Minimally Invasive Secondary Cytoreduction Plus HIPEC Versus Open Surgery Plus HIPEC in Isolated Relapse From Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Perioperative Outcomes

Anna Fagotti, Barbara Costantini, Valerio Gallotta, Stefano Cianci, Carlo Ronsini, Marco Petrillo, Mara Pacciani, Giovanni Scambia, Francesco Fanfani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction surgery (SCS) plus hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus open surgery plus HIPEC in a group of platinum-sensitive patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) with isolated relapse. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients: We selected 22 patients with a peritoneal cancer index value of 2. The laparoscopic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent laparoscopic and/or robotic complete cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the laparotomic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent complete laparotomic cytoreduction plus HIPEC. Interventions: The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group were platinum-sensitive single recurrent ovarian cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the open group were women with similar clinical characteristics who underwent complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC by laparotomy. Measurements and Main Results: The median operative time, calculated from the skin incision to the end of SCS (i.e., excluding HIPEC phase) was 125min (range 95-150min) in the MIS group and 295min (range 180-420) in the open group (p=001), with a median estimated blood loss of 50mL (range 50-100) and 500mL (range 50-1300), respectively (p=025). The median length of hospital stay was 4days (range 3-17) in the MIS group and 8.5days (range 4-30) in the open group (p=002). No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of intra- and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for SCS plus HIPEC is safe and efficient in terms of toxicity and postoperative outcomes for single isolated relapse. HIPEC should not be considered a major contraindication to a minimally invasive approach.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)428-432
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Ovarian Neoplasms
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Recurrence
Drug Therapy
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Robotics
Platinum
Length of Stay
Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology Department
Intraoperative Complications
Advisory Committees
Operative Time
Gynecology
Laparotomy
Italy
Skin

Keywords

  • HIPEC
  • Isolated platinum-sensitive relapse
  • Laparoscopy
  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Ovarian cancer
  • Robotic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Minimally Invasive Secondary Cytoreduction Plus HIPEC Versus Open Surgery Plus HIPEC in Isolated Relapse From Ovarian Cancer : A Retrospective Cohort Study on Perioperative Outcomes. / Fagotti, Anna; Costantini, Barbara; Gallotta, Valerio; Cianci, Stefano; Ronsini, Carlo; Petrillo, Marco; Pacciani, Mara; Scambia, Giovanni; Fanfani, Francesco.

In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 428-432.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fagotti, Anna ; Costantini, Barbara ; Gallotta, Valerio ; Cianci, Stefano ; Ronsini, Carlo ; Petrillo, Marco ; Pacciani, Mara ; Scambia, Giovanni ; Fanfani, Francesco. / Minimally Invasive Secondary Cytoreduction Plus HIPEC Versus Open Surgery Plus HIPEC in Isolated Relapse From Ovarian Cancer : A Retrospective Cohort Study on Perioperative Outcomes. In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 428-432.
@article{a197e80f22e94114b92ccb5d8baa06f6,
title = "Minimally Invasive Secondary Cytoreduction Plus HIPEC Versus Open Surgery Plus HIPEC in Isolated Relapse From Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Perioperative Outcomes",
abstract = "Study Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction surgery (SCS) plus hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus open surgery plus HIPEC in a group of platinum-sensitive patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) with isolated relapse. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients: We selected 22 patients with a peritoneal cancer index value of 2. The laparoscopic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent laparoscopic and/or robotic complete cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the laparotomic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent complete laparotomic cytoreduction plus HIPEC. Interventions: The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group were platinum-sensitive single recurrent ovarian cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the open group were women with similar clinical characteristics who underwent complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC by laparotomy. Measurements and Main Results: The median operative time, calculated from the skin incision to the end of SCS (i.e., excluding HIPEC phase) was 125min (range 95-150min) in the MIS group and 295min (range 180-420) in the open group (p=001), with a median estimated blood loss of 50mL (range 50-100) and 500mL (range 50-1300), respectively (p=025). The median length of hospital stay was 4days (range 3-17) in the MIS group and 8.5days (range 4-30) in the open group (p=002). No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of intra- and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for SCS plus HIPEC is safe and efficient in terms of toxicity and postoperative outcomes for single isolated relapse. HIPEC should not be considered a major contraindication to a minimally invasive approach.",
keywords = "HIPEC, Isolated platinum-sensitive relapse, Laparoscopy, Minimally invasive surgery, Ovarian cancer, Robotic",
author = "Anna Fagotti and Barbara Costantini and Valerio Gallotta and Stefano Cianci and Carlo Ronsini and Marco Petrillo and Mara Pacciani and Giovanni Scambia and Francesco Fanfani",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2014.11.008",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "428--432",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally Invasive Secondary Cytoreduction Plus HIPEC Versus Open Surgery Plus HIPEC in Isolated Relapse From Ovarian Cancer

