Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is superior to primary debulking surgery in terms of perioperative complications and progression-free survival, in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer patients with high tumor load.MethodsPatients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (stage IIIC-IV) underwent laparoscopy. Patients with high tumor load assessed by a standardized laparoscopic predictive index were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo either primary debulking surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (arm A), or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Co-primary outcome measures were progression-free survival and post-operative complications; secondary outcomes were overall survival, and quality of life. Survival analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat population.Results171 patients were randomly assigned to primary debulking surgery (n=84) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=87). Rates of complete resection (R0) were different between the arms (47.6% in arm A vs 77.0% in arm B; p=0.001). 53 major postoperative complications were registered, mainly distributed in arm A compared with arm B (25.9% vs 7.6%; p=0.0001). All patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. With an overall median follow-up of 59 months (95% CI 53 to 64), 142 (83.0%) disease progressions/recurrences and 103 deaths (60.2%) occurred. Median progression-free and overall survival were 15 and 41 months for patients assigned to primary debulking surgery, compared with 14 and 43 months for patients assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, p=0.73; HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.65, p=0.56).ConclusionsNeoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary debulking surgery have the same efficacy when used at their maximal possibilities, but the toxicity profile is different.

Individual patient data from two randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with upfront debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer were analysed to examine long-term outcomes for patients and to identify any preferable therapeutic approaches for subgroup populations. We did a per-protocol pooled analysis of individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 55971 trial (NCT00003636) and the Medical Research Council Chemotherapy Or Upfront Surgery (CHORUS) trial (ISRCTN74802813). In the EORTC trial, eligible women had biopsy-proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian carcinoma. In the CHORUS trial, inclusion criteria were similar to those of the EORTC trial, and women with apparent FIGO stage IIIA and IIIB disease were also eligible. The main aim of the pooled analysis was to show non-inferiority in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery, using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Tests for heterogeneity were based on Cochran's Q heterogeneity statistic. Data for 1220 women were included in the pooled analysis, 670 from the EORTC trial and 550 from the CHORUS trial. 612 women were randomly allocated to receive upfront debulking surgery and 608 to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·0–9·6; EORTC, 9·2 years [IQR 7·3–10·4]; CHORUS, 5·9 years [IQR 4·3–7·4]). Median age was 63 years (IQR 56–71) and median size of the largest metastatic tumour at diagnosis was 8 cm (IQR 4·8–13·0). 55 (5%) women had FIGO stage II–IIIB disease, 831 (68%) had stage IIIC disease, and 230 (19%) had stage IV disease, with staging data missing for 104 (9%) women. In the entire population, no difference in median overall survival was noted between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery (27·6 months [IQR 14·1–51·3] and 26·9 months [12·7–50·1], respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·86–1·09; p=0·586). Median overall survival for EORTC and CHORUS patients was significantly different at 30·2 months (IQR 15·7–53·7) and 23·6 months (10·5–46·9), respectively (HR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·36; p=0·004), but was not heterogeneous (Cochran's Q, p=0·17). Women with stage IV disease had significantly better outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery (median overall survival 24·3 months [IQR 14·1–47·6] and 21·2 months [10·0–36·4], respectively; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58–1·00; p=0·048; median progression-free survival 10·6 months [7·9–15·0] and 9·7 months [5·2–13·2], respectively; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59–1·00; p=0·049). Long-term follow-up data substantiate previous results showing that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery result in similar overall survival in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer, with better survival in women with stage IV disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This pooled analysis, with long-term follow-up, shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with stage IIIC–IV tubo-ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with a high tumour burden at presentation or poor performance status. National Cancer Institute and Vlaamse Liga tegen kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

Background At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Methods In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3–4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. Discussion The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) and administration of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have shown their efficacy in multiple malignancies and also could offer a prognostic benefit for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. MethodsA prospective, single-center, parallel-group, randomized phase 3 clinical trial analyzed patients with a diagnosis of carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NACT). In this trial, 71 patients were randomized to receive CRS alone (36 patients) or CRS with HIPEC (35 patients) using cisplatin (75 mg/m2 for 60 min at 42 °C). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Overall survival (OS), morbidity, and quality of life (QoL) were the secondary end points.ResultsDuring a median follow-up period of 32 months, the median DFS was 12 months in the control group (CRS) and 18 months in the experimental group (CRS and HIPEC). The findings showed HIPEC to be an independent protective factor against the development of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.89; p = 0.038). The median OS was 45 months in the control group and 52 months in the experimental group. The respective morbidity rates for any grade (1 to 5) were respectively 58.3 % and 45.7 % (p > 0.05), with a mortality rates of 2.8 % and 2.9 % (p > 0.05). In the dimensions evaluated, CRS with or without HIPEC had no impact on QoL.ConclusionsFor patients who had advanced ovarian cancer treated with NACT, CRS and HIPEC was associated with better DFS and OS, but without a difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality, or in the QoL evaluation.

IntroductionThe objective of the current study was to comprehensively assess the change of practice in hepatobiliary surgery by determining the rates and the trends of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing surgery for primary liver cancer over time.MethodsPatients undergoing curative-intent resection for primary liver malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed using a large, international multi-institutional dataset. Rates of TO were assessed over time. Factors associated with achieving a TO and the impact of TO on long-term survival were examined.ResultsAmong 1829 patients, 944 (51.6%) and 885 (48.4%) individuals underwent curative-intent resection for HCC and ICC, respectively. Over time, patients were older, more frequently had ASA class > 2, albumin-bilirubin grade 2/3, major vascular invasion and more frequently underwent major liver resection (all p < 0.05). Overall, a total of 1126 (62.0%) patients achieved a TO. No increasing trends in TO rates were noted over the years (ptrend = 0.90). In addition, there was no increasing trend in the TO rates among patients undergoing either major (ptrend = 0.39) or minor liver resection (ptrend = 0.63) over the study period. Achieving a TO was independently associated with 26% and 37% decreased hazards of death among ICC (HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.97) and HCC patients (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46–0.85), respectively.ConclusionApproximately 6 in 10 patients undergoing surgery for primary liver tumors achieved a TO. While TO rates did not increase over time, TO was associated with better long-term outcomes following liver resection for both HCC and ICC.

BackgroundA Total Retroperitoneal en bloc resection Of Multivisceral-Peritoneal packet (TROMP operation) is a no-touch isolation technique in a retroperitoneal space to resect the parietal peritoneum and the affected organs in advanced ovarian cancer. The study prescribed and analysed the results of this novel technique for primary cytoreductive surgery.MethodsThe study included 208 patients operated between January 2015 and December 2017 in Charité, Berlin. The TROMP operation was performed in 58 patients, whereas the other 150 patients were operated with the conventional cytoreductive method.ResultsThe complete tumor resection rate accounts for 87.9% in TROMP group and 61.3% in the conventional surgery group. (p=0.001). This difference was even stronger in the sub-group of very advanced stages (T3c+T4) (85.1% of TROMP group and in only 53.1% in the conventional surgery group, p=0.001). The duration of the primary cytoreductive surgery was about 33 minutes shorter in TROMP group (median: 335 minutes vs 368 minutes; TROMP vs conventional, respectively) in spite of the fact that the most advanced cytoreductive procedures were performed statically significant more in TROMP operation arm in comparison with the conventional surgery arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the postoperative complication, blood loss or the length of stay in intensive care unit.ConclusionTotal retroperitoneal en bloc resection of multivisceral-peritoneal packet (TROMP operation) is a feasible and very effective technique of surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. This technique increased the complete tumor resection rate to 87.9% without increasing the blood loss, postoperative complications or the duration of surgery. A prospective randomized study is advised to validate these results.

BackgroundPrimary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard management for patients with advanced ovarian cancer over decades. An alternative approach of interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was subsequently reported by two randomized phase III trials (EORTC‐GCG, CHORUS), which were criticized owing to important limitations, especially regarding the rate of complete resection.Primary ObjectiveTo clarify the optimal timing of surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer.Study HypothesisPrimary cytoreductive surgery is superior to interval cytoreductive surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Trial DesignTRUST is an international open, randomized, controlled multi-center trial investigating overall survival after primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with FIGO stage IIIB–IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To guarantee adequate surgical quality, participating centers need to fulfill specific quality assurance criteria (eg, ≥50% complete resection rate in upfront surgery for FIGO IIIB–IVB patients, ≥36 debulking-surgeries/year) and agree to independent audits by TRUST quality committee delegates. Patients in the primary cytoreductive surgery arm undergo surgery followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas patients in the interval cytoreductive surgery arm undergo 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after histologic confirmation of the disease, followed by interval cytoreductive surgery and subsequently, 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. The intention of surgery for both groups is complete tumor resection according to guideline recommendations.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaMajor inclusion criteria are suspected or histologically confirmed, newly diagnosed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma FIGO stage IIIB–IVB (IV only if resectable metastasis). Major exclusion criteria are non-epithelial ovarian malignancies and borderline tumors; prior chemotherapy for ovarian cancer; or abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy.Primary EndpointOverall survival.Sample Size772 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsAccrual completion approximately mid-2019, results are expected after 5 years' follow-up in 2024.Trial Registration NCT02828618.

BackgroundObservational studies have supported the practice of offering minimally invasive interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for well-selected patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. However, there are no prospective randomized data comparing the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive and open interval debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.Primary objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to examine whether minimally invasive surgery is non-inferior to laparotomy in terms of disease-free survival in women with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer that responded to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Study hypothesisWe hypothesize that in patients who had a complete or partial response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive interval debulking surgery is not inferior to laparotomy.Trial designThe Laparoscopic cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant ChEmotherapy (LANCE) trial is an international, prospective, randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority phase III trial to compare minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy in women with advanced stage high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer that had a complete or partial response to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and normalization of CA-125. The first 100 participants will be enrolled into a pilot lead-in to determine feasibility. The study will be considered feasible and will continue to Phase III under the following conditions: the accrual rate reaches at least 80% of the target rate after all pilot sites are open; the crossover rate in the minimally invasive group is less than 25%; and the difference of complete gross resection between the minimally invasive and open group is less than 20%. If the study is determined to be feasible, all remaining participants will be enrolled into the Phase III stage.Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaPatients with stage IIIC or IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinoma who had a complete or partial response to three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on imaging and normalization of CA-125 will be enrolled. Patients with evidence of tumor not amenable to minimally invasive resection on pre-operative imaging will be excluded.Primary endpointThe primary endpoint is non-inferiority of disease-free survival in minimally invasive vs laparotomic interval debulking surgery.Sample sizeTo demonstrate non-inferiority with a margin of 33% in the hazard ratio (HR=1.33), 549 patients will be randomized.

Background The current treatment of ovarian cancer consists of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and systemic chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine if hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an alternative modality to treat this category of patients along with a second attempt of surgical resection and second- or third-line systemic chemotherapy afterward. Methods In an 8-year period (2006–2013), 120 women with advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] III c and IV) who experienced disease recurrence after initial treatment with conservative or debulking surgery and systemic chemotherapy were randomized into two groups. Group A comprised 60 patients treated with CRS followed by HIPEC and then systemic chemotherapy. Group B comprised 60 patients treated with CRS only and systemic chemotherapy. Results The mean survival for group A was 26.7 versus 13.4 months in group B ( p  < 0.006). Three-year survival was 75 % for group A versus 18 % for group B ( p  < 0.01). In the HIPEC group, the mean survival was not different between patients with platinum-resistant disease versus platinum-sensitive disease (26.6 vs. 26.8 months). On the other hand, in the non-HIPEC group, there was a statistically significant difference between platinum-sensitive versus platinum-resistant disease (15.2 vs. 10.2 months, p  < 0.002). Complete cytoreduction was associated with longer survival. Patients with a peritoneal cancer index score of <15 appeared also to have longer survival. Conclusions The use of HIPEC along with the extent of the disease and the extent of cytoreduction play an important role in the survival of patients with recurrence in an initially advanced ovarian cancer.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) at interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer improves overall survival but its role in recurrent disease is uncertain. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients treated with or without HIPEC during surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer. The multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 CHIPOR trial was conducted at 31 sites in France, Belgium, Spain, and Canada, and enrolled patients with first relapse of epithelial ovarian cancer at least 6 months after completing platinum-based chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with WHO performance status of less than 2. After six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (and optional bevacizumab), patients amenable to complete cytoreductive surgery were randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio, using a web-based system and a minimisation procedure, during surgery to receive HIPEC (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 in 2 L/m2 of serum at 41±1°C for 60 min) or not, stratified by centre, completeness of cytoreduction score, platinum-free interval, and latterly, planned poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned patients. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01376752. Between May 11, 2011, and May 14, 2021, 415 female patients were randomly assigned (207 HIPEC, 208 no HIPEC). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 6·2 years, IQR 4·1–8·1), 268 (65%) patients had died (126 [61%] of 207 in the HIPEC group; 142 [68%] of 208 in the no-HIPEC group). Overall survival was significantly improved with HIPEC (stratified hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56–0·96; p=0·024). Median overall survival was 54·3 months (95% CI 41·9–61·7) with HIPEC versus 45·8 months (38·9–54·2) without. Grade 3 or worse adverse events within 60 days after surgery occurred in 102 (49%) of 207 patients receiving HIPEC versus 56 (27%) of 208 receiving no HIPEC, the most common being anaemia (47 [23%] vs 30 [14%]), hepatotoxicity (23 [11%] vs 18 [9%]), electrolyte disturbance (28 [14%] vs two [1%]), and renal failure (20 [10%] vs three [1%]). There were three deaths within 60 days of surgery, all in the no-HIPEC group. Adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery after response to platinum-based chemotherapy at first epithelial ovarian cancer recurrence significantly improved overall survival. When treating patients with late first relapse of high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer amenable to complete cytoreductive surgery at specialist centres, platinum-based HIPEC should be considered to extend overall survival. French National Cancer Institute and French League Against Cancer.