ObjectiveThe selection of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open laparotomy for ovarian cancer (OC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open laparotomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced OC, so as to provide another option to select optimal surgical procedures for patients with OC.MethodsRelevant literature studies about the risks of progression or mortality between women receiving MIS and open laparotomy for interval debulking surgery (IDS) were searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with the following keywords: “ovarian neoplasms”, “minimally invasive surgical procedures”, “laparotomy”, and “neoadjuvant therapy”. Eligible studies were screened out for further meta-analysis.ResultsSix eligible literature studies, with 643 patients in the MIS group and 2,885 patients in the open laparotomy group, were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences were detected in the overall survival (OS) of patients with OC who were treated with MIS or open laparotomy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59–1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.051, I2 = 57.6%]. However, the progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with laparotomy (HR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.92; heterogeneity: P = 0.276, I2 = 22.4%). The completeness of debulking removal (R0 rate) in the open laparotomy group was not statistically higher compared with the control group (RR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.098, I2 = 52.3%), and no significant differences in residual disease of ≤1 cm (R1) (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.28; heterogeneity: P = 0.330, I2 = 12.6%) and postoperative complications were found between the two groups (RR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.54; heterogeneity: P = 0.055, I2 = 60.6%). Furthermore, the length of stays in hospital was significantly shorter in patients with OC treated with MIS than those treated with open laparotomy (Standard Mean Difference (SMD) = −1.21; 95% CI = −1.78 to −0.64; heterogeneity: P < 0.001, I2 = 92.7%].ConclusionsFor IDS after NACT in patients with advanced OC, complete cytoreductive surgery with MIS is another feasible and effective choiceSystematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022298519, identifier CRD42022298519

Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in treating recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer (OC).Methods: The online databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, were searched for relevant literatures on exploring the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent/refractory OC. The keywords are as follows: Ovarian neoplasms, programmed death receptor, PD-1, PD-L1, immunotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitor. Furthermore, qualified studies were screened for further meta-analysis.Results: In this study, 11 studies (990 patients) were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent/refractory OC. The combined results proved that the objective response rate (ORR) was 6.7%, 95% CI (4.6%,9.2%), disease control rate (DCR) was 37.9%, 95% CI (33.0%, 42.8%), median overall survival (OS) was 10.70 months, 95% CI (9.23, 12.17), and median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.24 months, 95% CI (2.05, 2.43). In addition, in terms of the safety of patients suffering from recurrent/refractory OC and receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, the combined treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were 70.9% (61.7%–80.2%), and the combined immune related adverse events (iAEs) were 29%, 95% CI (14.7%, 43.3%).Conclusion: In patients with recurrent/refractory OC, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were used alone and there was no obvious evidence of improved efficacy and survival. As for safety, the incidences of TRAEs and iAEs are high, so PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors should be applied according to individual conditions.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=367525, identifier CRD42022367525.