Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Does the Diagnosis Center Influence the Prognosis of Ovarian Cancer Patients Submitted to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?

GIUSEPPE VIZZIELLI, FRANCESCO FANFANI, VITO CHIANTERA, LUCIA TORTORELLA, ALESSANDRO LUCIDI, MARCO PETRILLO, BARBARA COSTANTINI, GIOVANNI SCAMBIA and ANNA FAGOTTI
Anticancer Research May 2015, 35 (5) 3027-3032;
GIUSEPPE VIZZIELLI
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: giuseppevizzielli@yahoo.it
FRANCESCO FANFANI
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VITO CHIANTERA
2Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation for Research and Care “Giovanni Paolo II”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LUCIA TORTORELLA
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ALESSANDRO LUCIDI
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
2Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation for Research and Care “Giovanni Paolo II”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARCO PETRILLO
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
2Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Foundation for Research and Care “Giovanni Paolo II”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
BARBARA COSTANTINI
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIOVANNI SCAMBIA
1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANNA FAGOTTI
3Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, St. Maria Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Aim: To compare prognosis of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) patients based on where the first surgical assessment was performed. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of primary AEOC patients was performed and three groups were formed based on where the decision of primary treatment was taken: Internal, if the decision was carried out at our Institution (PDS (Primary Debulking Surgery), I-IDS (Internal-Interval Debulking Surgery)) and Referred in case women were referred after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) from other Centers (R-IDS (Referred-Interval Debulking Surgery)). Results: Among 573 AEOC, 279 (48.7%) were PDS and 294 (51.3%) IDS. In particular, 134 of 294 (45.6%) were R-IDS and 160 (54.4%) were I-IDS. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 26 months in PDS, 14 months in I-IDS and 17 months in R-IDS. The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05) among all groups. Conclusion: IDS can represent a suitable approach only when the first complete debulking is not achievable in a tertiary referral hospital.

  • Ovarian cancer
  • interval debulking surgery
  • cytoreduction
  • prognosis

The completeness of tumor removal is the most important prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) (1-4). A recent analysis of the GOG 182 study reported a median overall survival of 54.6 months in patients with complete resection compared to 40.4 months for patients with residual tumor greater than 1 cm (5). However, the EORTC-NCT00003636 randomized clinical trial showed that approximately 40% of AEOC patients are operated with remaining lesions of more than 1 cm in diameter (6). Indeed, comprehensive surgery for AEOC requires for appropriate skills and training, as well as optimized infrastructures, which are often not available outside of expert Centers (7, 8). Consequently, the rate of optimal primary debulking, resulting in macroscopic complete resection, is still very heterogeneous between the centers and incomplete cytoreduction or explorative surgery are not uncommon occurrences.

In this context, it might be possible that women admitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in some peripheral centers would have benefited of a primary optimal debulking surgery (PDS) in a tertiary level hospital with a significant improvement in terms of prognosis. On the contrary, patients assessed for NACT in a referral center with high rates of primary optimal cytoreduction might suffer from a very aggressive and diffused disease with a very unfavorable prognosis.

To test such a hypothesis, we retrospectively compared clinical characteristics, peri-operative outcome and prognosis of patients admitted to surgery at our tertiary-level Center, based on where the decision of primary treatment was performed: Internal, if the decision was carried-out at our Institution (PDS and I-IDS) and Referred in case women were referred after NACT from other centers (R-IDS).

Patients and Methods

The medical records of patients with AEOC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC–IV disease) admitted to surgery (both PDS and IDS) at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart (CUSH) of Rome and Campobasso from January 2006 to December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. This study period encompasses the time to reach at least 24 months of follow-up for the whole population. Women receiving either exploratory laparotomy/laparoscopy or unexplored, based on clinical and/or radiological data, were submitted to three or more courses of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. A dedicated radiologist reviewed computed tomography (CT) scans at the time of diagnosis and after NACT (9) according to our previously published criteria (10). After NACT, clinical response was assigned according to both Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) (11) and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) criteria (12) and the response has been classified as complete/partial or stable/progressive. According to our previously published data (13), patients were suitable for IDS in case of (i) complete/partial radiological or serological response; (ii) stable radiological disease in the presence of serological response and good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) < 1). A laparoscopic exploration and subsequent laparotomy were performed according to our model (13-16).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patients' characteristics.

