Cargando…

Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spiliotis, John D., Iavazzo, Christos, Kopanakis, Nikolaos D., Christopoulou, Athina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Galenos Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31362486
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165
_version_ 1783474446785314816
author Spiliotis, John D.
Iavazzo, Christos
Kopanakis, Nikolaos D.
Christopoulou, Athina
author_facet Spiliotis, John D.
Iavazzo, Christos
Kopanakis, Nikolaos D.
Christopoulou, Athina
author_sort Spiliotis, John D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residual disease included the great omentum, epiploic appendices, liver round ligament, gallbladder, and cervical/vaginal stump. The median survival for women with residual disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) + systemic chemotherapy was 38 months compared with the control group, which reached 23.8 months. The morbidity rates were 18% vs 7%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 2.5% vs 1.3%. The main sites of recurrent disease included the mesenterium, pelvic floor, diaphragm, and Glisson’s capsule. Women with recurrent disease treated with CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy had median survival rates of 26 months vs 16 months in the control group. The morbidity rates were 22% vs 15%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 3.3% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse have a different prognosis when compared with patients with residual and recurrent disease. A different prognosis is presented in women undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse when comparing patients with residual and recurrent disease.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6883755
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Galenos Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68837552019-12-09 Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease? Spiliotis, John D. Iavazzo, Christos Kopanakis, Nikolaos D. Christopoulou, Athina J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: To analyze the kind of ovarian cancer relapse by separating residual from recurrent disease and correlating them with patient survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 200 women with ovarian carcinoma relapse between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: The main sites of residual disease included the great omentum, epiploic appendices, liver round ligament, gallbladder, and cervical/vaginal stump. The median survival for women with residual disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) + systemic chemotherapy was 38 months compared with the control group, which reached 23.8 months. The morbidity rates were 18% vs 7%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 2.5% vs 1.3%. The main sites of recurrent disease included the mesenterium, pelvic floor, diaphragm, and Glisson’s capsule. Women with recurrent disease treated with CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy had median survival rates of 26 months vs 16 months in the control group. The morbidity rates were 22% vs 15%, respectively, and the mortality rates were 3.3% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse have a different prognosis when compared with patients with residual and recurrent disease. A different prognosis is presented in women undergoing secondary debulking plus HIPEC for ovarian carcinoma relapse when comparing patients with residual and recurrent disease. Galenos Publishing 2019-12 2019-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6883755/ /pubmed/31362486 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165 Text en © Copyright 2019 by the Turkish-German Gynecological Education and Research Foundation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association published by Galenos Publishing House.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Spiliotis, John D.
Iavazzo, Christos
Kopanakis, Nikolaos D.
Christopoulou, Athina
Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title_full Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title_fullStr Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title_full_unstemmed Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title_short Secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: The R-R dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
title_sort secondary debulking for ovarian carcinoma relapse: the r-r dilemma – is the prognosis different for residual or recurrent disease?
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31362486
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2019.2018.0165
work_keys_str_mv AT spiliotisjohnd secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease
AT iavazzochristos secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease
AT kopanakisnikolaosd secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease
AT christopoulouathina secondarydebulkingforovariancarcinomarelapsetherrdilemmaistheprognosisdifferentforresidualorrecurrentdisease