Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search
3.2. Overall Mortality
3.3. Secondary Outcomes
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Meta-Analysis for Recurrence
Appendix B. Meta-Analysis for Perioperative Outcomes
Appendix C
References
- Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Dikshit, R.; Eser, S.; Mathers, C.; Rebelo, M.; Parkin, D.M.; Forman, D.; Bray, F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136, E359–E386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colombo, N.; Sessa, C.; du Bois, A.; Ledermann, J.; McCluggage, W.G.; McNeish, I.; Morice, P.; Pignata, S.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Vergote, I.; et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: Pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 672–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menderes, G.; Black, J.; Azodi, M. The role of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2016, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fagotti, A.; Perelli, F.; Pedone, L.; Scambia, G. Current Recommendations for Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging in Ovarian Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2016, 17, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, J.-Y.; Kim, D.-Y.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-M.; Kim, Y.-T.; Nam, J.-H. Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomic Surgical Staging for Early Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011, 18, S59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Q.; Qu, H.; Liu, C.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Z. Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in Surgical Staging of Apparent Early Ovarian Cancer: 13-year Experience. Med. Baltim. 2016, 95, e3655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, C.; Gao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yu, J.; Zhang, T. Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 17, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falcetta, F.S.; Lawrie, T.A.; Medeiros, L.R.; da Rosa, M.I.; Edelweiss, M.I.; Stein, A.T.; Zelmanowicz, A.; Moraes, A.B.; Zanini, R.R.; Rosa, D.D. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 10, CD005344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Fan, S.; Xiang, Y.; Duan, H.; Sun, L. Comparison of the prognosis and recurrence of apparent early-stage ovarian tumors treated with laparoscopy and laparotomy: A meta-analysis of clinical studies. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardenas-Goicoechea, J.; Wang, Y.; McGorray, S.; Saleem, M.D.; Carbajal Mamani, S.L.; Pomputius, A.F.; Markham, M.-J.; Castagno, J.C. Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Robot. Surg. 2019, 13, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogani, G.; Cromi, A.; Serati, M.; Di Naro, E.; Casarin, J.; Pinelli, C.; Ghezzi, F. Laparoscopic and open abdominal staging for early-stage ovarian cancer: Our experience, systematic review, and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2014, 24, 1241–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bogani, G.; Borghi, C.; Maggiore, U.L.R.; Ditto, A.; Signorelli, M.; Martinelli, F.; Chiappa, V.; Lopez, C.; Sabatucci, I.; Scaffa, C.; et al. Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging in Early-stage Ovarian Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stroup, D.F.; Berlin, J.A.; Morton, S.C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G.D.; Rennie, D.; Moher, D.; Becker, B.J.; Sipe, T.A.; Thacker, S.B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000, 283, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, T.P. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slim, K.; Nini, E.; Forestier, D.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Panis, Y.; Chipponi, J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J. Surg. 2003, 73, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.