The same team, trained in gynecologic oncology surgery, performed surgery over the study period. The type and extent of the procedures were recorded according to the surgical complexity score by Aletti et al. (17) considering the intermediate and high scores (i.e.: score >3) as major surgical procedures. The decision of performing autologous blood transfusion was made during or after surgery according to the patient's hemodynamic conditions and hemoglobin levels. Post-operative recovery was calculated starting from the first post-operative day to the day of hospital discharge. Surgical complications were graded according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) grading system (18). After surgical evaluation, women received 3 courses of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks in case of cytoreduction or started a 2nd-line of chemotherapy in case of not resectable tumor burden and/or intra-operative evaluation of progressive disease. Date of progression (progression-free survival (PFS)) was based on doubling of cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) serum levels (12) and/or the first appearance of one or more new lesions or increased size of existing lesions at CT according to the RECIST criteria (19).

Statistical analysis. Cases were divided into three groups based on where the decision of primary treatment was taken: PDS or I-IDS if the decision was carried-out at CUSH and R-IDS in case women were referred after NACT from other peripheral centers. Peripheral centers were defined as low surgical case volume (<9 AEOC cases/year) (7).

Univariate analysis included Chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test and Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables. Survival time was measured from the day of histological diagnosis to the date of recurrence. Mean and life tables were computed using the product-limit estimate by the Kaplan–Meier method and analyzed by the log-rank test (20-21). All statistical tests were two-sided and differences were considered significant at the level of p<0.05. The SPSS statistical software program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used.

Results

During the study period, 573 primary AEOC were submitted to surgery at CUSH. Among them, 279 (48.7%) received PDS and 294 (51.3%) IDS after NACT. In particular, 134 cases of 294 (45.6%) IDS were referred from other Centers (R-IDS) and 160 cases (54.4%) were internal (I-IDS).

Patients' characteristics, divided into three groups based on their first assessment and primary treatment (PDS, I-IDS, R-IDS), are shown in Table I. No statistically significant clinical differences were observed, except for a higher number of cycles of NACT in the referred patients with respect to the internal cases (6 cycles vs. 4 cycles; p=0.0001). However, all NACT women presented at IDS with similar percentages of radiological and serologica response independently from the Center of disease primary assessment and number of cycles.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

CT-scan parameters at diagnosis.

The up-front judgment of unresectability was made on both radiological and surgical evaluation in all women assessed at our tertiary-level Center, whereas 32/134 (23.9%) referred patients (R-IDS) were firstly defined as unresectable on the bases of radiological criteria only.

Tumor extension at diagnosis, assessed by CT scan, is shown in Table II. As expected, women driven to NACT in our center (I-IDS) showed a much more diffused disease than those submitted to PDS, in terms of bowel and mesentery involvement, diaphragm infiltration, upper disease (i.e. spleen, lesser omentum, stomach) and liver metastases. However, as shown in Table II, similar differences were observed comparing I-IDS women with patients submitted to NACT in peripheral Centers (R-IDS). In fact, in these latter cases, the tumor load was of the same magnitude than in PDS cases treated at the referral center.

Among 279 PDS patients, 217 (77.8%) gained complete cytoreduction at the end of surgery, at the cost of major surgical procedures in 79.2% of the cases. As expected, these patients had a longer operative time and hospital stay, higher blood loss and more frequent major post-operative complications with respect to IDS women (Table III). Regarding IDS, macroscopically-absent residual tumor was achieved in comparable rates of patients, according to Centre of primary diagnosis (58.8% I-IDS vs. 66.4% R-IDS, p=0.186), but with a different rate of major surgical procedures utilized (39.4% I-IDS vs. 24.6% R-IDS; p=0.007). Regarding peri-operative parameters, the two IDS groups did not show any statistically significant difference in terms of operative time or blood loss resulting in a comparable length of stay. The overall high-grade (3 to 5) complication rate was less than 5 % in both groups (Table III).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Progression-free survival (PFS) of AEOC patients submitted to surgery at CUSH. Black line, Primary Debulking Surgery (IPDS); dark grey line, Referred IDS (R-IDS); light grey line, Internal IDS (I-IDS). PFS is expressed in months.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Surgical outcome and peri-operative morbidity.

