J Gynecol Oncol.  2015 Oct;26(4):336-342. 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.336.

Role of aggressive surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer

• Chang SJ
• Bristow RE
• Chi DS
• Cliby WA

• KMID: 2345925
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.336

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the eighth most frequent cancer in women and is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy worldwide. The majority of ovarian cancer patients are newly diagnosed presenting with advanced-stage disease. Primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant taxane- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy are the standard treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. A number of studies have consistently shown that successful cytoreductive surgery and the resultant minimal residual disease are significantly associated with survival in patients with this disease. Much has been written and even more debated regarding the competing perspectives of biology of ovarian cancer versus the value of aggressive surgical resection. This review will focus on the current evidences and outcomes supporting the positive impact of aggressive surgical effort on survival in the primary management of ovarian cancer.

Keyword

Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm, Residual; Ovarian Neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures/*methods
Evidence-Based Medicine
Female
Humans
Neoplasm, Residual/surgery
Observer Variation
Ovarian Neoplasms/*surgery
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65:87–108.

2. Chang SJ, Bristow RE. Evolution of surgical treatment paradigms for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: redefining 'optimal' residual disease. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125:483–492.

3. Eisenkop SM, Friedman RL, Wang HJ. Complete cytoreductive surgery is feasible and maximizes survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 1998; 69:103–108.

4. Bristow RE, Montz FJ, Lagasse LD, Leuchter RS, Karlan BY. Survival impact of surgical cytoreduction in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 72:278–287.

5. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Friedman RL, Lin WC, Pisani AL, Perticucci S. Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 90:390–396.

6. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Lang J, Huh J, Haddad L, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIC epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)? Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 103:559–564.

7. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Jones MB, Stanhope CR, Wilson TO, et al. Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107:77–85.

8. Eisenhauer EL, Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y, Levine DA, Poynor EA, Aghajanian C, et al. The addition of extensive upper abdominal surgery to achieve optimal cytoreduction improves survival in patients with stages IIIC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 103:1083–1090.

9. Harter P, Muallem ZM, Buhrmann C, Lorenz D, Kaub C, Hils R, et al. Impact of a structured quality management program on surgical outcome in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 121:615–619.

10. Colombo PE, Mourregot A, Fabbro M, Gutowski M, Saint-Aubert B, Quenet F, et al. Aggressive surgical strategies in advanced ovarian cancer: a monocentric study of 203 stage IIIC and IV patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35:135–143.

11. Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Impact of complete cytoreduction leaving no gross residual disease associated with radical cytoreductive surgical procedures on survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:4059–4067.

12. Covens AL. A critique of surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78(3 Pt 1):269–274.

13. Berman ML. Future directions in the surgical management of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 90(2 Pt 2):S33–S39.

14. Crawford SC, Vasey PA, Paul J, Hay A, Davis JA, Kaye SB. Does aggressive surgery only benefit patients with less advanced ovarian cancer? Results from an international comparison within the SCOTROC-1 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:8802–8811.

15. Ang C, Chan KK, Bryant A, Naik R, Dickinson HO. Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (4):CD007697.

16. Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975; 42:101–104.

17. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, Homesley HD, Creasman WT, Berman M, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170:974–979.

18. Stuart GC, Kitchener H, Bacon M, duBois A, Friedlander M, Ledermann J, et al. 2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21:750–755.

19. Elattar A, Bryant A, Winter-Roach BA, Hatem M, Naik R. Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (8):CD007565.

20. Chang SJ, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 130:493–498.

21. Horowitz NS, Miller A, Rungruang B, Richard SD, Rodriguez N, Bookman MA, et al. Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:937–943.

22. Aletti GD, Santillan A, Eisenhauer EL, Hu J, Aletti G, Podratz KC, et al. A new frontier for quality of care in gynecologic oncology surgery: multi-institutional assessment of short-term outcomes for ovarian cancer using a risk-adjusted model. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107:99–106.

23. Kang S, Jong YH, Hwang JH, Lim MC, Seo SS, Yoo CW, et al. Is neoadjuvant chemotherapy a "waiver" of extensive upper abdominal surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18:3824–3827.

24. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Levine DA, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114:26–31.

25. Luyckx M, Leblanc E, Filleron T, Morice P, Darai E, Classe JM, et al. Maximal cytoreduction in patients with FIGO stage IIIC to stage IV ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer in day-to-day practice: a Retrospective French Multicentric Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012; 22:1337–1343.

26. Wimberger P, Lehmann N, Kimmig R, Burges A, Meier W, Du Bois A, et al. Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival: an exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 106:69–74.

27. Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK. Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115:334–338.

28. Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, Cliby WA. The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 118:262–267.

29. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H. Adherence to treatment guidelines for ovarian cancer as a measure of quality care. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121:1226–1234.

30. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Randall LM, Anton-Culver H. High-volume ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities in access for advanced-stage disease. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 132:403–410.

31. Cliby WA, Powell MA, Al-Hammadi N, Chen L, Philip Miller J, Roland PY, et al. Ovarian cancer in the United States: contemporary patterns of care associated with improved survival. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 136:11–17.

32. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Campos B, Chavez LR, Anton-Culver H. Impact of National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers on ovarian cancer treatment and survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 220:940–950.

33. Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE. Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11:166–172.

34. Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishman EK, O'Neill MJ, Trimble EL, et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer. 2000; 89:1532–1540.

35. Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Raman S, et al. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:384–389.

36. Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. Prediction of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in primary ovarian cancer with combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 108:265–270.

37. Vorgias G, Iavazzo C, Savvopoulos P, Myriokefalitaki E, Katsoulis M, Kalinoglou N, et al. Can the preoperative Ca-125 level predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma? A single institution cohort study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112:11–15.

38. Ferrandina G, Sallustio G, Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Paglia A, Cucci E, et al. Role of CT scan-based and clinical evaluation in the preoperative prediction of optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective trial. Br J Cancer. 2009; 101:1066–1073.

39. Gerestein CG, Eijkemans MJ, Bakker J, Elgersma OE, van der Burg ME, Kooi GS, et al. Nomogram for suboptimal cytoreduction at primary surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res. 2011; 31:4043–4049.

40. Jung DC, Kang S, Kim SC, Kim JW, Nam JH, Ryu SY, et al. Use of complex surgical procedures, patterns of tumor spread, and CA-125 predicts a risk of incomplete cytoreduction: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study (KGOG-3022). Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 131:336–340.

41. Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM, Teitcher JB, Mironov S, Iyer RB, et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134:455–461.

42. Berchuck A, Iversen ES, Lancaster JM, Dressman HK, West M, Nevins JR, et al. Prediction of optimal versus suboptimal cytoreduction of advanced-stage serous ovarian cancer with the use of microarrays. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190:910–925.

43. Bonome T, Levine DA, Shih J, Randonovich M, Pise-Masison CA, Bogomolniy F, et al. A gene signature predicting for survival in suboptimally debulked patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2008; 68:5478–5486.

44. Riester M, Wei W, Waldron L, Culhane AC, Trippa L, Oliva E, et al. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106:pii:dju048.

45. Borley J, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Brown R, Ghaem-Maghami S. Does tumour biology determine surgical success in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer? A systematic literature review. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107:1069–1074.