Different Surgical Approaches for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer Staging. A Large Monocentric Experience

IntroductionOvarian cancer is the third most frequent gynecological cancer. In early stage ovarian cancer (ESOC) comprehensive surgical staging is recommended. Surgical staging is traditionally approached by laparotomy, although minimally invasive surgery can be a valid alternative in selected patients. This study aims to analyze the surgical and oncological outcomes of three different surgical approaches in a large series of patients. MethodsWe retrospectively included all histologically proven ESOC cases treated between January 2014 and December 2017. ESOC was defined as stage IA to IIB according to the 2018 FIGO staging system. Subjects were divided into groups 1, 2, and 3, based on the surgical approach (open abdominal, laparoscopic, or robotic, respectively). ResultsWithin patients enrolled during the study period, 455 met the inclusion criteria. No difference in intraoperative complications was recorded in the three groups (p = 0.709). Conversely, a significant difference occurred in postoperative complications (16.2 vs. 3.8 vs. 11.1%, in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively, p = 0.004). No difference was found in overall survival (OS) (32 vs. 31 vs. 25 months, p = 0.481) and disease-free survival (DFS) (26 vs. 29 vs. 24 months, p = 0.178) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. At univariate analysis FIGO stage I (p = 0.004) showed a lower recurrence rate compared to FIGO stage II. ConclusionNo significant difference was found in OS and DFS among the three groups (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). The minimally invasive approach showed lower rate of complications than the laparotomic approach.

Automated summary

This study analyzes the surgical and oncological outcomes of three different surgical approaches in early stage ovarian cancer patients. The study found no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) among the three groups (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). However, the minimally invasive approach showed a lower rate of complications compared to the laparotomic approach.