Minimally invasive surgery for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer; a cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: While there are a number of benefits to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with ovarian cysts, there is an increased risk of ovarian capsule rupture during the procedure, which could potentially seed the abdominal cavity with malignant cells. We developed a decision model to compare the risks, benefits, effectiveness and cost of MIS versus laparotomy in women with ovarian masses. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women with ovarian masses who were undergoing surgical management. METHODS: The initial decision point in the model was performance of surgery via laparotomy or a MIS approach. Model probabilities, costs and utility values were derived from published literature and administrative data sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of MIS versus laparotomy for women with a pelvic mass measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: MIS was the least costly strategy at $7,732 per women on average, compared with $17,899 for laparotomy. In our hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women, there were 64 cases of ovarian rupture in the MIS group and 53 in the laparotomy group, while there were 26 cancer-related deaths in the MIS group and 25 in the laparotomy group. MIS was more effective than laparotomy (188 462 QALYs for MIS versus 187 631 quality adjusted life years [QALYs] for laparotomy). Thus, MIS was a dominant strategy, being both less costly and more effective than laparotomy. These results were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: MIS constitutes a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: MIS is a cost-effective management strategy for women with suspicious ovarian masses.

Serous borderline tumor of the ovary with isolated cardiophrenic lymph node spread at diagnosis.

•Serous borderline tumor outside of the peritoneal cavity is rare.•Involvement of cardiophrenic lymph nodes with serous borderline tumor can occur.•Preoperative imaging may aid surgical planning even in serous borderline tumor cases.•Sequencing can help confirm a diagnosis of serous borderline tumor at distant sites.

Multivariable analysis of association of beta-blocker use and survival in advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to evaluate the relationship between survival and beta blocker use in both the primary and interval debulking setting while adjusting for frequently co-administered medications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study reviewing charts of women who underwent primary or interval cytoreduction for stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. The exposure of interest was beta-blocker use identified at the time of cytoreduction. The outcomes of interest were PFS and OS. We collected demographic/prognostic variables and information about use of aspirin, metformin, and statins. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models in survival analyses. RESULTS: 534 women who underwent surgery for stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer were included in the study. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 84.8% of women had serous carcinoma. We identified 105 women (19.7%) on a beta-blocker of whom 94 (90%) were on a cardioselective beta-blocker. Additionally, 24 women (4.5%) were on metformin, 91 (17%) on aspirin, and 128 (24%) on a statin. In univariable analysis, beta-blocker users had a median overall survival of 29 months vs 35 months among non-users (hazard ratio HR = 1.52, p = 0.007). After adjustment for important demographic, clinical, and histopathologic factors, as well as use of other common medications, beta-blocker use remain associated with an increased hazard of death (adjusted HR 1.57, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, we found that patients identified as being on a beta-blocker at the time of surgery had worse overall survival and greater risk of death when compared to those patients not on betablockers. Importantly, 90% of patients on beta-blockers were identified as being on a cardioselective beta-blocker.