Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Оценка результатов комбинированного лечения пациентов с диссеминированным раком яичников
Оценка результатов комбинированного лечения пациентов с диссеминированным раком яичников
Юрова М.В., Хабас Г.Н., Павлович С.В. Оценка результатов комбинированного лечения пациентов с диссеминированным раком яичников. Гинекология. 2022;24(2):132–139.
DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2022.2.201438
DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2022.2.201438
________________________________________________
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
Актуальность. Согласно современной концепции хирургического лечения рака яичников (РЯ), необходимо выполнить циторедуктивную операцию (ЦРО) без остаточной опухоли, однако возможности достижения полной ЦРО при диссеминированном процессе (III–IV стадии) ограничены, в связи с чем некоторым пациентам на I этапе лечения выполняют индукционную неоадъювантную химиотерапию (НАХТ).
Цель. Сравнить длительность выживаемости без прогрессирования (ВБП) у пациентов с распространенным РЯ после лечения, а также оценить значение прогностического нутритивного статуса в предикции данного исхода.
Материалы и методы. В исследование были включены 78 пациентов с III–IV стадиями РЯ по классификации Международной федерации акушеров и гинекологов, которые получали комбинированное лечение в НМИЦ «АГП им. акад. В.И. Кулакова» с января 2016 по март 2020 г. Первичную ЦРО (ПЦРО)+платиносодержащую химиотерапию (ХТ) прошли 54 пациента; НАХТ+интервальную ЦРО (ИЦРО)+послеоперационную ХТ провели 24 женщинам. Проанализирована предикторная значимость прогностического нутритивного индекса (ПНИ).
Результаты. Достижение полной ПЦРО сопровождается удлинением ВБП: после полной ПЦРО – 32±11,21 мес (95% доверительный интервал – ДИ 10,09–53,97); после оптимальной ПЦРО – 22±3,46 мес (95% ДИ 15,21–28,79); после неоптимальной ПЦРО – 14±7 мес (95% ДИ 0,28–27,72). Выполнение полной ИЦРО сопровождается статистически значимым сокращением ВБП по сравнению с ПЦРО даже при условии выполнения операции без остаточной опухоли: после полной ИЦРО – 14±3,34 мес (95% ДИ 7,46–20,54); после оптимальной ИЦРО – 17±2,16 мес (95% ДИ 12,77–21,23); после неоптимальной ИЦРО – 7 мес. ПНИ≥27,86 сопровождается повышением вероятности выполнения ПЦРО без остаточной опухоли у пациентов с распространенным РЯ (AUC 94,3, чувствительность – 80%, специфичность – 91,7%; р<0,001).
Заключение. Показана целесообразность стремления выполнять полную ПЦРО пациентам с распространенным РЯ. Выявлена прогностическая ценность учета ПНИ при планировании ПЦРО: повышение ПНИ сопряжено с более благоприятными периоперационными исходами. Следует разрабатывать объективные критерии для строго аргументированного отказа от проведения I этапом хирургического лечения в связи с заведомо менее благоприятным прогнозом тактики «НАХТ+ИЦРО+ХТ».
Ключевые слова: альбумин, неоадъювантная химиотерапия, нутритивный статус, полная циторедукция, рак яичников
Aim. To compare the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with advanced OC after treatment, as well as to assess the value of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in predicting this outcome.
Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 78 patients with stages III–IV OC, who received combined treatment between January 2016 and March 2020 (54 patients after primary CRS (PCRS)+platinum-based chemotherapy (CT), 24 patients after NACT+interval CRS (ICRS)+postoperative CT. The predictive value of the PNI was calculated.
Results. The complete PCRS is associated with increased PFS: after complete PCRS – 32±11.21 months (95% confidence interval – CI 10.09–53.97); after optimal PCRS – 22±3.46 months (95% CI 15.21–28.79); after suboptimal PCRS – 14±7 months (95% CI 0.28–27.72). Performing a complete ICRS is associated with decreased PFS compared to PCRS, even if the complete CRS is achieved: after complete ICRS – 14±3.34 months (95% CI 7.46–20.54); after optimal ICRS – 17±2.16 months (95% CI 12.77–21.23); after suboptimal ICRS – 7 months. PNI≥27.86 correlates with an increased probability of complete PCRS in patients with advanced PCR (AUC 94.3, sensitivity – 80%, specificity – 91.7%; p<0.001).
Conclusion. Achieving complete PCRS in patients with disseminated OC leads to an improvement in the oncological outcome. The prognostic value of pre-treatment calculation of PNI has been revealed: an increased PNI is associated with more favorable perioperative outcomes. Objective criteria should be developed for a strictly reasoned refusal to carry out the first stage of surgical treatment due to the obviously less favorable prognosis of the tactics of "NACT+ICRS+CT".
Keywords: albumin, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, prognostic nutritional index, complete cytoreduction, ovarian cancer
Цель. Сравнить длительность выживаемости без прогрессирования (ВБП) у пациентов с распространенным РЯ после лечения, а также оценить значение прогностического нутритивного статуса в предикции данного исхода.
Материалы и методы. В исследование были включены 78 пациентов с III–IV стадиями РЯ по классификации Международной федерации акушеров и гинекологов, которые получали комбинированное лечение в НМИЦ «АГП им. акад. В.И. Кулакова» с января 2016 по март 2020 г. Первичную ЦРО (ПЦРО)+платиносодержащую химиотерапию (ХТ) прошли 54 пациента; НАХТ+интервальную ЦРО (ИЦРО)+послеоперационную ХТ провели 24 женщинам. Проанализирована предикторная значимость прогностического нутритивного индекса (ПНИ).
Результаты. Достижение полной ПЦРО сопровождается удлинением ВБП: после полной ПЦРО – 32±11,21 мес (95% доверительный интервал – ДИ 10,09–53,97); после оптимальной ПЦРО – 22±3,46 мес (95% ДИ 15,21–28,79); после неоптимальной ПЦРО – 14±7 мес (95% ДИ 0,28–27,72). Выполнение полной ИЦРО сопровождается статистически значимым сокращением ВБП по сравнению с ПЦРО даже при условии выполнения операции без остаточной опухоли: после полной ИЦРО – 14±3,34 мес (95% ДИ 7,46–20,54); после оптимальной ИЦРО – 17±2,16 мес (95% ДИ 12,77–21,23); после неоптимальной ИЦРО – 7 мес. ПНИ≥27,86 сопровождается повышением вероятности выполнения ПЦРО без остаточной опухоли у пациентов с распространенным РЯ (AUC 94,3, чувствительность – 80%, специфичность – 91,7%; р<0,001).
Заключение. Показана целесообразность стремления выполнять полную ПЦРО пациентам с распространенным РЯ. Выявлена прогностическая ценность учета ПНИ при планировании ПЦРО: повышение ПНИ сопряжено с более благоприятными периоперационными исходами. Следует разрабатывать объективные критерии для строго аргументированного отказа от проведения I этапом хирургического лечения в связи с заведомо менее благоприятным прогнозом тактики «НАХТ+ИЦРО+ХТ».
Ключевые слова: альбумин, неоадъювантная химиотерапия, нутритивный статус, полная циторедукция, рак яичников
________________________________________________
Aim. To compare the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with advanced OC after treatment, as well as to assess the value of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in predicting this outcome.
Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 78 patients with stages III–IV OC, who received combined treatment between January 2016 and March 2020 (54 patients after primary CRS (PCRS)+platinum-based chemotherapy (CT), 24 patients after NACT+interval CRS (ICRS)+postoperative CT. The predictive value of the PNI was calculated.
Results. The complete PCRS is associated with increased PFS: after complete PCRS – 32±11.21 months (95% confidence interval – CI 10.09–53.97); after optimal PCRS – 22±3.46 months (95% CI 15.21–28.79); after suboptimal PCRS – 14±7 months (95% CI 0.28–27.72). Performing a complete ICRS is associated with decreased PFS compared to PCRS, even if the complete CRS is achieved: after complete ICRS – 14±3.34 months (95% CI 7.46–20.54); after optimal ICRS – 17±2.16 months (95% CI 12.77–21.23); after suboptimal ICRS – 7 months. PNI≥27.86 correlates with an increased probability of complete PCRS in patients with advanced PCR (AUC 94.3, sensitivity – 80%, specificity – 91.7%; p<0.001).
Conclusion. Achieving complete PCRS in patients with disseminated OC leads to an improvement in the oncological outcome. The prognostic value of pre-treatment calculation of PNI has been revealed: an increased PNI is associated with more favorable perioperative outcomes. Objective criteria should be developed for a strictly reasoned refusal to carry out the first stage of surgical treatment due to the obviously less favorable prognosis of the tactics of "NACT+ICRS+CT".
Keywords: albumin, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, prognostic nutritional index, complete cytoreduction, ovarian cancer
Полный текст
Список литературы
1. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2019 году. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Шахзадовой А.О. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2020 [Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii v 2019 godu. Pod red. Kaprina AD, Starinskogo VV, Shakhzadovoi AO. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2020 (in Russian)].
2. Назаренко Т.А., Ашрафян Л.А., Джанашвили Л.Г., Мартиросян Я.О. Сохранение репродуктивного материала у онкологических больных как медико-социальная и организационная проблема. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Герцена. 2020;9(1):60-5 [Nazarenko TA, Ashrafian LA, Dzhanashvili LG, Martirosyan YO. Retention of reproductive material in cancer patients as a sociomedical and organizational problem. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2020;9(1):60-5 (in Russian)]. DOI:10.17116/onkolog2020901160
3. Tomao F, Di Pinto A, Sassu CM, et al. Fertility preservation in ovarian tumours. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:885. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2018.885
4. Ashraf MA, Dasari P. Outcome of fertility-preserving surgery for ovarian malignancy in young women. Case Rep. 2018;1(1):51-4.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590
6. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России В 2020 году. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Шахзадовой А.О. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2021 [Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii V 2020 godu. Pod red. Kaprina AD, Starinskogo VV, Shakhzadovoi AO. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2021 (in Russian)].
7. Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, et al. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):672-705. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdz062
8. Querleu D, Planchamp F, Chiva L, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(7):1534-42. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001041
9. Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer. 2021;3:1-254. Available at: https://www.lissod.com.ua/doctor/files/ovarian-Рак%20яичников.pdf Accssed: 15.08.2021.
10. Koirala P, Moon AS, Chuang L. Clinical Utility of Preoperative Assessment in Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(8):568. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics10080568
11. Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):448-58. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4
12. Sugarbaker PH. Comprehensive management of peritoneal surface malignancy using cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: the Washington Cancer Institute approach. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(12):1965-77. DOI:10.1517/14656560903044974
13. Sugarbaker PH. Preoperative Assessment of Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Metastases for Complete Cytoreduction. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7:295-302.
DOI:10.1007/s13193-016-0518-0
14. Sugarbaker PH, Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA. Pharmacologic rationale for treatments of peritoneal surface malignancy from colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2(1):19-30. DOI:10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.19
15. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234-44. DOI:10.1002/cncr.24149
16. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(1):26-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.018
17. Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, et al. Chemotherapy Response Score : Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2457-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212
18. Cohen PA, Powell A, Böhm S, et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma :
A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(2):441-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679
19. Meyer LA, Cronin AM, Sun CC, et al. Use and Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3854-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1239
20. Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:114-25. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020
21. Fagotti A, Ferrandina MG, Vizzielli G, et al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION–NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(11):1657-64. DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640
22. Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, et al. Ovarian Carcinomatosis: how the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1775-800. DOI:10.1148/rg.326125511
23. Komura N, Mabuchi S, Yokoi E, et al. Prognostic significance of the pretreatment prognostic nutritional index in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2019;10(38):3605-13. DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.26914
24. Feng Z, Wen H, Ju X, et al. The preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a predictive and prognostic factor of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):883. DOI:10.1186/s12885-018-4732-8
25. Demir A, Alan O, Koca S, Surmeli H. The Relationship Between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and Overall Survival in Elderly Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. EJMI. 2020;4(2):269-73. DOI:10.14744/ejmi.2020.30288
26. Pasha K, Ramesh Kumar B, Macherla R, et al. Biochemical Markers of Ascitic Fluid to Differentiate Ovarian Cancer from Liver Cirrhosis Patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(6):BC01-4. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2020/44135.13765
27. Zhang W, Ye B, Liang W, Ren Y. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a powerful predictor of prognosis in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9548. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-10328-8
28. Miao Y, Li S, Yan Q, et al. Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(11):712-9. DOI:10.1159/000452263
29. Dai D, Balega J, Sundar S, et al. Serum Albumin as a Predictor of Survival after Interval Debulking Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer (AOC): A Retrospective Study. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(2):426-31. DOI:10.1080/08941939.2020.1827314
2. Nazarenko TA, Ashrafian LA, Dzhanashvili LG, Martirosyan YO. Retention of reproductive material in cancer patients as a sociomedical and organizational problem. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2020;9(1):60-5 (in Russian). DOI:10.17116/onkolog2020901160
3. Tomao F, Di Pinto A, Sassu CM, et al. Fertility preservation in ovarian tumours. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:885. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2018.885
4. Ashraf MA, Dasari P. Outcome of fertility-preserving surgery for ovarian malignancy in young women. Case Rep. 2018;1(1):51-4.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590
6. Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii V 2020 godu. Pod red. Kaprina AD, Starinskogo VV, Shakhzadovoi AO. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2021 (in Russian).
7. Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, et al. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):672-705. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdz062
8. Querleu D, Planchamp F, Chiva L, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(7):1534-42. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001041
9. Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer. 2021;3:1-254. Available at: https://www.lissod.com.ua/doctor/files/ovarian-Рак%20яичников.pdf Accssed: 15.08.2021.
10. Koirala P, Moon AS, Chuang L. Clinical Utility of Preoperative Assessment in Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(8):568. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics10080568
11. Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):448-58. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4
12. Sugarbaker PH. Comprehensive management of peritoneal surface malignancy using cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: the Washington Cancer Institute approach. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(12):1965-77. DOI:10.1517/14656560903044974
13. Sugarbaker PH. Preoperative Assessment of Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Metastases for Complete Cytoreduction. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7:295-302.
DOI:10.1007/s13193-016-0518-0
14. Sugarbaker PH, Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA. Pharmacologic rationale for treatments of peritoneal surface malignancy from colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2(1):19-30. DOI:10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.19
15. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234-44. DOI:10.1002/cncr.24149
16. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(1):26-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.018
17. Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, et al. Chemotherapy Response Score : Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2457-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212
18. Cohen PA, Powell A, Böhm S, et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma :
A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(2):441-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679
19. Meyer LA, Cronin AM, Sun CC, et al. Use and Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3854-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1239
20. Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:114-25. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020
21. Fagotti A, Ferrandina MG, Vizzielli G, et al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION–NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(11):1657-64. DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640
22. Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, et al. Ovarian Carcinomatosis: how the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1775-800. DOI:10.1148/rg.326125511
23. Komura N, Mabuchi S, Yokoi E, et al. Prognostic significance of the pretreatment prognostic nutritional index in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2019;10(38):3605-13. DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.26914
24. Feng Z, Wen H, Ju X, et al. The preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a predictive and prognostic factor of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):883. DOI:10.1186/s12885-018-4732-8
25. Demir A, Alan O, Koca S, Surmeli H. The Relationship Between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and Overall Survival in Elderly Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. EJMI. 2020;4(2):269-73. DOI:10.14744/ejmi.2020.30288
26. Pasha K, Ramesh Kumar B, Macherla R, et al. Biochemical Markers of Ascitic Fluid to Differentiate Ovarian Cancer from Liver Cirrhosis Patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(6):BC01-4. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2020/44135.13765
27. Zhang W, Ye B, Liang W, Ren Y. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a powerful predictor of prognosis in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9548. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-10328-8
28. Miao Y, Li S, Yan Q, et al. Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(11):712-9. DOI:10.1159/000452263
29. Dai D, Balega J, Sundar S, et al. Serum Albumin as a Predictor of Survival after Interval Debulking Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer (AOC): A Retrospective Study. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(2):426-31. DOI:10.1080/08941939.2020.1827314
2. Назаренко Т.А., Ашрафян Л.А., Джанашвили Л.Г., Мартиросян Я.О. Сохранение репродуктивного материала у онкологических больных как медико-социальная и организационная проблема. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Герцена. 2020;9(1):60-5 [Nazarenko TA, Ashrafian LA, Dzhanashvili LG, Martirosyan YO. Retention of reproductive material in cancer patients as a sociomedical and organizational problem. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2020;9(1):60-5 (in Russian)]. DOI:10.17116/onkolog2020901160
3. Tomao F, Di Pinto A, Sassu CM, et al. Fertility preservation in ovarian tumours. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:885. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2018.885
4. Ashraf MA, Dasari P. Outcome of fertility-preserving surgery for ovarian malignancy in young women. Case Rep. 2018;1(1):51-4.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590
6. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России В 2020 году. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Шахзадовой А.О. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2021 [Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii V 2020 godu. Pod red. Kaprina AD, Starinskogo VV, Shakhzadovoi AO. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2021 (in Russian)].
7. Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, et al. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):672-705. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdz062
8. Querleu D, Planchamp F, Chiva L, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(7):1534-42. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001041
9. Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer. 2021;3:1-254. Available at: https://www.lissod.com.ua/doctor/files/ovarian-Рак%20яичников.pdf Accssed: 15.08.2021.
10. Koirala P, Moon AS, Chuang L. Clinical Utility of Preoperative Assessment in Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(8):568. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics10080568
11. Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):448-58. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4
12. Sugarbaker PH. Comprehensive management of peritoneal surface malignancy using cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: the Washington Cancer Institute approach. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(12):1965-77. DOI:10.1517/14656560903044974
13. Sugarbaker PH. Preoperative Assessment of Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Metastases for Complete Cytoreduction. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7:295-302.
DOI:10.1007/s13193-016-0518-0
14. Sugarbaker PH, Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA. Pharmacologic rationale for treatments of peritoneal surface malignancy from colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2(1):19-30. DOI:10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.19
15. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234-44. DOI:10.1002/cncr.24149
16. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(1):26-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.018
17. Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, et al. Chemotherapy Response Score : Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2457-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212
18. Cohen PA, Powell A, Böhm S, et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma :
A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(2):441-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679
19. Meyer LA, Cronin AM, Sun CC, et al. Use and Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3854-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1239
20. Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:114-25. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020
21. Fagotti A, Ferrandina MG, Vizzielli G, et al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION–NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(11):1657-64. DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640
22. Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, et al. Ovarian Carcinomatosis: how the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1775-800. DOI:10.1148/rg.326125511
23. Komura N, Mabuchi S, Yokoi E, et al. Prognostic significance of the pretreatment prognostic nutritional index in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2019;10(38):3605-13. DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.26914
24. Feng Z, Wen H, Ju X, et al. The preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a predictive and prognostic factor of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):883. DOI:10.1186/s12885-018-4732-8
25. Demir A, Alan O, Koca S, Surmeli H. The Relationship Between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and Overall Survival in Elderly Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. EJMI. 2020;4(2):269-73. DOI:10.14744/ejmi.2020.30288
26. Pasha K, Ramesh Kumar B, Macherla R, et al. Biochemical Markers of Ascitic Fluid to Differentiate Ovarian Cancer from Liver Cirrhosis Patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(6):BC01-4. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2020/44135.13765
27. Zhang W, Ye B, Liang W, Ren Y. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a powerful predictor of prognosis in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9548. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-10328-8
28. Miao Y, Li S, Yan Q, et al. Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(11):712-9. DOI:10.1159/000452263
29. Dai D, Balega J, Sundar S, et al. Serum Albumin as a Predictor of Survival after Interval Debulking Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer (AOC): A Retrospective Study. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(2):426-31. DOI:10.1080/08941939.2020.1827314
________________________________________________
2. Nazarenko TA, Ashrafian LA, Dzhanashvili LG, Martirosyan YO. Retention of reproductive material in cancer patients as a sociomedical and organizational problem. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2020;9(1):60-5 (in Russian). DOI:10.17116/onkolog2020901160
3. Tomao F, Di Pinto A, Sassu CM, et al. Fertility preservation in ovarian tumours. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:885. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2018.885
4. Ashraf MA, Dasari P. Outcome of fertility-preserving surgery for ovarian malignancy in young women. Case Rep. 2018;1(1):51-4.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590
6. Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii V 2020 godu. Pod red. Kaprina AD, Starinskogo VV, Shakhzadovoi AO. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2021 (in Russian).
7. Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, et al. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):672-705. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdz062
8. Querleu D, Planchamp F, Chiva L, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(7):1534-42. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001041
9. Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer. 2021;3:1-254. Available at: https://www.lissod.com.ua/doctor/files/ovarian-Рак%20яичников.pdf Accssed: 15.08.2021.
10. Koirala P, Moon AS, Chuang L. Clinical Utility of Preoperative Assessment in Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(8):568. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics10080568
11. Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):448-58. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4
12. Sugarbaker PH. Comprehensive management of peritoneal surface malignancy using cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: the Washington Cancer Institute approach. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(12):1965-77. DOI:10.1517/14656560903044974
13. Sugarbaker PH. Preoperative Assessment of Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Metastases for Complete Cytoreduction. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7:295-302.
DOI:10.1007/s13193-016-0518-0
14. Sugarbaker PH, Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA. Pharmacologic rationale for treatments of peritoneal surface malignancy from colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2(1):19-30. DOI:10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.19
15. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234-44. DOI:10.1002/cncr.24149
16. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Zivanovic O, et al. Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(1):26-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.018
17. Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, et al. Chemotherapy Response Score : Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2457-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212
18. Cohen PA, Powell A, Böhm S, et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma :
A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(2):441-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679
19. Meyer LA, Cronin AM, Sun CC, et al. Use and Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3854-63. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.1239
20. Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:114-25. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020
21. Fagotti A, Ferrandina MG, Vizzielli G, et al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION–NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(11):1657-64. DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640
22. Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, et al. Ovarian Carcinomatosis: how the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):1775-800. DOI:10.1148/rg.326125511
23. Komura N, Mabuchi S, Yokoi E, et al. Prognostic significance of the pretreatment prognostic nutritional index in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2019;10(38):3605-13. DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.26914
24. Feng Z, Wen H, Ju X, et al. The preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a predictive and prognostic factor of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):883. DOI:10.1186/s12885-018-4732-8
25. Demir A, Alan O, Koca S, Surmeli H. The Relationship Between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and Overall Survival in Elderly Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. EJMI. 2020;4(2):269-73. DOI:10.14744/ejmi.2020.30288
26. Pasha K, Ramesh Kumar B, Macherla R, et al. Biochemical Markers of Ascitic Fluid to Differentiate Ovarian Cancer from Liver Cirrhosis Patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(6):BC01-4. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2020/44135.13765
27. Zhang W, Ye B, Liang W, Ren Y. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index is a powerful predictor of prognosis in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9548. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-10328-8
28. Miao Y, Li S, Yan Q, et al. Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(11):712-9. DOI:10.1159/000452263
29. Dai D, Balega J, Sundar S, et al. Serum Albumin as a Predictor of Survival after Interval Debulking Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer (AOC): A Retrospective Study. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(2):426-31. DOI:10.1080/08941939.2020.1827314
Авторы
М.В. Юрова*1,2, Г.Н. Хабас2, С.В. Павлович1,2
1 ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия;
2 ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
*m_yurova@oparina4.ru
1 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia;
2 Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russia
*m_yurova@oparina4.ru
1 ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия;
2 ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
*m_yurova@oparina4.ru
________________________________________________
1 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia;
2 Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russia
*m_yurova@oparina4.ru
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.