-A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borenstein, M.; Higgins, J.P.T. Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prev. Sci. 2013, 14, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.0; Cochrane: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, J.; Drury, L.; Crane, E.K.; Anderson, W.E.; Tait, D.L.; Higgins, R.V.; Naumann, R.W. When Less Is More: Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared with Laparotomy for Interval Debulking After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019, 26, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccaroni, M.; Roviglione, G.; Bruni, F.; Clarizia, R.; Ruffo, G.; Salgarello, M.; Peiretti, M.; Uccella, S. Laparoscopy for primary cytoreduction with multivisceral resections in advanced ovarian cancer: Prospective validation. “The times they are a-changin”? Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 2026–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ditto, A.; Bogani, G.; Martinelli, F.; Signorelli, M.; Chiappa, V.; Scaffa, C.; Indini, A.; Leone Roberti Maggiore, U.; Lorusso, D.; Raspagliesi, F. Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging for Ovarian Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Traditional Open Surgery. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Favero, G.; Macerox, N.; Pfiffer, T.; Köhler, C.; da Costa Miranda, V.; Estevez Diz, M.D.P.; Fukushima, J.T.; Baracat, E.C.; Carvalho, J.P. Oncologic Concerns regarding Laparoscopic Cytoreductive Surgery in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Submitted to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Oncology 2015, 89, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gallotta, V.; Petrillo, M.; Conte, C.; Vizzielli, G.; Fagotti, A.; Ferrandina, G.; Fanfani, F.; Costantini, B.; Carbone, V.; Scambia, G. Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomic Surgical Staging for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer: A Case-Control Study. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016, 23, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gueli Alletti, S.; Petrillo, M.; Vizzielli, G.; Bottoni, C.; Nardelli, F.; Costantini, B.; Quagliozzi, L.; Gallotta, V.; Scambia, G.; Fagotti, A. Minimally invasive versus standard laparotomic interval debulking surgery in ovarian neoplasm: A single-institution retrospective case-control study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 143, 516–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, Y.-J.; Kim, J.-E.; Kim, Y.-H.; Hahn, H.-S.; Lee, I.-H.; Kim, T.-J.; Lee, K.-H.; Shim, J.-U.; Lim, K.-T. Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer: Surgical and oncological outcomes. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 25, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.; Kim, S.W.; Paek, J.; Lee, S.H.; Yim, G.W.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, Y.T.; Nam, E.J. Comparisons of Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Costs Between Laparotomy and Laparoscopy in Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2011, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Li, L.; He, Y.; Peng, D.; Wang, X.; Chen, W.; Fu, X.; Ma, Y. Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical management of early-stage ovarian cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2014, 24, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magrina, J.F.; Zanagnolo, V.; Noble, B.N.; Kho, R.M.; Magtibay, P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: Perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 2011, 121, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melamed, A.; Keating, N.L.; Clemmer, J.T.; Bregar, A.J.; Wright, J.D.; Boruta, D.M.; Schorge, J.O.; Del Carmen, M.G.; Rauh-Hain, J.A. Laparoscopic Staging for Apparent Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 216, 50.e1–50.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melamed, A.; Nitecki, R.; Boruta, D.M.; Del Carmen, M.G.; Clark, R.M.; Growdon, W.B.; Goodman, A.; Schorge, J.O.; Rauh-Hain, J.A. Laparoscopy Compared With Laparotomy for Debulking Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 129, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Minig, L.; Saadi, J.; Patrono, M.G.; Giavedoni, M.E.; Cárdenas-Rebollo, J.M.; Perrotta, M. Laparoscopic surgical staging in women with early stage epithelial ovarian cancer performed by recently certified gynecologic oncologists. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016, 201, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tozzi, R.; Gubbala, K.; Majd, H.S.; Campanile, R.G. Interval Laparoscopic En-Bloc Resection of the Pelvis (L-EnBRP) in patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer: Description of the technique and surgical outcomes. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 142, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bergamini, A.; Ferrandina, G.; Candiani, M.; Cormio, G.; Giorda, G.; Lauria, R.; Perrone, A.M.; Scarfone, G.; Breda, E.; Savarese, A.; et al. Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of stage I adult granulosa cells tumors of the ovary: Results from the MITO-9 study. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 766–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, T.-I.; Lee, C.-L.; Liao, P.-J.; Huang, K.-G.; Chang, T.-C.; Chou, H.-H.; Wang, C.-J.; Soong, Y.-K.; Hsueh, S.; Lai, C.-H. Survival impact of initial surgical approach in stage I ovarian cancer. Chang. Gung. Med. J. 2010, 33, 558–567. [Google Scholar]
- Jochum, F.; Aubry, G.; Pellerin, M.; Billard, C.; Faller, E.; Boisrame, T.; Lecointre, L.; Akladios, C. Relevance of minimally invasive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer in well-selected patients: A propensity-matched comparison with traditional open surgery. 2020; in press. [Google Scholar]
Study | Period | Study Design | Total MINORS * | Location | Histological Type | Number of Patients | Follow-Up, Months | Adjuvant Therapy, n (%) | Neoadjuvant Therapy, n (%) | Complete Resection, n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early ovarian cancer | ||||||||||
Bergamini et al., 2018 | 1965–2017 | Retrospective | 18 | Multicenter Italy | Granulosa cells | MIS = 93 | 81 (10–450) | 25 (11%) | - | - |
OS = 130 | ||||||||||
Bogani et al., 2014 | 2003–2010 | Retrospective | 18 | Monocentric Italy | Epithelial | MIS = 35 | 64 (37–106) | 56 (84%) | - | - |
OS = 32 | 100 (61–287) | |||||||||
Ditto et al., 2016 | 2005–2015 | Retrospective and prospective | 19 | Monocentric Italy | Epithelial | MIS = 50 | 49.5 (64) | 59 (59%) | - | - |
OS = 50 | 52.6 (31.7) | |||||||||
Gallotta et al., 2016 | 2000–2013 | Retrospective | 17 | Monocentric Italy | Epithelial | MIS = 60 | 38 (24–48) | 126 (70%) | - | - |
OS = 120 | ||||||||||
Koo et al., 2014 | 2006–2012 | Retrospective | 18 | Multicenter Korea | All types | MIS = 24 | 31.7 (20.7) | 69 (90%) | - | - |
OS = 53 | 31.1 (19.1) | |||||||||
Lee et al., 2011 | 2005–2010 | Retrospective | 18 | Monocentric Korea | All types | MIS = 26 | 12 (1–42) | 82 (73%) | - | - |
OS = 87 | 25 (1–74) | |||||||||
Liu et al., 2014 | 2002–2012 | Retrospective | 16 | Monocentric China | All types | MIS = 35 | 36 to 84 | 66 (88%) | - | - |
OS = 40 | ||||||||||
Lu et al., 2016 | 2002–2014 | Retrospective | 19 | Monocentric China | Epithelial | MIS = 42 | 82 (16–152) | - | - | - |
OS = 50 | 82 (16–152) | |||||||||
Melamed et al., 2016 | 2010–2012 | Retrospective | 20 | Multicenter USA | Epithelial | MIS = 1096 | 28.7 (20.4–38.9) | 1230 (56%) | - | - |
OS = 1096 | 29.3 (20.6–39.3) | |||||||||
Minig et al., 2016 | 2006–2014 | Retrospective | 17 | Multicenter Spain and Argentina | Epithelial | MIS = 50 | 25.9 (11.2–38.5) | 66 (61%) | - | - |
OS = 58 | 34.3 (32.8–49) | |||||||||
Wu et al., 2009 | 1984–2006 | Retrospective | 18 | Multicenter Taiwan | Epithelial | MIS = 34 | 48.5 (3–174.5) | 152 (78%) | - | - |
