Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey


Greggi, Stefano; Falcone, Francesca; Scaffa, Cono; du Bois, Andreas; Samartzis, Eleftherios Pierre Pierre; Pujade-Lauraine, Eric; Cibula, David; Mądry, Radoslaw; Korach, Jacob; Gungorduk, Kemal; McNeish, Iain A; Zanagnolo, Vanna; Marth, Christian; van Altena, Anne M; Aravantinos, Gerasimos; Sehouli, Jalid; Vergote, Ignace; Gonzalez Martin, Antonio (2020). Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 30(6):819-824.

Abstract

<jats:sec>ObjectiveLaparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma.</jats:sec><jats:sec>MethodsA 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group.</jats:sec><jats:sec>ResultsA total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer.</jats:sec><jats:sec>ConclusionsThis study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.</jats:sec>

Abstract

<jats:sec>ObjectiveLaparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma.</jats:sec><jats:sec>MethodsA 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group.</jats:sec><jats:sec>ResultsA total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer.</jats:sec><jats:sec>ConclusionsThis study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.</jats:sec>

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 04 Feb 2021
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Gynecology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Oncology
Health Sciences > Obstetrics and Gynecology
Uncontrolled Keywords:Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oncology
Language:English
Date:1 June 2020
Deposited On:04 Feb 2021 15:42
Last Modified:05 Feb 2021 08:43
Publisher:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN:1048-891X
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-001172

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members