Cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a real-world analysis guided by clinical variables, homologous recombination, and BRCA status.
{"title":"Cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a real-world analysis guided by clinical variables, homologous recombination, and BRCA status.","authors":"Eliya Shachar, Yael Raz, Gilat Rotkop, Uriel Katz, Ido Laskov, Nadav Michan, Dan Grisaru, Ido Wolf, Tamar Safra","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Guidelines endorse both interval and primary debulking cytoreductive surgeries in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer, emphasizing that the treatment strategy should be tailored to the patient's clinical condition and tumor burden. Despite these recommendations, experts have yet to agree on a definitive surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective longitudinal analysis of 929 women diagnosed with advanced-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV) epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2002 and January 2025 was conducted. The effects of interval debulking surgery versus primary debulking surgery on median overall survival and progression-free survival were evaluated. Additionally, we aimed to identify patients who may benefit from a particular surgical approach based on clinical variables, mutation in either of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, and homologous recombination profile.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 929 patients were diagnosed with stage III to IV disease (87.2%) and underwent either primary debulking (n = 389, 41.9%) or interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 540, 58.1%). Patients treated with primary debulking had a longer median overall survival than those treated with interval debulking surgery (68.40 months, 95% CI 62.92 to 76.45 vs 52.01 months, 95% CI 47.15 to 57.86, HR 1.2, p = .0004). However, when adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, histology, BRCA status, and tumor resectability, multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant difference in survival between the two surgical groups (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.39, p = .12). Younger women (<69 years), stage III, and BRCA-wild-type and/or homologous recombination proficient had longer survival with primary debulking than with interval debulking surgery (74.55 months, 95% CI 65.35 to 93.27 vs 55.98 months, 95% CI 48.10 to 64.79, HR 1.38, p = .03). Patients with a pathogenic BRCA variant or homologous recombination deficient profile had similar survival outcomes with either debulking approach, regardless of age and disease stage (p > .05). Propensity score analysis demonstrated comparable median overall survival with the two surgical timings (64.39 months, 95% CI 58.38 to 71.23 vs 57.69 months, 95% CI 50.66 to 64.79, HR 1.33, p = .27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery without compromising survival outcomes, regardless of age and stage, particularly among harder-to-treat patients. We identified a specific subset of patients who may benefit from primary debulking surgery as the optimal intervention. These findings advocate for a personalized treatment approach and the potential for tailored surgical strategies guided by patient clinical variables, homologous recombination, and genetic factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":"35 6","pages":"101809"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12265980/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101809","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Guidelines endorse both interval and primary debulking cytoreductive surgeries in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer, emphasizing that the treatment strategy should be tailored to the patient's clinical condition and tumor burden. Despite these recommendations, experts have yet to agree on a definitive surgical approach.
Methods: A retrospective longitudinal analysis of 929 women diagnosed with advanced-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV) epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2002 and January 2025 was conducted. The effects of interval debulking surgery versus primary debulking surgery on median overall survival and progression-free survival were evaluated. Additionally, we aimed to identify patients who may benefit from a particular surgical approach based on clinical variables, mutation in either of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, and homologous recombination profile.
Results: A total of 929 patients were diagnosed with stage III to IV disease (87.2%) and underwent either primary debulking (n = 389, 41.9%) or interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 540, 58.1%). Patients treated with primary debulking had a longer median overall survival than those treated with interval debulking surgery (68.40 months, 95% CI 62.92 to 76.45 vs 52.01 months, 95% CI 47.15 to 57.86, HR 1.2, p = .0004). However, when adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, histology, BRCA status, and tumor resectability, multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant difference in survival between the two surgical groups (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.39, p = .12). Younger women (<69 years), stage III, and BRCA-wild-type and/or homologous recombination proficient had longer survival with primary debulking than with interval debulking surgery (74.55 months, 95% CI 65.35 to 93.27 vs 55.98 months, 95% CI 48.10 to 64.79, HR 1.38, p = .03). Patients with a pathogenic BRCA variant or homologous recombination deficient profile had similar survival outcomes with either debulking approach, regardless of age and disease stage (p > .05). Propensity score analysis demonstrated comparable median overall survival with the two surgical timings (64.39 months, 95% CI 58.38 to 71.23 vs 57.69 months, 95% CI 50.66 to 64.79, HR 1.33, p = .27).
Conclusions: Our findings support the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery without compromising survival outcomes, regardless of age and stage, particularly among harder-to-treat patients. We identified a specific subset of patients who may benefit from primary debulking surgery as the optimal intervention. These findings advocate for a personalized treatment approach and the potential for tailored surgical strategies guided by patient clinical variables, homologous recombination, and genetic factors.
目的:指南支持上皮性卵巢癌的间歇和原发性减细胞手术治疗,强调治疗策略应根据患者的临床状况和肿瘤负担量身定制。尽管有这些建议,专家们尚未就确定的手术方法达成一致。方法:回顾性纵向分析2002年1月至2025年1月929名诊断为晚期(国际妇产科联合会III-IV期)上皮性卵巢癌的妇女。评估间隔降压手术与初次降压手术对中位总生存期和无进展生存期的影响。此外,我们的目的是根据临床变量、BRCA1或BRCA2基因突变和同源重组谱,确定可能从特定手术方法中受益的患者。结果:共有929例患者被诊断为III至IV期疾病(87.2%),并在新辅助化疗后接受了原发性减瘤手术(n = 389, 41.9%)或间歇减瘤手术(n = 540, 58.1%)。接受原发性去囊化手术的患者比接受间歇去囊化手术的患者有更长的中位总生存期(68.40个月,95% CI 62.92 - 76.45 vs 52.01个月,95% CI 47.15 - 57.86, HR 1.2, p = 0.0004)。然而,当对诊断时的年龄、分期、组织学、BRCA状态和肿瘤可切除性进行校正后,多因素分析显示,两组手术患者的生存率无显著差异(HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 ~ 1.39, p = 0.12)。年轻女性(0.05)。倾向评分分析显示,两种手术时间的中位总生存率相当(64.39个月,95% CI 58.38至71.23 vs 57.69个月,95% CI 50.66至64.79,HR 1.33, p = 0.27)。结论:我们的研究结果支持使用新辅助化疗,然后进行间歇减容手术,而不影响生存结果,无论年龄和分期,特别是在难以治疗的患者中。我们确定了一个特定的患者亚群,他们可能受益于原发性减脂手术作为最佳干预措施。这些发现提倡个性化的治疗方法,并有可能根据患者的临床变量、同源重组和遗传因素制定量身定制的手术策略。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.