T2 - A Retrospective Cohort Study on Perioperative Outcomes

AU - Fagotti, Anna

AU - Costantini, Barbara

AU - Gallotta, Valerio

AU - Cianci, Stefano

AU - Ronsini, Carlo

AU - Petrillo, Marco

AU - Pacciani, Mara

AU - Scambia, Giovanni

AU - Fanfani, Francesco

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Study Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction surgery (SCS) plus hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus open surgery plus HIPEC in a group of platinum-sensitive patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) with isolated relapse. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients: We selected 22 patients with a peritoneal cancer index value of 2. The laparoscopic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent laparoscopic and/or robotic complete cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the laparotomic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent complete laparotomic cytoreduction plus HIPEC. Interventions: The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group were platinum-sensitive single recurrent ovarian cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the open group were women with similar clinical characteristics who underwent complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC by laparotomy. Measurements and Main Results: The median operative time, calculated from the skin incision to the end of SCS (i.e., excluding HIPEC phase) was 125min (range 95-150min) in the MIS group and 295min (range 180-420) in the open group (p=001), with a median estimated blood loss of 50mL (range 50-100) and 500mL (range 50-1300), respectively (p=025). The median length of hospital stay was 4days (range 3-17) in the MIS group and 8.5days (range 4-30) in the open group (p=002). No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of intra- and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for SCS plus HIPEC is safe and efficient in terms of toxicity and postoperative outcomes for single isolated relapse. HIPEC should not be considered a major contraindication to a minimally invasive approach.

AB - Study Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive secondary cytoreduction surgery (SCS) plus hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus open surgery plus HIPEC in a group of platinum-sensitive patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) with isolated relapse. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients: We selected 22 patients with a peritoneal cancer index value of 2. The laparoscopic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent laparoscopic and/or robotic complete cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the laparotomic group consisted of 11 patients who underwent complete laparotomic cytoreduction plus HIPEC. Interventions: The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group were platinum-sensitive single recurrent ovarian cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC, whereas the open group were women with similar clinical characteristics who underwent complete secondary cytoreduction plus HIPEC by laparotomy. Measurements and Main Results: The median operative time, calculated from the skin incision to the end of SCS (i.e., excluding HIPEC phase) was 125min (range 95-150min) in the MIS group and 295min (range 180-420) in the open group (p=001), with a median estimated blood loss of 50mL (range 50-100) and 500mL (range 50-1300), respectively (p=025). The median length of hospital stay was 4days (range 3-17) in the MIS group and 8.5days (range 4-30) in the open group (p=002). No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of intra- and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for SCS plus HIPEC is safe and efficient in terms of toxicity and postoperative outcomes for single isolated relapse. HIPEC should not be considered a major contraindication to a minimally invasive approach.

KW - HIPEC

KW - Isolated platinum-sensitive relapse

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Minimally invasive surgery

KW - Ovarian cancer

KW - Robotic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924496896&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924496896&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.11.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.11.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 25461683

AN - SCOPUS:84924496896

VL - 22

SP - 428

EP - 432

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 3

ER -