Re-operation outcome in patients referred to a gynecologic oncology center with presumed ovarian cancer FIGO I-IIIA after sub-standard initial surgery

• Published in: Surgical oncology Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 31 - 35
• Main Authors: Grabowski, J.P, Harter, P, Buhrmann, C, Lorenz, D, Hils, R, Kommoss, S, Traut, A, du Bois, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2012; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Comprehensive staging; Early ovarian cancer; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - standards; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Neoplasm, Residual; Ovarian cancer; Ovarian Neoplasms - pathology; Ovarian Neoplasms - surgery; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Prospective Studies; Quality of Health Care; Re-staging; Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult; Re-staging; Early ovarian cancer; Comprehensive staging
• ISSN: 0960-7404; 1879-3320
• DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2010.08.006

Abstract Background Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for early ovarian cancer both as therapeutic and comprehensive staging. Only the latter allows appropriate tailoring of systemic treatment. However, the compliance with guidelines for comprehensive staging has been reported to be only moderate and, therefore, re-staging procedures are commonly indicated to avoid undertreatment. The purpose of our study was to evaluate re-operation in a tertiary gynecologic oncology unit after primary operation for presumably ovarian cancer FIGO I-IIIA in general gynecology departments. Material and methods Forty consecutive patients after primary surgery in the outside institutions for presumed early ovarian cancer with assumed tumor spread limited to the pelvis (FIGO I-IIIA) admitted to our department between 1999 and 2007 were included. In 35 cases re-staging surgery in our unit was indicated. The intra- and post-operative results were compared with initial diagnosis and sites of undetected disease were evaluated. Reasons for re-staging and referral pattern were studied. Results 40 patients were enrolled of whom 53% came by self-referral. Only 18% were referred by the primary surgeon and the remaining patients were referred by their home gynecologist. Only 5 patients (13%) were classified as having had a comprehensive staging by surgical records and pathology reports and 35 patients underwent comprehensive re-staging laparotomy after which 20 patients (50%) experienced an upstaging including 13 patients with final diagnosis of FIGO stage IIIC. Most frequent sites of primarily undetected tumor were peritoneum (pelvic 34%, diaphragm 13%, paracolic 8%), lymph nodes (para aortic 32%, pelvic 11%), intestines 24%, and residual omental tissue 18%. The indication for post-operative chemotherapy was modified in 53% of patients. Conclusion Comprehensive staging of presumed early ovarian cancer has been described as major problem especially outside gynecologic oncology units. Re-staging results in our department confirmed this deficiency by showing a considerable proportion of upstaging associated with alterations of recommendations for systemic treatment. However, series like this may even underestimate the problem, because incomplete staging is unfortunately accompanied by non-systematic referral practices not reflecting staging quality.