Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials have been designed to compare secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone for management of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This study aimed to compare differences in clinical outcomes between these two treatment approaches. Methods: The PRISMA statement was applied. Only phase 3 randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis. Results: Three randomized clinical trials (n = 1250 patients) were identified. Secondary cytoreductive surgery was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) improvement than systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 95% CI, 0.61–0.78; p < 0.001). The PFS benefit was greater for the complete resection subpopulation (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48–0.66; p < 0.001). The HR of overall survival (OS) was similar between the groups (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78–1.10; p = 0.37), but it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.91) in favor of the complete resection subpopulation. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed secondary cytoreductive surgery as superior to systemic therapy alone in terms of PFS. The PFS and OS benefits were particularly observed for complete surgical resection. The impact on OS in the general population remains to be proven.

The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Marchetti, C.; Fagotti, A.; Tombolini, V.; Scambia, G.; De Felice, F.. - In: ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 1068-9265. - 28:6(2021), pp. 3258-3263. [10.1245/s10434-020-09226-7]

The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tombolini V.;De Felice F.
Ultimo
2021

Abstract

Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials have been designed to compare secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone for management of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This study aimed to compare differences in clinical outcomes between these two treatment approaches. Methods: The PRISMA statement was applied. Only phase 3 randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis. Results: Three randomized clinical trials (n = 1250 patients) were identified. Secondary cytoreductive surgery was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) improvement than systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 95% CI, 0.61–0.78; p < 0.001). The PFS benefit was greater for the complete resection subpopulation (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48–0.66; p < 0.001). The HR of overall survival (OS) was similar between the groups (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78–1.10; p = 0.37), but it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.91) in favor of the complete resection subpopulation. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed secondary cytoreductive surgery as superior to systemic therapy alone in terms of PFS. The PFS and OS benefits were particularly observed for complete surgical resection. The impact on OS in the general population remains to be proven.
2021
carcinoma ovarian epithelial; disease-free survival; female; humans; neoplasm recurrence; local; progression-free survival; cytoreduction surgical procedures; ovarian neoplasms
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Marchetti, C.; Fagotti, A.; Tombolini, V.; Scambia, G.; De Felice, F.. - In: ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 1068-9265. - 28:6(2021), pp. 3258-3263. [10.1245/s10434-020-09226-7]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Marchetti_The Role of_2021.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 452.09 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
452.09 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1556374
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact