Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review

Giede, Kurt Christopher; Kieser, Katharina; Dodge, Jason; Rosen, Barry P.

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.008

Cited by 183 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other multivisceral techniques such as bowel resection and extra-peritoneal preparation are further relevant procedures aiming at the optimizing of the surgical outcome in advanced ovarian cancer. This implies a special surgical training in these techniques in order to perform the adequate therapeutic surgical procedure especially in cases of multivisceral involvement like pancreas, spleen and liver [21,22,[23][24][25]. Furthermore, special demands on the clinical infrastructure regarding, for example, intensive unit care and interdisciplinary teams are warranted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 patients with primary ovarian cancer

Sehouli

Senyuva

Fotopoulou

et al. 2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We performed a systematic evaluation of tumor pattern and surgical outcome in 214 consecutive patients with primary ovarian cancer. Methods: Based on the surgical and histological reports we retrospectively analyzed tumor localizations, surgical and clinical outcome. Coxregression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of complete tumor resection and mortality. Results: Median age was 57.7 years (range: 20-88). FIGO-stage-I was classified in 8.4% and IV in 16.4% of all patients. The peritoneum was the structure most affected (76%) followed by the colon (52%) and diaphragm (44%). Upper abdominal tumor involvement was associated with a significantly higher rate of lymph node metastasis and a significantly lower rate of complete surgical tumor resection, when compared to patients with tumor limited to the lower abdomen. Median overall survival was 56; 61 and 27 months for patients with tumor load in the upper, lower and whole abdomen respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The intraoperative tumor dissemination pattern and the post-operative tumor residuals are decisive for the prognosis in primary ovarian cancer. There is an urgent need to use a systematic and standardized tumor documentation protocols to define the predictive and prognostic role of specific tumor pattern and to compare the surgical outcomes of different tumor centers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 patients with primary ovarian cancer

Sehouli

Senyuva

Fotopoulou

et al. 2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three additional systematic reviews 12,15,16 that addressed the organization of services for ovarian cancer were identified. The most up-to-date and comprehensive review 15 aligned with the research questions.…”

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Optimal Organization of Gynecologic Oncology Services: A Systematic Review

Fung-Kee-Fung

Biagi²,

Colgan

et al. 2015

Current Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with malignant tumors should be referred to a gynecological oncologist, as the quality of cytoreductive surgery and surgical staging/lymph node dissection are important prognostic factors in ovarian cancer [1,2]. Furthermore, appropriate and timely referral to a gynecological oncologist has been proven to increase survival in patients with ovarian cancer [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass

Javdekar

Maitra

2014

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is central to decisions regarding clinical management and surgical planning in such patients. Purpose of Study To determine if the RMI (RMI 2) can distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted of 58 women with an adnexal mass referred to a teaching hospital for diagnosis and management. Results RMI [ 200 had a sensitivity of 70.5 % (95 % CI 46.87-86.72), a specificity of 87.8 % (95 % CI 74.46-94.68), a positive predictive value of 70.5%, and negative predictive value of 87.8 %. ROC showed that cut off value of 25 achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 82.35 and 43.9 %, respectively, and a cut off value of 1,000 gave a sensitivity and specificity of 58.81 and 97.56 %, respectively. The association between RMI and disease status was not statistically significant for mucinous tumors. Conclusion RMI is a reliable tool in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. It is simple, easy to use and cost effective. However it's predictive accuracy was less for mucinous as compared to serous epithelial ovarian cancers. The study is limited by its small sample size.

show abstract

Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review

Cited by 183 publications

References 38 publications

Intra‐abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 patients with primary ovarian cancer

Intra‐abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 patients with primary ovarian cancer

The Optimal Organization of Gynecologic Oncology Services: A Systematic Review

Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About