Interval Debulking Surgery After Neodjuvant Chemotherapy Vs Primary Debulking Surgery For Stage Iii Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma

BM Ahmed, A. Amin, MK Khallaf, A. Ahmed Refaat, Saad M. Sileem
{"title":"Interval Debulking Surgery After Neodjuvant Chemotherapy Vs Primary Debulking Surgery For Stage Iii Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma","authors":"BM Ahmed, A. Amin, MK Khallaf, A. Ahmed Refaat, Saad M. Sileem","doi":"10.1177/0300891620914135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy and is the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death among women. Approach to FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer remains challengeable. This study aims to evaluate the outcome of interval debulking surgery (IDS) vs. primary debulking surgery (PDS) for FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. Materials and Methods: During a period of six years (January 2014 to December 2019), we analyzed the patients for eligibility criteria, which were: (1) FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. (2) The age of 18 years or more (3) Patients underwent either PDS or IDS and received chemotherapy at South Egypt Cancer Institute. We divided them into two groups: (1) Those received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then underwent IDS plus three additional cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy and (2) Those who have PDS followed by six cycles of chemotherapy. Results: This study includes 380 eligible patients. The first group included 226 patients (59.47%) underwent PDS then 6 cycles of chemotherapy, while the group of IDS included 154 patients (40.53%). The treatment modality was not significant for overall survival (OS); however disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly reduced after IDS when compared to PDS (median DFS: 33 months; 95% CI 30.23-35.77 vs. 45 months; 95% CI 41.25-48.75 respectively; p= .000). Moreover, in subgroup analysis, OS and DFS were significantly dropped after IDS in elderly patients, patients with bad performance status, sub-optimal cytoreduction as well as high grade and undifferentiated tumors when compared to those who underwent PDS. Conclusion: Although treatment modality may not impact overall survival (OS), however, PDS results in a better disease-free survival than IDS. Moreover, IDS results in a significant drop in OS and DFS in special patients subgroups when compared to PDS. Therefore patients selection should be considered.","PeriodicalId":23450,"journal":{"name":"Tumori Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"15 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tumori Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620914135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy and is the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death among women. Approach to FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer remains challengeable. This study aims to evaluate the outcome of interval debulking surgery (IDS) vs. primary debulking surgery (PDS) for FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. Materials and Methods: During a period of six years (January 2014 to December 2019), we analyzed the patients for eligibility criteria, which were: (1) FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. (2) The age of 18 years or more (3) Patients underwent either PDS or IDS and received chemotherapy at South Egypt Cancer Institute. We divided them into two groups: (1) Those received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then underwent IDS plus three additional cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy and (2) Those who have PDS followed by six cycles of chemotherapy. Results: This study includes 380 eligible patients. The first group included 226 patients (59.47%) underwent PDS then 6 cycles of chemotherapy, while the group of IDS included 154 patients (40.53%). The treatment modality was not significant for overall survival (OS); however disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly reduced after IDS when compared to PDS (median DFS: 33 months; 95% CI 30.23-35.77 vs. 45 months; 95% CI 41.25-48.75 respectively; p= .000). Moreover, in subgroup analysis, OS and DFS were significantly dropped after IDS in elderly patients, patients with bad performance status, sub-optimal cytoreduction as well as high grade and undifferentiated tumors when compared to those who underwent PDS. Conclusion: Although treatment modality may not impact overall survival (OS), however, PDS results in a better disease-free survival than IDS. Moreover, IDS results in a significant drop in OS and DFS in special patients subgroups when compared to PDS. Therefore patients selection should be considered.
Iii期上皮性卵巢癌在新辅助化疗后的间隔去肿块手术Vs原发性去肿块手术
简介:卵巢癌是最致命的妇科恶性肿瘤,是妇女癌症相关死亡的第五大常见原因。FIGO III期上皮性卵巢癌的治疗方法仍然具有挑战性。本研究旨在评估FIGO III期上皮性卵巢癌的间歇减容手术(IDS)与原发性减容手术(PDS)的疗效。材料与方法:在2014年1月至2019年12月的6年时间里,我们分析了患者的资格标准,包括:(1)FIGO III期上皮性卵巢癌。(2)年龄在18岁及以上(3)患者在南埃及癌症研究所接受PDS或IDS化疗。我们将他们分为两组:(1)接受三个周期的新辅助化疗,然后接受IDS加三个额外周期的辅助化疗;(2)患有PDS的患者随后接受六个周期的化疗。结果:本研究纳入380例符合条件的患者。第一组226例(59.47%)患者接受PDS + 6周期化疗,IDS组154例(40.53%)。治疗方式对总生存期(OS)无显著影响;然而,与PDS相比,IDS后的无病生存期(DFS)显著降低(中位DFS: 33个月;95% CI 30.23-35.77 vs. 45个月;95% CI分别为41.25 ~ 48.75;p =组织)。此外,在亚组分析中,与接受PDS的患者相比,老年患者、运动状态不佳患者、次优细胞减少患者以及高级别和未分化肿瘤患者在IDS后的OS和DFS均显著下降。结论:尽管治疗方式可能不会影响总生存期(OS),但PDS的无病生存期优于IDS。此外,与PDS相比,IDS导致特殊患者亚组的OS和DFS显著下降。因此应考虑患者的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信