Impact of Lymphadenectomy on Survival of Patients with Serous Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A French National Multicenter Study (FRANCOGYN).
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
ovarian carcinoma
systematic lymphadenectomy
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2020
29 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
revised:
15
07
2020
accepted:
23
07
2020
entrez:
6
8
2020
pubmed:
6
8
2020
medline:
6
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The population of interest to this study comprised individuals with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma who were exposed to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Those who had not received systematic lymphadenectomy (SL; Group 1) were compared to those who had received SL (Group 2). Outcome measures included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and surgical complications. This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study in nine referral centers of France between January 2000 and June 2017. OS analysis using the multivariate Cox regression model was performed. PFS and surgery-related morbidity were analyzed. Of the 255 patients included, 100 were in Group 1 and 155 in Group 2. Patient majority was, on average, younger and less comorbid, with predominant R0 surgery in Group 2. Dindo-Clavien score was similar between the two groups ( patients who had received SL (Group 2) had significantly higher PFS regardless of node-positivity status when compared to those who had not received SL (Group 1).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The population of interest to this study comprised individuals with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma who were exposed to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Those who had not received systematic lymphadenectomy (SL; Group 1) were compared to those who had received SL (Group 2). Outcome measures included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and surgical complications.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study in nine referral centers of France between January 2000 and June 2017. OS analysis using the multivariate Cox regression model was performed. PFS and surgery-related morbidity were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 255 patients included, 100 were in Group 1 and 155 in Group 2. Patient majority was, on average, younger and less comorbid, with predominant R0 surgery in Group 2. Dindo-Clavien score was similar between the two groups (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
patients who had received SL (Group 2) had significantly higher PFS regardless of node-positivity status when compared to those who had not received SL (Group 1).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32751303
pii: jcm9082427
doi: 10.3390/jcm9082427
pmc: PMC7464978
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1997 Jan;7(1):18-26
pubmed: 12795800
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Apr 20;97(8):560-6
pubmed: 15840878
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;19(11):3522-7
pubmed: 22644507
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Nov-Dec;17(6):1238-44
pubmed: 17433064
Anticancer Res. 2015 Oct;35(10):5503-9
pubmed: 26408716
J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Aug;197(2):198-205
pubmed: 12892797
Ann Oncol. 2005;16 Suppl 8:viii7-viii12
pubmed: 16239238
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;24(11):3413-3421
pubmed: 28718034
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 May;21(4):750-5
pubmed: 21543936
Br J Cancer. 2007 Jun 18;96(12):1817-22
pubmed: 17519907
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 1;20(5):1248-59
pubmed: 11870167
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 May;29(4):761-767
pubmed: 30850437
CA Cancer J Clin. 2004 Jan-Feb;54(1):8-29
pubmed: 14974761
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004 Sep-Oct;14(5):779-87
pubmed: 15361184
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363(10):943-53
pubmed: 20818904
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 5;378(14):1363-1364
pubmed: 29617590
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 Oct;22(8):1337-43
pubmed: 22964527
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Jun;93(3):647-52
pubmed: 15196859
J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 May;29(3):e53
pubmed: 29533028
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 May;20(4):520-8
pubmed: 20686371
Front Oncol. 2020 Feb 11;10:86
pubmed: 32117740
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug;46(8):718-26
pubmed: 27272175
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004 Jun;32(6):502-7
pubmed: 15217565
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 28;380(9):822-832
pubmed: 30811909
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012 Jul;38(7):1018-23
pubmed: 22568659
Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Sep;62(3):360-5
pubmed: 8812533
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Sep;126(3):381-6
pubmed: 22609747
J Nippon Med Sch. 2000 Feb;67(1):5-8
pubmed: 10777840
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan;45(1):49-60
pubmed: 25387732
Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359-74
pubmed: 8849962
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017 Dec;39(12):1163-1170
pubmed: 28784563
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;195(6):1862-8
pubmed: 17132488
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;28(10):1733-9
pubmed: 20194855
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(2):169-74
pubmed: 15032274
Bull Cancer. 2019 Apr;106(4):354-370
pubmed: 30850152
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019 Feb;47(2):214-221
pubmed: 30712963
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;116(3):329-336
pubmed: 28542980
J Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Oct;26(4):303-10
pubmed: 26197771
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jul;21(7):2369-75
pubmed: 24558070
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):542-6
pubmed: 25223808
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD005343
pubmed: 22895947
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jun;149(3):525-530
pubmed: 29550184