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.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopy 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Impact of routine follow-up examinations on life expectancy in ovarian cancer patients: a simulation study.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical benefit of routine follow-up in patients treated for ovarian cancer is subject to debate. In this study, the magnitude of the potential survival benefit of routine examinations was evaluated by Markov modeling. METHODS: The clinical course of ovarian cancer was simulated using a 4-state nonstationary Markov model. Risk of recurrence and mortality probabilities were derived from individual patient data and Statistics Netherlands. The life expectancy was simulated for 3 follow-up scenarios: a current, withholding (all recurrences detected symptomatically), and perfect follow-up program (all recurrences detected asymptomatically). The impact of effective recurrence treatment in the future was modeled by varying the mortality ratio between patients with asymptomatically versus symptomatically detected recurrences. The model was validated using empirical data. RESULTS: The mean life expectancy of patients, aged 58 years and in complete clinical remission after primary treatment, was 10.8 years. Varying the transition probabilities with ±25% changed the life expectancy by up to 1.1 years. The modeled life expectancy for the withholding and perfect follow-up scenarios was also 10.8 years and insensitive to model assumptions. In patients with stages IIB to IV, the life expectancy was 7.0 years, irrespective of follow-up strategy. A mortality ratio of 0.8 for patients with asymptomatically versus symptomatically detected recurrences resulted in a gain in life expectancy of 5 months for withholding versus perfect follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Routine follow-up in ovarian cancer patients is not expected to improve the life expectancy. The timing of detection of recurrent ovarian cancer is immaterial until markedly improved treatment options become available.