4.7 Article

Primary Debulking Surgery Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage IV Ovarian Cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 959-965

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2100-x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has historically been the standard treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Recent data appear to support a paradigm shift toward neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval debulking surgery (NACT-IDS). We hypothesized that stage IV ovarian cancer patients would likely benefit from NACT-IDS by achieving similar outcomes with less morbidity. Patients with stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent primary treatment between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2007, were identified. Data were retrospectively extracted. Each patient record was evaluated to subclassify stage IV disease according to the sites of tumor dissemination at the time of diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival (OS) data. A total of 242 newly diagnosed stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer patients were included in the final analysis; 176 women (73%) underwent PDS, 45 (18%) NACT-IDS, and 21 (9%) chemotherapy only. The frequency of achieving complete resection to no residual disease was significantly higher in patients with NACT-IDS versus PDS (27% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.001). When compared to women treated with NACT-IDS, women with PDS had longer admissions (12 vs. 8 days; P = 0.01), more frequent intensive care unit admissions (12% vs. 0%; P = 0.01), and a trend toward a higher rate of postoperative complications (27% vs. 15%; P = 0.08). The patients who received only chemotherapy had a median OS of 23 months, compared to 33 months in the NACT-IDS group and 29 months in the PDS group (P = 0.1). NACT-IDS for stage IV ovarian cancer resulted in higher rates of complete resection to no residual disease, less morbidity, and equivalent OS compared to PDS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available