CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register

Cancer Network
    Publications News Conference Reports Podcasts CME Classifieds Supplements For Patients Blog For Nurses Cancer Management Handbook Infocenter

TOPIC CENTERS

Bone Metastases Breast Cancer Cancer and Genetics Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Colorectal Cancer End-of-Life Transition Gynecologic Cancers Head & Neck Cancer Health Care Reform Integrative Oncology Kidney Cancer Leukemia and Lymphoma Lung Cancer Melanoma and Other Skin Cancers Multiple Myeloma Nausea & Vomiting Palliative and Supportive Care Pancreatic Cancer Practice Management Prostate Cancer Renal Cell Carcinoma Survivorship Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Testicular Cancer More Topics

MORE INFO

Cancer Management E-Learning E-Textbooks Oncology NEWS Today Blog Contact Us Newsletter Signup Media Kit Subscribe to RSS


Home » Gynecologic Cancers

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 22 No. 9
Pages: 1  2  3  4  5  
Previous Next
 

Cytoreductive Surgery in the Management of Ovarian Cancer

By Peter E. Schwartz, MD
John Slade Ely Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Connecticut

| August 1, 2008
This article was originally presented as an independent educational activity under the direction of CME LLC. The ability to receive CME credits has expired. The article is now presented here for your reference. CME LLC is no longer responsible for the presentation of the article.


Optimal Cytoreduction

Definitions of optimal surgical cytoreduction following completion of the initial surgery have varied in the literature from no macroscopic residual disease to 3 cm gross residual disease.[3-8] In the United States, the GOG has settled on 1 cm or less residual disease as a criterion for optimum cytoreductive surgery. Using this definition, “ultraradical surgery” is now being recommended by several centers in the United States. Ultraradical surgery incorporates splenectomies, partial pancreatectomies, diaphragm resections, and multiple bowel resections into the surgical treatment for patients with advanced-stage (FIGO stage IIIC–IV) ovarian cancer.[14,15]

Reports by advocates for this approach reveal that they have accomplished at least 70% optimum surgical cytoreduction in one series and up to 92% optimum surgical cytoreduction in another series.[14,15] However, when one evaluates these series based on no macroscopic residual disease at the completion of the initial surgery, both series report only a 22% incidence of patients left with no macroscopic residual disease. It would appear that the ultraradical surgery has been most effective in surgically cytoreducing patients who might have > 1 cm residual disease in the past into the ≤ 1 cm disease category, but not into the no macroscopic residual disease category.[14-16]

CT Scan vs Surgical Assessment

Recently, a prospective study of 78 women with advanced ovarian cancer who were optimally cytoreduced to ≤ 1 cm macroscopic residual disease compared postoperative, prechemotherapy CT findings with the surgeon’s assessment of residual disease left at completion of the initial surgical cytoreduction.[17] In 20 (26%) of the 78 cases, residual “definitely malignant disease” > 1 cm was identified by CT scan. In 10 additional cases (13%) findings of “probably malignant residual disease” > 1 cm was identified by CT scan. “Indeterminate findings” were identified in 7 cases (9%). In 41 cases (52%), no disease > 1 cm was identified.

Statistical analysis found that no macroscopic disease left at the completion of the initial surgery was the only factor associated with postoperative, prechemotherapy CT scans showing < 1-cm lesions. Residual disease on postoperative CT scans was significantly more likely to be found in patients with 0.6 to 1 cm residual disease at completion of the initial “optimal” cytoreductive surgery. The authors could not state whether these findings reflect underestimation of residual disease by surgeons, overestimation of residual disease by radiologists, or rapid regrowth of cancer. Regardless of the cause, it supports the importance of cytoreduction to no gross residual disease at the initial surgery.

GOG Studies


Two recent GOG studies have been reported that cause us to reflect on what is being accomplished with surgical cytoreduction in the management of advanced ovarian cancer.[18,19] The first series included 1,895 stage III disease patients, the largest series of stage III patients reported to date.[18] It involved patients participating in one arm of six different prospective, randomized GOG trials. All of the patients in these treatment arms had received cisplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in standard intravenous regimens. The GOG studies are significant for being rigidly controlled regarding type and dosage of chemotherapy administered and for treating a rather homogeneous group of patients.

Among patients with stage III disease, 23% were optimally cytoreduced to no macroscopic residual disease—a similar percentage to that achieved by those proposing ultraradical surgical techniques to optimally cytoreduce patients with advanced ovarian cancer.[14,15] A major impact on both progression-free and overall survival (OS) was seen in these optimally cytoreduced patients (Figure 1). PFS was 33.0 months for those with no macroscopic residual disease and OS was 71.9 months, a survival status significantly better (P < .001) than the PFS and OS for those with 0.1 to 1 cm residual disease (16.8 and 42.4 months, respectively) and for those with > 1 cm residual disease (PFS = 14.1 months; OS = 35.0 months).

The GOG subsequently reported on 360 stage IV patients participating in one of four prospective, randomized GOG trials, all of whom received the same regimen of intravenous cisplatin and paclitaxel.[19] Only 8% of the patients with stage IV disease were cytoreduced to no macroscopic residual tumor. PFS for those with no macroscopic residual disease was 20.1 months and OS for this group was 64.1 months (Figure 2). Surprisingly, there was no difference in survival for patients with ≤ 1 cm macroscopic residual disease (PFS = 13.0 months; OS = 28.7 months) and those with 1.1 to 5 cm macroscopic residual disease (PFS = 13.0 months; OS = 31 months). The only difference in survival when macroscopic residual disease was encountered was for the group of patients who had more than 5 cm macroscopic residual disease; their PFS was 8.9 months and their OS, 22.5 months.

Once again, the major benefit of cytoreduction surgery accrued to the few patients (8%) with no macroscopic residual disease. Patients with metastases to the supraclavicular, axillary, and mediastinal lymph nodes and those with subcutaneous metastases had a better survival than those with malignant pleural effusions, multiple hepatic metastases, or metastases to multiple sites. Approximately 48% of the patients in this series had stage IV disease by virtue of a malignant pleural effusion. The operative results of this report were consistent with the recent report in which ultraradical surgical cytoreduction for stage IV patients resulted in only 6% who were surgically cytoreduced to no macroscopic residual disease.[16]

Best Cytoreduction Results With Initial Surgery


Ideally, surgical cytoreduction to no macroscopic residual disease should approach 100% in patients undergoing initial surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Only two groups of investigators have reported a greater than 80% initial surgical cytoreduction rate to no macroscopic residual disease when treating patients with advanced ovarian cancer (Table 1).[5,9,10]

Table 1

Complete Surgical Cytoreduction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Parameter

Eisenkop
et al,[5] 1998

Eisenkop
et al,[9] 2003

Scholz
et al,[10] 2007

Disease stage

IIIC, IV

IIIC

IIIC, IV

Number of patients

160

213

55

Mean operative
time

254 min
(75–435 min)

180 min
(70–380 min)

372 min
(160–590 min)

Mean estimated
blood loss

1,190 mL
(100–6,000 mL)

980 mL
(30–7,000 mL)

—

Mean number of
transfusions

4 (0–22)

4 (0–24)

9 (2–22)

Median hospital stay

12 d (2–61 d)

12 d (3–64 d)

35 d (13–73 d)

Deaths ≤ 30 d

3

4

0

No visible
residual tumor

85.3%

87.7%

83%

Median survival

54 mo

75.8 mo

47 mo

 

Eisenkop and colleagues’ most recent report on their success in applying ultraradical cytoreduction to remove all gross disease was approximately 85% no macroscopic residual disease in stage IIIC patients, with ≤ 1 cm residual disease achieved in 12%, and > 1 cm residual disease in the very few remaining patients.[9] These investigators believed that patients cytoreduced to no macroscopic residual disease did well regardless of which agents were combined with platinum as adjuvant therapy. Their median overall survival for stage IIIC disease was 75.8 months.[9] Survival was statistically influenced only by the extent of peritoneal metastatic implants that had to be removed. Mean operative time was 180 minutes (range = 90–380 minutes), estimated blood loss was 980 mL (30–7,000 mL), mean number of transfusions was 4 units (0–24 units), and median hospital stay 12 days (2–61 days). The authors reported four deaths within 30 days of surgery.

