晚期上皮性卵巢癌的原发囊肿切除手术与新辅助化疗后的间隔囊肿切除手术:回顾性队列研究

Shristee Shrestha Prajapati, Anisha Shrestha, Usha Shrestha, Roshan Prajapati, Sagar Tiwari, Siddinath Gyawali, G. Sah
{"title":"晚期上皮性卵巢癌的原发囊肿切除手术与新辅助化疗后的间隔囊肿切除手术:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Shristee Shrestha Prajapati, Anisha Shrestha, Usha Shrestha, Roshan Prajapati, Sagar Tiwari, Siddinath Gyawali, G. Sah","doi":"10.3126/njc.v7i1.60019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) represents about two-thirds of ovarian malignancies and usually presents with advanced disease. Primary cytoreductive (PCR) surgery is known to be the cornerstone of treatment of advanced EOC, but it might not always be feasible to obtain optimal cytoreduction. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been proposed as an alternative approach. This study aims to compare the survival of patients, post-operative morbidity and the extent of cytoreduction that was achieved among the two treatment groups. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done in Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital of Nepal. All women who underwent surgical management for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer from 2016 to 2019 were included in the study and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Results: Among 29 cases of advanced EOC, seven cases underwent PCR and 22 cases had NACT followed by interval cytoreduction (ICR). Optimal debulking was achieved in 85.7% of the cases in the PCR group and in 95.5% in the NACT+ICR group. Overall survival of >3 years in the PCR group was 42.9% while in the NACT group was 59.1%. Progression free survival (PFS) of >3 years was seen in 28.6% in the PCR group and in 45.5% in the NACT group. Conclusions: The current study shows that NACT followed by ICR has better survival outcomes than PCR. Despite the limitations of the study, NACT + ICR can be considered a reasonable alternative to PCR in advanced EOC.","PeriodicalId":133249,"journal":{"name":"Nepalese Journal of Cancer","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary Cytoreductive Surgery versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy followed by Interval Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"Shristee Shrestha Prajapati, Anisha Shrestha, Usha Shrestha, Roshan Prajapati, Sagar Tiwari, Siddinath Gyawali, G. Sah\",\"doi\":\"10.3126/njc.v7i1.60019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) represents about two-thirds of ovarian malignancies and usually presents with advanced disease. Primary cytoreductive (PCR) surgery is known to be the cornerstone of treatment of advanced EOC, but it might not always be feasible to obtain optimal cytoreduction. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been proposed as an alternative approach. This study aims to compare the survival of patients, post-operative morbidity and the extent of cytoreduction that was achieved among the two treatment groups. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done in Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital of Nepal. All women who underwent surgical management for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer from 2016 to 2019 were included in the study and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Results: Among 29 cases of advanced EOC, seven cases underwent PCR and 22 cases had NACT followed by interval cytoreduction (ICR). Optimal debulking was achieved in 85.7% of the cases in the PCR group and in 95.5% in the NACT+ICR group. Overall survival of >3 years in the PCR group was 42.9% while in the NACT group was 59.1%. Progression free survival (PFS) of >3 years was seen in 28.6% in the PCR group and in 45.5% in the NACT group. Conclusions: The current study shows that NACT followed by ICR has better survival outcomes than PCR. Despite the limitations of the study, NACT + ICR can be considered a reasonable alternative to PCR in advanced EOC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":133249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nepalese Journal of Cancer\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nepalese Journal of Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3126/njc.v7i1.60019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nepalese Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/njc.v7i1.60019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:上皮性卵巢癌(EOC)约占卵巢恶性肿瘤的三分之二,通常为晚期疾病。众所周知,原发囊肿剥脱术(PCR)是治疗晚期卵巢癌的基石,但并非总能获得最佳的囊肿剥脱效果。新辅助化疗(NACT)被认为是一种替代方法。本研究旨在比较两种治疗组患者的生存率、术后发病率和达到的细胞还原程度。研究方法在尼泊尔巴克塔普尔癌症医院进行了一项回顾性队列研究。研究纳入了 2016 年至 2019 年期间接受晚期上皮性卵巢癌手术治疗的所有女性,并使用 SPSS 23 版进行了分析。研究结果在 29 例晚期卵巢癌患者中,7 例接受了 PCR,22 例接受了 NACT,随后进行了间歇性细胞减灭术(ICR)。PCR组中85.7%的病例实现了最佳剥脱,NACT+ICR组中95.5%的病例实现了最佳剥脱。PCR 组中总生存期大于 3 年的病例占 42.9%,而 NACT 组中总生存期大于 3 年的病例占 59.1%。无进展生存期(PFS)大于 3 年的 PCR 组为 28.6%,NACT 组为 45.5%。结论:目前的研究表明,NACT 后再行 ICR 的生存效果优于 PCR。尽管研究存在局限性,但在晚期 EOC 中,NACT + ICR 可被视为 PCR 的合理替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Primary Cytoreductive Surgery versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy followed by Interval Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Introduction: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) represents about two-thirds of ovarian malignancies and usually presents with advanced disease. Primary cytoreductive (PCR) surgery is known to be the cornerstone of treatment of advanced EOC, but it might not always be feasible to obtain optimal cytoreduction. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been proposed as an alternative approach. This study aims to compare the survival of patients, post-operative morbidity and the extent of cytoreduction that was achieved among the two treatment groups. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done in Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital of Nepal. All women who underwent surgical management for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer from 2016 to 2019 were included in the study and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Results: Among 29 cases of advanced EOC, seven cases underwent PCR and 22 cases had NACT followed by interval cytoreduction (ICR). Optimal debulking was achieved in 85.7% of the cases in the PCR group and in 95.5% in the NACT+ICR group. Overall survival of >3 years in the PCR group was 42.9% while in the NACT group was 59.1%. Progression free survival (PFS) of >3 years was seen in 28.6% in the PCR group and in 45.5% in the NACT group. Conclusions: The current study shows that NACT followed by ICR has better survival outcomes than PCR. Despite the limitations of the study, NACT + ICR can be considered a reasonable alternative to PCR in advanced EOC.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Right ovarian Endodermal sinus tumor and left ovarian Gonadoblastoma in a young female of Turner’s syndrome: a case report. Fate of de-functioning ileostomy after left colon and rectal cancer resection: observation from a single unit of a cancer hospital. Primary Epithelioid Sarcoma of Frontotemporal Scalp: a Rare Case Report with Recent Literature Review Clinicopathological profile of Papillary thyroid carcinoma in a tertiary cancer hospital in Nepal Clinicopathological profile of breast cancer in young females at tertiary cancer center in Nepal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1