Advanced low grade serous ovarian cancer: A retrospective analysis of surgical and chemotherapeutic management in two high volume oncological centers.
adjuvant treatment
low-grade serous ovarian cancer
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
primary cytoreduction
residual disease
secondary cytoreductive surgery
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
16
06
2022
accepted:
05
09
2022
entrez:
14
10
2022
pubmed:
15
10
2022
medline:
15
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) represents an uncommon histotype of serous ovarian cancer (accounting for approximately 5% of all ovarian cancer) with a distinct behavior compared to its high-grade serous counterpart, characterized by a better prognosis and low response rate to chemotherapeutic agents. Similar to high-grade serous ovarian cancer, cytoreductive surgery is considered crucial for patient survival. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the outcomes of women affected by advanced stages (III-IV FIGO) of LGSOC from two high-volume oncological centers for ovarian neoplasm. In particular, we sought to evaluate the impact on survival outcomes of optimal cytoreductive surgery [i.e., residual disease (RD) <10 mm at the end of surgery]. The results of our work confirm the role of complete cytoreduction (i.e., no evidence of disease after surgery) in the survival of patients and even the positive prognostic role of a minimal RD (i.e., <10 mm), whenever complete cytoreduction cannot be achieved. Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) is a rare entity with different behavior compared to high-grade serous (HGSOC). Because of its general low chemosensitivity, complete cytoreductive surgery with no residual disease is crucial in advanced stage LGSOC. We evaluated the impact of optimal cytoreduction on survival outcome both at first diagnosis and at recurrence. We retrospectively studied consecutive patients diagnosed with advanced LGSOCs who underwent cytoreductive surgery in two oncological centers from January 1994 to December 2018. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using the Greenwood formula. A total of 92 patients were included (median age was 47 years, IQR 35-64). The median overall survival (OS) was 142.3 months in patients with no residual disease (RD), 86.4 months for RD 1-10 mm and 35.2 months for RD >10 mm (p = 0.002). Progression-free survival (PFS) was inversely related to RD after primary cytoreductive surgery (RD = 0 vs RD = 1-10 mm vs RD >10 mm, p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RD 1-10 mm (HR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.30-4.06, p = 0.004), RD >10 mm (HR = 3.89, 95% CI 1.92-7.88, p = 0.0004), FIGO stage IV (p = 0.001), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) (p = 0.010) were independent predictors of PFS. RD >10 mm (HR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.52-6.46, p = 0.004), FIGO stage IV (p <0.0001) and NACT (p = 0.030) were significantly associated with a lower OS. Optimal cytoreductive surgery improves survival outcomes in advanced stage LGSOC
Sections du résumé
Simple summary
UNASSIGNED
Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) represents an uncommon histotype of serous ovarian cancer (accounting for approximately 5% of all ovarian cancer) with a distinct behavior compared to its high-grade serous counterpart, characterized by a better prognosis and low response rate to chemotherapeutic agents. Similar to high-grade serous ovarian cancer, cytoreductive surgery is considered crucial for patient survival. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the outcomes of women affected by advanced stages (III-IV FIGO) of LGSOC from two high-volume oncological centers for ovarian neoplasm. In particular, we sought to evaluate the impact on survival outcomes of optimal cytoreductive surgery [i.e., residual disease (RD) <10 mm at the end of surgery]. The results of our work confirm the role of complete cytoreduction (i.e., no evidence of disease after surgery) in the survival of patients and even the positive prognostic role of a minimal RD (i.e., <10 mm), whenever complete cytoreduction cannot be achieved.
Background
UNASSIGNED
Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) is a rare entity with different behavior compared to high-grade serous (HGSOC). Because of its general low chemosensitivity, complete cytoreductive surgery with no residual disease is crucial in advanced stage LGSOC. We evaluated the impact of optimal cytoreduction on survival outcome both at first diagnosis and at recurrence.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively studied consecutive patients diagnosed with advanced LGSOCs who underwent cytoreductive surgery in two oncological centers from January 1994 to December 2018. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using the Greenwood formula.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 92 patients were included (median age was 47 years, IQR 35-64). The median overall survival (OS) was 142.3 months in patients with no residual disease (RD), 86.4 months for RD 1-10 mm and 35.2 months for RD >10 mm (p = 0.002). Progression-free survival (PFS) was inversely related to RD after primary cytoreductive surgery (RD = 0 vs RD = 1-10 mm vs RD >10 mm, p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RD 1-10 mm (HR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.30-4.06, p = 0.004), RD >10 mm (HR = 3.89, 95% CI 1.92-7.88, p = 0.0004), FIGO stage IV (p = 0.001), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) (p = 0.010) were independent predictors of PFS. RD >10 mm (HR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.52-6.46, p = 0.004), FIGO stage IV (p <0.0001) and NACT (p = 0.030) were significantly associated with a lower OS.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Optimal cytoreductive surgery improves survival outcomes in advanced stage LGSOC
Identifiants
pubmed: 36237308
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.970918
pmc: PMC9551309
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
970918Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Di Lorenzo, Conteduca, Scarpi, Adorni, Multinu, Garbi, Betella, Grassi, Bianchi, Di Martino, Amadori, Maniglio, Strada, Carinelli, Jaconi, Aletti, Zanagnolo, Maggioni, Savelli, De Giorgi, Landoni, Colombo and Fruscio.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
NC: Consultancy and advisory board participation: Roche; PharmaMar; Astra-Zeneca; Clovis Oncology; MSD; GlaxoSmithKline; Tesaro; Pfizer; BIOCAD; Immunogen; Mersana; Eisai; Oncxerna. Speakers for AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Ann Oncol. 2019 May 1;30(5):672-705
pubmed: 31046081
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jan;99(1):3-10
pubmed: 11777502
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Apr;145(1):37-40
pubmed: 28139261
Cancer. 2002 Aug 15;95(4):791-800
pubmed: 12209723
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Oct;78(10):972-976
pubmed: 30364401
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;108(2):361-8
pubmed: 16880307
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Mar;140(3):457-62
pubmed: 26807488
Hum Pathol. 2019 Mar;85:299-308
pubmed: 30428389
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;198(4):459.e1-8; discussion 459.e8-9
pubmed: 18395040
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):78-89
pubmed: 26590673
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;154(3):531-538
pubmed: 31227223
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 May;41:15-30
pubmed: 28277307
Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Apr;28(4):496-504
pubmed: 15087669
Br J Cancer. 2008 Dec 16;99(12):2020-8
pubmed: 19018267
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 10;38(32):3753-3762
pubmed: 32822286
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jan;256:172-178
pubmed: 33246201
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Feb;14(2):134-40
pubmed: 23261356
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;30(1):e4
pubmed: 30479088
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Sep;158(3):653-658
pubmed: 32709538
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Oct;26(8):1421-7
pubmed: 27575626
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Mar 19;95(6):484-6
pubmed: 12644542
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1103-1111
pubmed: 28221866
J Pathol. 2013 Dec;231(4):449-56
pubmed: 24549645
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114(1):48-52
pubmed: 19361839
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Jul;24(6):1010-4
pubmed: 24978709
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;129(3):439-447
pubmed: 28178043
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Jun;29(6):707-23
pubmed: 15897738
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):25-9
pubmed: 25448453
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Mar;108(3):510-4
pubmed: 18155273
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010 Jul;10(7):1115-24
pubmed: 20645700
Hum Pathol. 2018 Oct;80:11-27
pubmed: 29944973
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S161-92
pubmed: 17161157