Scholz et al recently reported their success in treating 55 patients with stage IIIC and IV disease, in whom 83% were surgical cytoreduced to no residual tumor (Table 1).[10] Mean operative time was 372 minutes (160–590 minutes). Patients participating in this series received an average of 9 units of blood (2–22 units), 8 units of fresh frozen plasma intraoperatively (0–24 units), and 2 units of blood postoperatively (0–9 units). Five patients required reoperation (two for leakage of anastamosis, one for bleeding, one for bowel leakage, and one for a stomach lesion). Mean hospital stay was 35 days (13–73 days). No deaths occurred within the first 30 days postoperatively. The authors reported a 28-month PFS, but their patients’ overall survival was only 48 months.

Pages: 1  2  3  4  5  
Previous Next
 

Add your own comment

This article reviewed

Surgical Cytoreduction for Ovarian Cancer: Issues Awaiting Formal Clarification

Primary Cytoreduction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ‘Biologic and Surgical Aggressiveness’





News & Analysis

 

Ipilimumab and melanoma: Rejoicing, disappointment, and threat
Oncology NEWS Today , June 4, 2010
More from Oncology NEWS Today Blog

 

Biomarkers signal true progress in war against lung cancer    
Oncology NEWS International,  March 18, 2010

More from Oncology NEWS International

 

Advances in HER2-positive breast cancer:  An interview with Eric P. Winer, MD
Oncology,  March 2010
 
More from Miami Breast Cancer Conference 2010

 

Podcast: The role of maintenance therapy for metastatic breast cancer
Oncology,  March 2009

 

More from Miami Breast Cancer Conference 2010

Most Popular Articles


Understanding and Treating Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

ONCOLOGY,  October 1, 2008

Your Patient With Melanoma: Staging Prognosis, and Treatment
ONCOLOGY Nurse Edition, August 5, 2009

Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: An Overview
ONCOLOGY, May 13, 2009

Current Concepts in Surgical Management of Neck Metastases From Head and Neck Cancer
ONCOLOGY, June 1, 1995

Rising PSA in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer
ONCOLOGY, November 1, 2007
 





CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Physicians Practice

© 1996 - 2010 UBM Medica LLC, a United Business Media company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement


 
ADDITIONAL ONLINE RESOURCES FROM UBM MEDICA
Featured Resources > Psychiatry Careers > Practice Management Conference > Today's Practice - Practice Management Resource > RSV Information > EHR Resources
CancerNetwork > Cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prevention > Podcasts for Oncologists > Cancer Patient Resources > Oncology Areas of Confusion > Oncology News > Cancer Management Handbook > Breast Cancer Resource > Bone Metastases > Chronic Myeloid Leukemia
Consultant Live > Diabetes Resources > Pediatric Asthma > Practical Clinical Advice > Medical Photoclinic > Diagnosing and Treating H1N1 flu (swine flu) > Primary Care Conference Reports > Community Acquired MRSA
Diagnostic Imaging > Medical Imaging News and Features > Medical Imaging and Radiology White Papers > Radiology Conference Reports > Radiology Special Reports > Radiology Net Seminars > Imaging Trends and Advances > RSNA 2009 Conference Coverage > Radiology Vendors
Psychiatric Times > Psychiatric News and Special Reports > APA Conference Report > Psychiatric Clinical Scales > Psychiatric Times Blog > Psychiatry Career Opportunities > DSM-5 > Major Depressive Disorder
Physicians Practice > Practice Management > EMR Software > Medical Practice Management Software > Medical Buyers Guide > Medical Coding > Practice Management Blog
SearchMedica > Professional Medical Search Engine > Medical Search Tips Newsletter > Medical Search News > Diabetes Research and Articles
Musculoskeletal Network > Muscle, Bone, Joint Medical Resources > Rheumatoid Arthritis Resource Center
The AIDS Reader > HIV News, Treatment, and Diagnosis for Medical Professionals
CME LLC > Continuing Medical Education > Psychiatry CME > Oncology CME > Practice Management CME > Primary Care CME > Psychiatric Congress > Performance Improvement CME > Treating the Whole Patient (TWP) — The Mind-Body Connection
More Resources > Consumer Healthcare Information > Patient and Caregiver Resource > Search drug information, interactions, images & diagnosis > Infectious Diseases > Respiratory Disease