Search

Objectives: Diaphragmatic stripping is a standard procedure that is performed in a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the present study is to evaluate morbidity and survival outcomes among patients offered diaphragmatic surgery for primary diagnosed optimally resected ovarian cancer., Study Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that were offered surgery between 2016 and 2021 for primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Cases that had diaphragmatic stripping or partial diaphragmatic resection were selected and compared to cases that did not require this procedure. Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses were applied to evaluate survival outcomes., Results: Overall, 61 patients that had diaphragmatic stripping were identified. Severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo 3 + ) were noted in 19 patients (31 %). Survival analyses denoted that the stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis, as well as the timing of the surgical procedure (PDS vs IDS) and the completion of tumor debulking were factors that significantly affected the recurrence free and overall survival of patients. Severe postoperative morbidity was a significant predictor of the overall survival. Multivariate cox-regression analysis that was adjusted for the stage of the disease revealed that preoperative pleural effusion, optimal (compared to complete) tumor resection and the occurrence of postoperative complications significantly affected the overall survival of patients. Compared to patients that did not have diaphragmatic surgery, patients submitted to diaphragmatic stripping or resection had improved progression free and overall survival rates, irrespective of the stage of the disease at diagnosis or the adequacy of resection status., Conclusions: Diaphragmatic surgery is feasible in advanced ovarian cancer patients with acceptable morbidity that mainly refers to postoperative pleural effusion. Its positive impact on patients' survival requires further investigation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The chemotherapy response score (CRS) has been widely adopted as a predictive tool for ovarian cancer survival. In the present study, we seek to define differences in survival rates among patients grouped in the traditionally established three-tiered system and those who have not been offered debulking surgery., Study Design: We designed a retrospective cohort study involving women treated with chemotherapy and offered interval or late debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. Twenty-eight women were not considered for a debulking procedure for various reasons. Of the 89 women who were finally offered interval debulking or late debulking surgery, 28 had a CRS 1 score, 34 had a CRS 2 score and 27 had a CRS 3 score., Results: Significant differences were noted in the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients based on the CRS stratification, although survival rates were considerably longer for all three groups compared to those of patients who were not offered surgery. Cox regression univariate analysis revealed that suboptimal debulking and CRS 1 or no surgery had a significant negative impact on PFS and OS rates. The binary stratification of CRS (CRS 1-2 vs CRS 3) revealed comparable differences in the PFS and OS to those in the groups that were stratified as platinum resistant and platinum sensitive., Conclusion: The chemotherapy response score is a significant determinant of ovarian cancer survival that helps evaluate the risk of early disease relapse and death and may soon be useful in guiding patient-tailored treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)