OS = 174 | 67 (2–276) | |||||||||
Advanced ovarian cancer | ||||||||||
Alletti et al., 2016 | 2010–2014 | Retrospective | 17 | Monocentric Italy | High grade serous | MIS = 30 | 28 | 95 (100%) | 95 (100%) | 91 (96%) |
OS = 65 | ||||||||||
Brown et al., 2018 | 2006–2017 | Retrospective | 19 | Monocentric USA | Epithelial | MIS = 53 | - | - | 157 (100%) | 76 (48%) |
OS = 104 | ||||||||||
Ceccaroni et al., 2017 | 2007–2015 | Prospective | 19 | Monocentric Italy | All types | MIS = 21 | 47.3 (12–72) | 66 (100%) | 0 | 58 (88%) |
OS = 45 | 52.3 (5–117) | |||||||||
Favero et al., 2015 | 2011–2014 | Prospective | 20 | Monocentric Brazil | High grade serous | MIS = 10 | 20 (12–26) | 21 (100%) | 21 (100%) | 21 (100%) |
OS = 11 | 36 (24–48) | |||||||||
Jochum et al., 2020 | 2010–2018 | Retrospective | 19 | Monocentric France | Epithelial | MIS = 41 | 31.0 (16.0–52.0) | 67 (82%) | 45 (55%) | 82 (100%) |
OS = 41 | 32.0 (23.0–61.0) | |||||||||
Magrina et al., 2011 | 2002–2008 | Retrospective | 17 | Monocentric USA | Epithelial | MIS = 27 | 52.8 (2.4–110.4) | 106 (73%) | 36 (25%) | 92 (63%) |
OS = 119 | 34.8 (0–128.4) | |||||||||
Melamed et al., 2017 | 2010–2012 | Retrospective | 19 | Multicenter USA | Epithelial | MIS = 540 | 32.0 | - | 3161 (100%) | 919 (49%) |
OS = 2621 | ||||||||||
Tozzi et al., 2016 | 2008–2016 | Prospective | 19 | Multicenter Italy and United Kingdom | All type | MIS = 18 | - | - | 50 (100%) | 49 (98%) |
OS = 32 | - |
Metaregression | k | Exponentiated Slope Coefficient (95% CI) | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Five-year mortality | |||
Metaregression by adjuvant therapy, % | |||
Early stage | 6 | 0.01 (−0.04 to 0.07) | 0.55 |
Overall | 8 | −0.00 (−0.05 to 0.05) | 0.99 |
Metaregression by neoadjuvant therapy, % | |||
Advanced stage | 3 | 0.01 (−0.08 to 0.09) | 0.51 |
Metaregression by complete resection, % | |||
Advanced stage | 3 | −0.00 (−0.12 to 0.11) | 0.77 |
Three-year mortality | |||
Metaregression by adjuvant therapy, % | |||
Early stage | 7 | −0.01 (−0.04 to 0.02) | 0.53 |
Advanced stage | 4 | −0.05 (−0.20 to 0.09) | 0.24 |
Overall | 11 | −0.02 (−0.04 to 0.00) | 0.06 |
Metaregression by neoadjuvant therapy, % | |||
Advanced stage | 5 | 0.01 (−0.01 to 0.02) | 0.21 |
Metaregression by complete resection, % | |||
Advanced stage | 6 | −0.04 (−0.06 to −0.02) | 0.01 |
Five-year recurrence | |||
Metaregression by adjuvant therapy, % | |||
Early stage | 6 | 0.00 (−0.02 to 0.03) | 0.69 |
Overall | 8 | 0.00 (−0.01 to 0.01) | 0.78 |
Metaregression by neoadjuvant therapy, % | |||
Advanced stage | 3 | −0.01 (−0.04 to 0.03) | 0.25 |
Meta-regression by complete resection, % | |||
Advanced stage | 3 | 0.01 (−0.02 to 0.03) | 0.14 |
Three-year recurrence | |||
Metaregression by adjuvant therapy, % | |||
Early stage | 6 | −0.01 (−0.03 to 0.02) | 0.58 |
Advanced stage | 3 | 0.03 (−0.04 to 0.10) | 0.12 |
Overall | 9 | −0.00 (−0.02 to 0.01) | 0.66 |
Metaregression by neoadjuvant therapy, % | |||
Advanced stage | 4 | −0.00 (−0.02 to 0.02) | 0.73 |
Metaregression by complete resection, % | |||
Advanced stage | 4 | 0.01 (−0.03 to 0.04) | 0.55 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jochum, F.; Vermel, M.; Faller, E.; Boisrame, T.; Lecointre, L.; Akladios, C. Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082507
Jochum F, Vermel M, Faller E, Boisrame T, Lecointre L, Akladios C. Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(8):2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082507
Chicago/Turabian StyleJochum, Floriane, Muriel Vermel, Emilie Faller, Thomas Boisrame, Lise Lecointre, and Cherif Akladios. 2020. "Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 8: 2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082507
APA StyleJochum, F., Vermel, M., Faller, E., Boisrame, T., Lecointre, L., & Akladios, C. (2020). Three and Five-Year Mortality in Ovarian Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(8), 2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082507