With a median follow-up of 27 months (95% CI=8-82), median PFS was 26 months (95% CI=21.0-30.9) in PDS, 14 months (95% CI=13.0-14.9) in I-IDS and 17 months (95% CI=14.5-19.4) in R-IDS (Figure 1). The difference was statistically significant between all the groups (PDS vs. I-IDS p=0.0001; PDS vs. R-IDS p=0.0001; I-IDS vs. R-IDS p=0.004).

Discussion

In the present study, we report on the outcome of women submitted to surgery at our tertiary referral medical center depending on the hospital in which they received their primary disease assessment. The main result of this retrospective analysis is that women primarily assessed for NACT at a peripheral Center (R-IDS) have the same tumor burden at diagnosis than cases submitted to PDS in a referral Center. Moreover, when selected in a referral centre (I-IDS), they show a lower tumor load than patients receiving the same approach (NACT+IDS).

This finding clearly supports the idea that if R-IDS patients received their primary assessment in a tertiary referral center, they were offered optimal PDS. Indeed, only about 20% of patients in the R-IDS group have extensive tumor in the upper quadrants and only about 10% have mesenteral retraction at pre-operative CT scan. In other words, based on imaging data and the high rate of ECOG PS <2 patients, a vast majority of R-IDS women could achieve a significant improvement in their median PFS, which rose from 17 up to 26 months, if admitted to PDS.

Moreover, although the incomplete tumor removal is a possible occurrence in AEOC, especially in case of emergency in a peripheral Centre for presumed bowel obstruction or ovarian torsion, up-front re-surgery before the start of chemotherapy may be still feasible and successful in more than half of these patients (23). Referring women to a certified Center of expertise may offer an immediate re-surgery option (24) in most cases and the use of a minimally invasive approach, such as laparoscopy, to assess the chance of complete cytoreduction is an interesting opportunity in these pre-operated cases (15).

On the other hand, in the case R-IDS, patients would not benefit of a different primary treatment; however, they maintain a small but statistically significant advantage in terms of PFS over I-IDS women. The higher rate of complex surgical procedures in the I-IDS vs. R-IDS women (39.4 vs. 24.6; p=0.007) to obtain super imposable rates of optimal cytoreduction (58.8% vs. 66.4%, p=0.186) once more underlines the differences between the groups in terms of a larger initial tumor burden, as well as a lower median number of cycles of NACT administered.

Despite the retrospective nature of the study, we do believe it is unique in supporting, from a different point of view never analyzed before, the well-known issue that AEOC patients should be treated in a tertiary referral centre. These data, together with the observation that disease presentation and survival rates at the time of recurrence are very different between PDS vs. IDS (25), confirm that the primary approach to ovarian cancer plays a crucial role in defining the prognosis of these patients. As a consequence, NACT followed by IDS can represent a suitable approach only in women in whom primary complete debulking is not achievable in tertiary referral hospital.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of Interest

    No conflicts of interest is declared by the Authors.

