Abstract
To examine the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional abdominal surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), stratified by treatment type. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by an Expert Panel of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Ovarian Cancer Committee. Several academic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, and Ichushi were searched by the Japan Medical Library Association on November 11, 2023, using the keywords "epithelial ovarian cancer", "minimally invasive surgery", "laparoscopic", and "robot-assisted". Articles describing MIS treatment for EOC compared with conventional abdominal surgery were independently assessed by two authors. The primary outcomes were survival and perioperative adverse events. After screening 1114 studies, 35 articles were identified, including primary staging surgery (PSS) for early-stage EOC EOC (n=20) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy following interval debulking surgery (NACT-IDS; n=10) and upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS; n=5) for advanced-stage EOC. These studies included 29,888 patients (7661 undergoing MIS and 22,227 undergoing abdominal surgery). Patients receiving MIS and abdominal surgery had similar overall survival (PSS: odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.37; NACT-IDS: OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.25-3.44 and PDS: OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.36-1.22, all P>0.05). MIS showed perioperative complication rates comparable to those of abdominal surgery (intraoperative and postoperative, all treatment types P≥0.05). However, the rate of lymph node dissection in early-stage EOC (PSS: OR 0.49, 95%CI0.26-0.91) and multivisceral resections in advanced-stage EOC (NACT-IDS: OR 0.27 95%CI 0.16-0.44 and PDS: OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.16-0.44) was lower in MIS than in abdominal surgery (all P<0.05). MIS did not negatively impact the survival and perioperative complications of patients with EOC compared to abdominal surgery. While MIS is a viable option, varied case selection and surgical procedures suggest potential bias, requiring further validation studies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.