0002) were independent factors in the multivariable analysis. Further, if lymph node assessment was performed, the decision to do lymphadenectomy versus lymph node sampling was associated independently with the surgeon (P < .001), low residual disease (P < .001), and patient age of <65 years (P < .001). Conclusion: Removal of obviously involved lymph nodes in patients with residual disease near 1 cm and lymphadenectomy for patients with complete or near complete resection of abdominal disease appears to be justified. A lack of standard recommendation in advanced ovarian cancer results in wide variations that are based on individual preference in addition to logical factors

Is it justified to classify patients to Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer based on nodal involvement only?

Background.: Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer is generally associated with upper abdominal tumor implants of greater than 2\ua0cm and carries a grave prognosis. A subset of patients is upstaged to Stage IIIC because of lymph node metastases, in which prognosis is not well defined. We undertook this study to describe the clinical behavior of occult Stage IIIC. Methods.: All consecutive patients found to have Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer during a 9-year period (1994-2002) were analyzed for surgical procedures, pathology, and disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results.: Thirty-six patients were upstaged to Stage IIIC by virtue of positive nodes. Nine had small volume upper abdominal disease (IIIA/B before upstaging), 15 had disease limited to the pelvis and 12 had disease confined to the ovaries. 32/36 patients had no gross residual disease at the conclusion of surgery. The 5-year DFS and OS survivals were 52% and 76% respectively, for all patients. We observed no significant difference in outcomes between patients upstaged from IIIA/B versus I-II stage disease. The outcomes were superior to a control group of patients cytoreduced to either no gross RD or RD < 1\ua0cm, who had large volume upper abdominal disease at beginning of surgery (p < 0.001). Conclusions.: Patients upstaged to Stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer for node involvement have an excellent 5-year OS relative to all patients with Stage IIIC disease. These data demonstrate the necessity for stratifying patients classified as having Stage IIIC disease based solely on nodal disease when comparing outcomes. This information is particularly valuable when counseling patients regarding prognosis

Analysis of factors impacting operability in stage IV ovarian cancer: Rationale use of a triage system

Objectives.: Determine impact of tumor distribution and surgery on prognosis in patients with stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods.: Retrospective analysis of stage IV EOC patients undergoing primary surgery between 1994 and 1998. Simple statistics, univariate and multivariable analysis were performed. Results.: Forty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria and entered the study. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 18.2%. Residual disease (RD) and radical surgical procedures (RSP) independently predicted survival (p < 0.001). Optimal debulking rate (RD < 1\ua0cm) was 49% and median survival for optimal patients was 3.2\ua0years. A very high risk group of patients based on extent of peritoneal disease, parenchymal liver metastases and ASA could be identified in whom the rate of optimal debulking was less than 25% (median survival 1.4\ua0years). No patients with multiple liver metastases were optimally cytoreduced and the median survival was 1\ua0year. Conclusions.: Based on patient factors and extent of disease, a high risk group of patients can be identified with a poor prognosis and low probability of optimal debulking. It appears justified in these patients to first exclude those with unresectable pleural disease and then perform laparoscopic assessment to determine extent of disease to triage patients to alternative strategies such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Is time to chemotherapy a determinant of prognosis in advanced-stage ovarian cancer?

Objectives: Clinicians often question when to start chemotherapy after patients undergo surgery for ovarian cancer. A major unproven concern is whether a long postoperative delay reduces the benefits of an extensive procedure and leads to disease progression. Our objectives were to evaluate the correlation between clinical and pathologic variables and to evaluate the effect of the "time to chemotherapy" (TTC) interval on survival. Methods: We retrospectively studied data from 218 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer (TNM stage T3c or T4) who were consecutively treated between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1998. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 64 years (range, 24-87 years; median, 65 years), and 206 patients received postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy. Mean TTC interval was 26\ua0days (range, 7-79\ua0days; median, 25\ua0days). No correlation was found between operative time and TTC interval length (P = 0.99). Age and performance of rectosigmoidectomy were correlated with longer TTC interval (P = 0.009 and P = 0.005, respectively), but TTC was not a predictor of overall survival (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.01; P = 0.85). Differences in TTC interval length ( 64 17\ua0days, 18-26\ua0days, 27-33\ua0days, or 65 34\ua0days) did not affect survival (P = 0.93). Even after categorizing patients by residual disease (< 1\ua0cm or \ua0 65 1\ua0cm), no statistically significant effect of TTC on prognosis was identified. Conclusions: Concerns about the TTC interval should not be used to justify spending less time in the operative arena or using a more conservative approach for patients with advanced ovarian cancer