  • Received February 9, 2015.
  • Revision received February 22, 2015.
  • Accepted February 24, 2015.
  • Copyright© 2015 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hoskins WJ,
    2. McGuire WP,
    3. Brady MF,
    4. Homesley HD,
    5. Creasman WT,
    6. Berman M
    : The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170: 974-979, 1994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sant M,
    2. Allemani C,
    3. Santaquilani M,
    4. Knijn A,
    5. Marchesi F,
    6. Capocaccia R,
    7. EUROCARE Working Group
    . EUROCARE-4: Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995-1999. Results and commentary. Eur J Cancer 45: 931-991, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Heintz AP,
    2. Odicino F,
    3. Maisonneuve P,
    4. Quinn MA,
    5. Benedet JL,
    6. Creasman WT,
    7. Ngan HY,
    8. Pecorelli S,
    9. Beller U
    : Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95(Suppl 1): S161-S192, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Bristow RE,
    2. Tomacruz RS,
    3. Armstrong DK,
    4. Trimble EL,
    5. Montz FJ
    : Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 20: 1248-1259, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Rodriguez N,
    2. Miller A,
    3. Richard SD,
    4. Rungruang B,
    5. Hamilton CA,
    6. Bookman MA,
    7. Maxwell GL,
    8. Horowitz NS,
    9. Krivak TC
    : Upper abdominal procedures in advanced stage ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma patients with minimal or no gross residual disease: an analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 182. Gynecol Oncol 130(3): 487-492, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Vergote I1,
    2. Tropé CG,
    3. Amant F,
    4. Kristensen GB,
    5. Ehlen T,
    6. Johnson N,
    7. Verheijen RH,
    8. van der Burg ME,
    9. Lacave AJ,
    10. Panici PB,
    11. Kenter GG,
    12. Casado A,
    13. Mendiola C,
    14. Coens C,
    15. Verleye L,
    16. Stuart GC,
    17. Pecorelli S,
    18. Reed NS
    : European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer – Gynecological Cancer Group; NCIC Clinical Trials Group. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363: 943-953, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bristow RE,
    2. Palis BE,
    3. Chi DS,
    4. Cliby WA
    : The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol 118(3): 262-267, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Harter P,
    2. Muallem ZM,
    3. Buhrmann C,
    4. Lorenz D,
    5. Kaub C,
    6. Hils R,
    7. Kommoss S,
    8. Heitz F,
    9. Traut A,
    10. du Bois A
    : Impact of a structured quality management program on surgical outcome in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 121: 615-619, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Suidan RS,
    2. Ramirez PT,
    3. Sarasohn DM,
    4. Teitcher JB,
    5. Mironov S,
    6. Iyer RB,
    7. Zhou Q,
    8. Iasonos A,
    9. Paul H,
    10. Hosaka M,
    11. Aghajanian CA,
    12. Leitao MM Jr.,
    13. Gardner GJ,
    14. Abu-Rustum NR,
    15. Sonoda Y,
    16. Levine DA,
    17. Hricak H,
    18. Chi DS
    : A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 134(3): 455-461, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ferrandina G,
    2. Sallustio G,
    3. Fagotti A,
    4. Vizzielli G,
    5. Paglia A,
    6. Cucci E,
    7. Margariti A,
    8. Aquilani L,
    9. Garganese G,
    10. Scambia G
    : Role of CT scan-based and clinical evaluation in the preoperative prediction of optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective trial. Br J Cancer 101(7): 1066-1073, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Therasse P,
    2. Arbuck SG,
    3. Eisenhauer EA,
    4. Wanders J,
    5. Kaplan RS,
    6. Rubinstein L,
    7. Verweij J,
    8. Van Glabbeke M,
    9. van Oosterom AT,
    10. Christian MC,
    11. Gwyther SG
    : New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3): 205-216, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Rustin GJ,
    2. Nelstrop AE,
    3. McClean P,
    4. Brady MF,
    5. McGuire WP,
    6. Hoskins WJ,
    7. Mitchell H,
    8. Lambert HE
    : Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125. J Clin Oncol 14: 1545-1551, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Fagotti A,
    2. Fanfani F,
    3. Vizzielli G,
    4. Gallotta V,
    5. Ercoli A,
    6. Paglia A,
    7. Costantini B,
    8. Vigliotta M,
    9. Scambia G,
    10. Ferrandina G
    : Should laparoscopy be included in the work-up of advanced ovarian cancer patients attempting interval debulking surgery? Gynecol Oncol 116(1): 72-77, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fagotti A,
    2. Vizzielli G,
    3. Fanfani F,
    4. Costantini B,
    5. Ferrandina G,
    6. Gallotta V,
    7. Gueli Alletti S,
    8. Tortorella L,
    9. Scambia G
