Appropriate triage allows aggressive primary debulking surgery with rates of morbidity and mortality comparable to interval surgery after chemotherapy

Abstract

ObjectiveMorbidity and mortality (M/M) after primary debulking surgery (PDS) is often cited as a rationale for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery (IDS). We tested if using an evidence-based algorithm to identify patients fit for surgery would reduce M/M after PDS to that seen after IDS. MethodsWe included women who underwent PDS or IDS for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) (1/2012–7/2016) guided by the use of a prospective triage algorithm. Outcomes were compared after applying inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for covariate imbalance. ResultsOf 334 included patients, 232 (69.5%) underwent PDS and 102 (30.5%) were triaged to IDS. Relative to IDS group, PDS patients were younger (63.9 vs 67.5 years, P=0.01), were less likely to have low albumin (16.8% vs. 32.4%, P<0.001), had longer median operative times (315 vs 263 min, P <0.001), more high complexity surgeries and fewer low complexity surgeries (27.2% vs. 11.8% and 18.5% vs 36.3% respectively, P<0.001). The rates of the following outcomes were comparable for PDS and IDS, respectively: successful cytoreduction (complete, 62.5% vs 66.7%, P=0.47 and optimal, 95.3% vs 98.0%, P=0.36), 30-day grade 3+ complications (IPTW-adjusted 18.3% vs. 12.9%, P=0.22), 90-day mortality (IPTW-adjusted, 2.2% vs. 3.8%, P=0.42), length of hospitalization (P=0.29), and postoperative chemotherapy delivery (P=0.83). 3-year overall survival was higher for PDS group (IPTW-adjusted 64.1% vs. 42.6%, P=0.001). ConclusionsUse of our validated triage strategy allowed us to offer 70% of women with advanced EOC PDS surgery. Despite more complex surgery, M/M after this approach is low and comparable to IDS, with similar rates of complete resection and superior OS. Use of a validated triage system should be utilized when considering PDS vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy.