A triage strategy in advanced ovarian cancer management based on multiple predictive models for R0 resection: a prospective cohort study.
- Author:
Zheng FENG
1
;
Hao WEN
;
Zhaoxia JIANG
;
Shuai LIU
;
Xingzhu JU
;
Xiaojun CHEN
;
Lingfang XIA
;
Junyan XU
;
Rui BI
;
Xiaohua WU
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Predictive Model; Scoring Method; Surgical Outcomes; Perioperative Complications; R0 Resection; No Residual Disease
- MeSH: Area Under Curve; Cohort Studies*; Drug Therapy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Ovarian Neoplasms*; Prospective Studies*; Research Design; Triage*
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2018;29(5):e65-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To present the surgical outcomes of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) since the implementation of a personalized approach and to validate multiple predictive models for R0 resection. METHODS: Personalized strategies included: 1) Non-invasive model: preoperative clinico-radiological assessment according to Suidan criteria with a predictive score for all individuals. Patients with a score 0–2 were recommended for primary debulking surgery (PDS, group A), or otherwise were counseled on the choices of PDS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, group B) or staging laparoscopy (S-LPS). 2) Minimally invasive model: S-LPS with a predictive index value (PIV) according to Fagotti. Individuals with a PIV < 8 underwent PDS (group C) or otherwise received NAC (group D). Intraoperative assessment (with Eisenkop, peritoneal cancer index [PCI], and Aletti scores) and surgical results were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and August 2017, 161 pathologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer patients were included. A total of 52 (32.3%) patients had a predictive score of 0–2, and 109 (67.7%) patients had a score ≥ 3. Among these individuals, 41 (25.5%) patients received S-LPS. Finally, 110 (68.3%) patients underwent PDS (A+C), and 51 (31.7%) patients received NAC (B+D). The R0 resection rates in PDS and NAC patients were 56.4% and 60.8%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of Suidan criteria was 0.548 for group (A+C). The AUC of Fagotti score was 0.702 for group C. The AUC of Eisenkop, PCI, and Aletti scores were 0.808, 0.797, and 0.524, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Suidan criteria were not effective in these AEOC patients. S-LPS was helpful in decision-making for PDS and should be endorsed in the future.