    : Introduction of staging laparoscopy in the management of advanced epithelial ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancer: impact on prognosis in a single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol 131(2): 341-346, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Fagotti A,
    2. Vizzielli G,
    3. De Iaco P,
    4. Surico D,
    5. Buda A,
    6. Mandato VD,
    7. Petruzzelli F,
    8. Ghezzi F,
    9. Garzarelli S,
    10. Mereu L,
    11. Viganò R,
    12. Tateo S,
    13. Fanfani F,
    14. Scambia G
    : A multicentric trial (Olympia-MITO 13) on the accuracy of laparoscopy to assess peritoneal spread in ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(5): 462.e1-462.e11, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Vizzielli G,
    2. Costantini B,
    3. Tortorella L,
    4. Petrillo M,
    5. Fanfani F,
    6. Chiantera V,
    7. Ercoli A,
    8. Iodice R,
    9. Scambia G,
    10. Fagotti A
    : Influence of intraperitoneal dissemination assessed by laparoscopy on prognosis of advanced ovarian cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of a Single-Institution Experience. Ann Surg Oncol 21(12): 3970-3977, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Aletti GD,
    2. Eisenhauer EL,
    3. Santillan A,
    4. Axtell A,
    5. Aletti G,
    6. Holschneider C,
    7. Chi DS,
    8. Bristow RE,
    9. Cliby WA
    : Identification of patient groups at highest risk from traditional approach to ovarian cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol 120(1): 23-28, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Chi DS,
    2. Franklin CC,
    3. Levine DA,
    4. Akselrod F,
    5. Sabbatini P,
    6. Jarnagin WR,
    7. DeMatteo R,
    8. Poynor EA,
    9. Abu-Rustum NR,
    10. Barakat RR
    : Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: a change in surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol 94: 650-654, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Tanner EJ,
    2. Chi DS,
    3. Eisenhauer EL,
    4. Diaz-Montes TP,
    5. Santillan A,
    6. Bristow RE
    : Surveillance for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: survival impact or lead-time bias? Gynecol Oncol 117(2): 336-340, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kaplan EL,
    2. Meier P
    : Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53: 457-481, 1958.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Mantel N
    : Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50: 163-170, 1996.
    OpenUrl
    1. Kurman RJ,
    2. Shih IeM
    : The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3): 433-443, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Schorge JO,
    2. Clark RM,
    3. Lee SI,
    4. Penson RT
    : Primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: Are you a believer or a dissenter? Gynecol Oncol 135(3): 595-605 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Grabowski JP,
    2. Harter P,
    3. Hils R,
    4. Lorenz D,
    5. Kaub C,
    6. Barinoff J,
    7. Heitz F,
    8. Traut A,
    9. du Bois A
    : Outcome of immediate re-operation or interval debulking after chemotherapy at a gynecologic oncology center after initially incomplete cytoreduction of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 126(1): 54-57, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Petrillo M,
    2. Ferrandina G,
    3. Fagotti A,
    4. Vizzielli G,
    5. Margariti PA,
    6. Pedone AL,
    7. Nero C,
    8. Fanfani F,
    9. Scambia G
    : Timing and pattern of recurrence in ovarian cancer patients with high tumor dissemination treated with primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 20(12): 3955-3960, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 35 (5)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 35, Issue 5
May 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does the Diagnosis Center Influence the Prognosis of Ovarian Cancer Patients Submitted to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 14 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Does the Diagnosis Center Influence the Prognosis of Ovarian Cancer Patients Submitted to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?
GIUSEPPE VIZZIELLI, FRANCESCO FANFANI, VITO CHIANTERA, LUCIA TORTORELLA, ALESSANDRO LUCIDI, MARCO PETRILLO, BARBARA COSTANTINI, GIOVANNI SCAMBIA, ANNA FAGOTTI
Anticancer Research May 2015, 35 (5) 3027-3032;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Does the Diagnosis Center Influence the Prognosis of Ovarian Cancer Patients Submitted to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?
GIUSEPPE VIZZIELLI, FRANCESCO FANFANI, VITO CHIANTERA, LUCIA TORTORELLA, ALESSANDRO LUCIDI, MARCO PETRILLO, BARBARA COSTANTINI, GIOVANNI SCAMBIA, ANNA FAGOTTI
Anticancer Research May 2015, 35 (5) 3027-3032;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • ovarian cancer
  • interval debulking surgery
  • cytoreduction
  • prognosis
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire