Abstract
Background
Several studies have shown that whether complete tumor resection can be achieved during debulking surgery depends on various patient-related factors. However, none of these studies was conducted among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in sub-Saharan Africa. In this study, we aimed to determine the preoperative predictors of optimal tumor resectability (OTR) during primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with EOC.
Methodology
In this study, we reviewed all patients with histologically diagnosed EOC who underwent PDS between January 2011 and December 2020. We included 83 patients with complete clinical records for subsequent data analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for patients’ data, and binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the strength of associations between patients’ preoperative characteristics and OTR.
Results
The overall rate of OTR was 53.0%, while the rate in advanced EOC patients was 36.1%. In the univariate analyses, pleural effusion, ascites, tumor bilaterality, size of the largest tumor, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, omental caking, peritoneal thickening, significant extrapelvic tumor, serum cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels, and hemoglobin levels were recorded as the predictors of OTR. However, after adjusting for covariates in the final multivariate models, we found that the absence of moderate-to-large pleural effusion (odds ratio (OR) = 5.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32, 23.71) and having serum CA-125 levels of ≤370 U/mL (OR = 6.80; 95% CI = 1.19, 38.79) were the overall independent predictors of OTR while not having any preexisting comorbidity (OR = 18.21; 95% CI = 2.40, 38.10), and the absence of pleural effusions (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 1.80, 24.85) or enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes (OR = 11.95; 95% CI = 1.35, 16.07) were predictors of OTR in advanced EOC patients.
Conclusions
We demonstrated that the radiological absence of pleural effusions and enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes and having no preexisting medical morbidity and serum CA-125 levels of ≤370 U/mL were the independent predictors of OTR during PDS. The preliminary data generated from this study can be used to develop variables for a prediction model in a future validation study.
Keywords: primary debulking surgery, eoc, optimal tumor resectability, lagos, otr, ovarian cancer
Introduction
In Nigeria, ovarian cancer (OC) is the second most common gynecologic cancer [1,2], with a peak incidence among women in their early 60s [2]. Approximately 90% of all histological types of OC are epithelial in origin [3], with over 70% of cases diagnosed at an advanced stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), stage III-IV) [2]. Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are conventionally treated by primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy [4]. One of the most important predictors of survival in patients with advanced EOC is the size of residual tumor after PDS [5]. Therefore, the goal of primary surgery is to achieve optimal tumor resectability (OTR). OTR is achieved when the residual tumor after surgery is less than 1 cm in the largest diameter [6]. Patients with advanced FIGO stage of EOC may undergo extensive debulking surgery and still have a significant residual tumor with a subsequent poor oncologic outcome and ultimate reduction in overall survival [2]. Therefore, patients with a low probability of optimal primary surgical debulking have the option of undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery to increase their chances of optimal surgical outcomes and subsequent improvement in survival [7,8].
Whether OTR can be achieved during debulking surgery depends on various patient factors such as age, comorbidity, extent, and location of the disease, as well as the skill and experience of the operating surgeon [9,10]. Therefore, it is important to develop an algorithm using these various preoperative factors derived from patient-specific characteristics and radiologic findings to predict patients with advanced EOC who may benefit from upfront or PDS. This study was aimed to determine the preoperative clinical and radiologic predictors of OTR during PDS in patients with EOC in Lagos, Nigeria.
Materials and methods
Study design
We conducted a review of the health records of all OC cases that were managed at a university teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria between January 2011 and December 2020.
Study setting
This study was conducted at a foremost public tertiary health institution in Lagos that offers specialized care including gynecologic oncology services. The hospital is the main referral center for other government-owned and private hospitals in Lagos and its neighboring states. Lagos State is the commercial capital of Nigeria with a population of 20 million [2].
Eligibility criteria
We included 83 patients with histologically diagnosed EOC who underwent PDS during the review period. Women with non-epithelial OC, those who underwent NACT before debulking surgery, and those without complete clinical records or relevant data for analysis were excluded.
Data collection
Data retrieved from patients’ medical records included age, parity, menopausal status, body mass index (BMI), serum cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels, coexisting morbidity (such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, kidney, and liver disease), presence of pleural effusion (on chest X-ray or chest computed tomography (CT) scan), ascites, tumor bilaterality, largest tumor diameter, the presence of retroperitoneal lymph nodes, omental caking (metastasis), peritoneal thickening and significant extrapelvic tumor with size greater than 2 cm on radiological imaging using abdominopelvic ultrasound and/or CT scan, and the outcome of PDS (optimal/suboptimal).
Study endpoints
The study endpoints included (1) the rate of OTR, and (2) the preoperative predictors of OTR during PDS in patients with EOC. OTR is achieved when the residual tumor after PDS is less than 1 cm in the largest diameter [6].
Statistical analysis
Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and descriptive statistics were computed for all patients’ baseline characteristics. Patient characteristics were described using mean and standard deviation (if normally distributed) or median and interquartile range (if skewed) for continuous variables and by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Binary logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients. Adjustments were made to include factors with P < 0.10 in the final multivariate models. Associations were considered statistically significant if P-values were <0.05.
Ethical considerations
We obtained ethical approval from the Health Research Ethics committee of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (ADM/DCST/HREC/1912) before retrieving medical records and data collection. We conducted the study following the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration.
Results
A total of 156 cases of OC were managed in the hospital during the period under review, of which 83 were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. We excluded 18 women with non-EOC histotypes, 46 who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery (NACT+IDS), five who failed to undergo treatment, and four with insufficient clinical data for analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Patient selection chart.
EOC: epithelial ovarian cancer; NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; IDS: interval debulking surgery
The mean age of the patients in the study group was 54.5 ± 11.5 years. Patients were predominantly in the 50-59-year age group (n = 28, 33.7%), multiparous (n = 53, 63.8%), postmenopausal (n = 45, 54.2%), and had normal BMI (n = 37, 44.6%). More than two-thirds of the patients had coexisting medical morbidities (n = 64, 77.1%) and approximately half (n = 41, 49.4%) had significant ascites on radiological imaging (Table 1). Pleural effusions were seen in over two-thirds (n = 57, 68.7%) of the patients, while less than one-fifth had retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (n = 16, 19.3%). Less than half of the patients (n = 35, 42.2%) had a bilateral tumor, with about one-third (n = 26, 31.3%) having omental metastasis. Peritoneal thickening (n = 33, 39.8%) and significant extrapelvic tumor greater than 2 cm (n = 36, 43.4%) were detected in approximately two-fifths of EOC patients. The median tumor size on radiological imaging and the median levels of other hematologic markers are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (n = 83).
BMI: body mass index; CA-125: cancer antigen-125; IQR: interquartile range; SD: standard deviation
| Characteristics | Number (%) |
| Mean age, years (±SD) | 54.4 ± 11.5 |
| 20–29 | 1 (1.2) |
| 30–39 | 11 (13.3) |
| 40–49 | 17 (20.5) |
| 50–59 | 28 (33.7) |
| 60–69 | 14 (16.9) |
| ≥70 | 12 (14.5) |
| Median parity (IQR) | 2 (1–3) |
| <2 | 30 (36.1) |
| 2–5 | 48 (57.8) |
| >5 | 5 (6.0) |
| Menopausal status | |
| Premenopause | 38 (45.8) |
| Postmenopause | 45 (54.2) |
| Coexisting morbidity | |
| Yes | 19 (22.9) |
| No | 64 (77.1) |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) | 26.0 ± 4.8 |
| Underweight <18.5 | 2 (2.4) |
| Normal weight 18.5–24.9 | 37 (44.6) |
| Overweight 25–29 | 26 (31.3) |
| Obese ≥30 | 18 (21.7) |
| Pleural effusions | |
| Yes | 26 (31.3) |
| No | 57 (68.7) |
| Ascites | |
| Yes | 41 (49.4) |
| No | 42 (50.6) |
| Tumor bilaterality | |
| Bilateral | 35 (42.2) |
| Unilateral | 48 (57.8) |
| Retroperitoneal lymph nodes | |
| Absent | 67 (80.7) |
| Present | 16 (19.3) |
| Omental cakeing | |
| Yes | 26 (31.3) |
| No | 57 (68.7) |
| Peritoneal thickening | |
| Yes | 33 (39.8) |
| No | 50 (60.2) |
| Extrapelvic tumor >2 cm | |
| Yes | 36 (43.4) |
| No | 47 (56.6) |
| Median largest tumor size, mm (IQR) | 59 (43–88) |
| Median serum CA-125 levels, U/mL (IQR) | 370 (144–675) |
| Median hemoglobin levels, g/dL (IQR) | 10.5 (9.4–11.4) |
| Median white cells count, ×109/L (IQR) | 6.5 (4.8–8.8) |
| Median platelet count, ×109/L (IQR) | 333 (203–427) |
The overall rate of OTR in this study was 53.0%, while the rate among EOC patients with advanced (FIGO stage III and IV) disease was 36.1%. As shown in the univariate analyses (Table 2), the absence of radiologically visible pleural effusion (P = 0.006), ascites (P = 0.003), retroperitoneal lymph nodes (P = 0.012), omental caking (P = 0.003), peritoneal thickening (P = 0.001), and significant extrapelvic tumor (P = 0.001) together with unilateral ovarian tumor (P = 0.001), largest tumor diameter <60 mm (P = 0.037), serum CA-125 levels of ≤370 U/mL (P = 0.001), and hemoglobin levels of ≤10.5 g/dL (P = 0.096) were the likely predictors of OTR during PDS. However, after adjustments in the final multivariate models (Table 3), having no comorbidity and serum CA-125 levels of ≤370 U/mL (OR = 6.80; 95% CI = 1.19, 38.79; P = 0.031) and the absence of any radiological evidence of pleural effusions (OR = 5.60; 95% CI = 1.32, 23.71; P = 0.019) and enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes were the only independent predictors of optimal PDS.
Table 2. Univariate analyses of preoperative predictors of surgical outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer (n = 83).
BMI: body mass index; CA-125: cancer antigen-125; CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio
| Characteristics | Surgical resectability | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Optimal n = 44 (%) | Suboptimal n = 39 (%) | |||
| Coexisting morbidity | 0.627 | |||
| No | 33 (75.0) | 31 (79.5) | 0.77 (0.28–2.18) | |
| Yes | 11 (25.0) | 8 (20.5) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 0.319 | |||
| ≤25 | 24 (54.5) | 17 (43.6) | 1.55 (0.65–3.70) | |
| >25 | 20 (45.5) | 22 (56.4) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Pleural effusions | 0.001 | |||
| No | 37 (84.1) | 18 (46.2) | 6.17 (2.21–17.17) | |
| Yes | 7 (15.9) | 21 (53.8) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Ascites | 0.003 | |||
| No | 29 (65.9) | 13 (33.3) | 3.87 (1.55–9.63) | |
| Yes | 15 (34.1) | 26 (66.7) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Tumor bilaterality | 0.001 | |||
| Unilateral | 34 (77.3) | 14 (35.9) | 6.07 (2.32–15.89) | |
| Bilateral | 10 (22.7) | 25 (64.1) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Largest tumor size, mm | 0.037 | |||
| <60 | 27 (61.4) | 15 (38.5) | 4.44 (1.30–15.24) | |
| ≥60 | 17 (38.6) | 24 (61.5) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Lymph nodes | 0.012 | |||
| No | 40 (90.9) | 27 (69.2) | 1.55 (0.65–3.70) | |
| Yes | 4 (9.1) | 12 (30.8) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Omental caking | 0.003 | |||
| No | 37 (84.1) | 21 (53.8) | 4.53 (1.63–12.62) | |
| Yes | 7 (15.9) | 18 (46.2) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Peritoneal thickening | 0.001 | |||
| No | 37 (79.5) | 13 (35.9) | 10.57 (3.71–30.11) | |
| Yes | 7 (20.5) | 26 (64.1) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Extrapelvic tumor >2 cm | 0.001 | |||
| No | 33 (75.0) | 15 (38.5) | 4.80 (1.88–12.28) | |
| Yes | 11 (25.0) | 24 (61.5) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Serum CA-125 levels, U/mL | 0.001 | |||
| ≤370 | 33 (75.0) | 9 (23.1) | 10.00 (3.64–27.46) | |
| >370 | 11 (25.0) | 30 (76.9) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Hemoglobin levels, g/dL | 0.096 | |||
| ≤10.5 | 19 (43.2) | 24 (61.5) | 0.48 (0.20 – 1.14) | |
| >10.5 | 25 (56.8) | 15 (38.5) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| White cells count, ×109/L | 0.429 | |||
| ≤6.5 | 21 (47.7) | 22 (56.4) | 0.71 (0.30–1.68) | |
| >6.5 | 23 (52.3) | 17 (43.6) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Platelet count, ×109/L | 0.907 | |||
| ≤333 | 22 (50.0) | 20 (51.3) | 3.87 (1.55–9.63) | |
| >333 | 22 (50.0) | 19 (48.7) | 1.00 (reference) | |
Table 3. Multivariate analyses of preoperative predictors of optimal surgical resection in epithelial ovarian cancer (n = 83).
CA-125: cancer antigen-125; CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio
| Characteristics | Category | Multivariate | |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) | P-value | ||
| Ascites | No vs. yes | 1.83 (0.38–8.79) | 0.452 |
| Pleural effusions | No vs. yes | 5.60 (1.32–23.71) | 0.019 |
| Tumor bilaterality | Unilateral vs. bilateral | 2.02 (0.43–9.52) | 0.374 |
| Largest tumor size | <60 vs. ≥60 mm | 2.86 (0.74–11.06) | 0.127 |
| Omental caking | No vs. yes | 0.59 (0.12–2.84) | 0.506 |
| Peritoneal thickening | No vs. yes | 2.76 (0.51–14.92) | 0.237 |
| Extrapelvic tumor >2 cm | No vs. yes | 2.45 (0.51–11.68) | 0.262 |
| Retroperitoneal lymph nodes | Absent vs. present | 3.42 (0.42–28.16) | 0.253 |
| Serum CA-25 levels | ≤370 vs. >370 U/mL | 6.80 (1.19–38.79) | 0.031 |
| Hemoglobin concentration | ≤10.5 vs. >10.5 g/dL | 0.99 (0.27–3.63) | 0.984 |
Furthermore, as shown in the univariate analyses reported in Table 4, the absence of preexisting comorbidity (P = 0.088) and serum CA-125 levels (P = 0.005) together with the absence of radiological evidence of pleural effusion (P = 0.007), tumor bilaterality (P = 0.037), significant preoperative tumor size (P = 0.059), peritoneal thickening (P = 0.001), and retroperitoneal lymph nodes (P = 0.001) were the likely predictors of OTR in patients with advanced EOC. On multivariate analyses, the absence of medical comorbidities (OR = 18.21; 95% CI = 2.40, 38.10; P = 0.005) and radiological absence of pleural effusions (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 1.80, 24.85; P = 0.011) and retroperitoneal lymph nodes (OR = 11.95; 95% CI = 1.35, 16.07; P = 0.026) were independently associated with OTR in patients with FIGO stage III and IV disease during PDS.
Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analyses of preoperative predictors of optimal surgical resection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (n = 61).
BMI: body mass index; CA-125: cancer antigen-125; OR: odds ratio
| Characteristics | Category | Optimal tumor resection | ||
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| P-value | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | P-value | ||
| Comorbidity | No vs. yes | 0.045 | 18.21 (2.40–38.10) | 0.005 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | ≤25 vs. >25 | 0.923 | - | - |
| Ascites | No vs. yes | 0.554 | - | - |
| Pleural effusions | No vs. yes | 0.007 | 13.75 (1.80–24.85) | 0.011 |
| Tumor bilaterality | Unilateral vs. bilateral | 0.037 | 2.37 (0.44–12.87) | 0.319 |
| Largest tumor size, mm | <60 vs. ≥60 | 0.090 | 4.75 (0.84–26.91) | 0.078 |
| Omental caking | No vs. yes | 0.147 | - | - |
| Peritoneal thickening | No vs. yes | 0.001 | 6.21 (0.74–52.13) | 0.093 |
| Extrapelvic tumor >2 cm | No vs. yes | 0.225 | - | - |
| Retroperitoneal lymph nodes | Absent vs. present | 0.001 | 11.95 (1.35–16.07) | 0.026 |
| Serum CA-25 levels | ≤370 vs. >370 U/mL | 0.005 | 4.32 (0.55–34.04) | 0.165 |
| Hemoglobin concentration, g/dL | ≤10.5 vs. >10.5 | 0.225 | - | - |
| White cell count, ×109/L | ≤6.5 vs. >6.5 | 0.411 | - | - |
| Platelet count, ×109/L | ≤333 vs. >333 | 0.662 | - | - |
Discussion
This study investigated the preoperative predictors of optimal PDS in patients with EOC in Lagos, Nigeria. This was based on the report of a paradigm shift by Horowitz et al. [11] who reported that if an optimal surgical outcome is difficult to attain with upfront surgical debulking, then the use of NACT followed by IDS may be superior to PDS, especially in patients with advanced-stage disease. In this study, we found that the radiological absence of pleural effusion and serum CA-125 levels of ≤370 U/mL were the only independent predictors of OTR in patients with EOC. Furthermore, in patients with advanced-stage III and IV disease, the absence of preexisting comorbidity, pleural effusions (on chest imaging), and retroperitoneal lymph nodes were the independent predictors of OTR.
The overall rate of OTR in this study (53.0%) is higher than the rates reported in previous studies by Kim et al. (40.0%) [12], Rutten et al. (46.4%), [8], and Gerestein et al. (45.0%) [13]. However, the rate of OTR recorded in patients with advanced EOC only (36.1%) in our study is similar to the rates reported in previous studies that included only patients with advanced (FIGO stage III and IV) disease. Only a few studies have reported on the predictors of optimal surgical debulking in patients with EOC, most of which relied on radiologic predictors [14-17], unlike our study that used patients’ clinical parameters such as the presence of medical comorbidities, BMI, hematologic, and biochemical markers, in addition to the radiologic evidence of pleural effusion, ascites, tumor bilaterality, largest tumor size, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, omental cake, significant extrapelvic tumor, and peritoneal thickening. Our results showed that the presence of pleural effusions on preoperative imaging increased the risk of suboptimal debulking by up to 14 times in patients with advanced EOC. In patients with OC, moderate-to-large pleural effusions have been reported to be more likely to be malignant [18], a finding that automatically upstages the disease to at least FIGO stage IV [19], thus suggesting the increased tendency of having a residual disease after PDS [20].
The most commonly studied biomarker for EOC is serum CA-125 level [21]. Chi et al. [22] in 2000 and Kang et al. [9] in 2010 reported that preoperative serum CA-125 levels greater than 500 U/mL were strongly associated with suboptimal surgical debulking in patients with advanced EOC. This was further corroborated by the findings of our study where a lower serum CA-125 cut-off level of 370 U/mL was associated with increased odds of OTR. The most appropriate cut-off of CA-125 remains somewhat controversial, and a future validation study can help confirm the most appropriate value. We reported a significant reduction in the rate of OTR among advanced EOC patients with coexisting medical morbidities, which may be explained by the reduced tendency of these patients to tolerate prolonged anesthesia and extensive tumor debulking with a resultant decrease in available surgical time for optimal resection of all visible tumors.
Metastasis via retroperitoneal lymph nodes is one of the main pathways of OC spread at a rate that is as high as 44-53% in advanced OC [23,24]. Only 19.30% of patients in our study had any radiologic evidence of enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes, but the rate of microscopic lymph node metastasis, even though not reported, could be much higher. Retroperitoneal lymph node enlargement on radiologic imaging was reported to be a predictor of OTR in our study. This corroborated the findings of Bristow et al. [25] and Suidan et al. [26] who reported suprarenal para-aortic lymph node enlargement (≥1 cm) as one of the most important predictive factors for suboptimal debulking in patients with advanced OC.
In this study, the rate of successful OTR was 65.9% in patients with no visible ascites on imaging and 34.1% in patients with EOC and ascites. This is, however, in contrast to the study by Randle et al. [27] who reported that the rate of complete cytoreductive surgery in patients with OC and malignant ascites remained 100%. Massive ascites may affect the respiratory and circulatory functions of patients with subsequent decreased ability to withstand prolonged anesthesia and extensive surgical resection [28]. Our study is also corroborated by the findings from other previous studies [29,30] that reported ascites as one of the predictors of suboptimal surgical debulking in OC patients. However, no independent association was recorded between ascites and OTR in the final multivariate models used in our study.
A significant strength of this study is the initial review of all cases and the performance of debulking surgeries in a multidisciplinary team setting involving the gynecologic oncologist, general/colorectal surgeon, and urologist, with the reduction in the influence of this factor on the oncologic outcome (OTR) being examined in the study. However, the study has a few limitations. First, because this was a single-center retrospective study, the findings cannot be generalizable to other gynecologic oncology units or centers in the country. Second, the number of patients who were eligible for PDS during the review period was relatively small, limiting the in-depth analysis, conclusions, and generalizability of the study findings. The important influence of the cadre and experience of the lead surgeons on the OTR rate was not assessed as the available data in the review was not sufficient to examine this. We intend to investigate this in future research work. In addition, this study only included patients who had PDS followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with the exclusion of patients treated with NACT who could have had a high proportion of the authors’ identification predictors that could have a significant impact on the study endpoints. Finally, the lack of data on patients’ performance status, which is evidence of patients’ cardiovascular and respiratory stability, could significantly influence the extent of the upfront debulking surgery and act as an important confounding factor.
Conclusions
It is important to predict patients with advanced EOC who may benefit from upfront primary surgical debulking with the use of certain preoperative clinical and radiological parameters to reduce the surgical morbidity and improve the oncologic outcome of these patients. In this study, we demonstrated that having no preexisting comorbidity, serum CA-125 of ≤370 U/mL, and absence of radiologic evidence of large pleural effusions and enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes were independent predictors of OTR. However, this is a pilot study among women with EOC in Nigeria. The preliminary data generated will be further tested in a future validation study.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the staff of the Medical Records Department of the hospital for assisting with the retrieval of the patients’ medical records. We also appreciate the resident doctors of the Oncology and Pathological Studies (OPS) Unit of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for their role in data retrieval and collation. The work reported in this study was supported in part by the Conquer Cancer International Innovation Grant under Project ID 16576 and the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers D43TW010934, D43TW010134, and D43TW010543. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the American Society of Clinical Oncology® or Conquer Cancer® and the National Institutes of Health.
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Health Research Ethics Committee of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital issued approval ADM/DCST/HREC/1912
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
- 1.Histopathological patterns of ovarian tumours seen in Lagos University Teaching Hospital: a ten year retrospective study. Onyiaorah IV, Anunobi CC, Banjo AA, Fatima AA, Nwankwo KC. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21916045/ Nig Q J Hosp Med. 2011;21:114–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.A five year review of ovarian cancer at a tertiary institution in Lagos, South-West, Nigeria. Okunade KS, Okunola H, Okunowo AA, Anorlu RI. Niger J Gen Pract. 2016;14:23–27. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kosary CL. SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: U.S. SEER Program, 1988-2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics. SEER Program. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Cancer of the ovary; pp. 133–144. [Google Scholar]
- 4.A novel index for preoperative, non-invasive prediction of macro-radical primary surgery in patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer-a part of the Danish prospective pelvic mass study. Karlsen MA, Fagö-Olsen C, Høgdall E, et al. Tumour Biol. 2016;37:12619–12626. doi: 10.1007/s13277-016-5166-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Risk predictors of early recurrence in women with epithelial ovarian cancer in Lagos, Nigeria. Okunade KS, Adetuyi IE, Adenekan M, Ohazurike E, Anorlu RI. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;36:272. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2020.36.272.17827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Chang SJ, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:493–498. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:943–953. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Prediction of incomplete primary debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: an external validation study of three models using computed tomography. Rutten IJ, van de Laar R, Kruitwagen RF, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:22–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Preoperative serum CA-125 levels and risk of suboptimal cytoreduction in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Kang S, Kim TJ, Nam BH, Seo SS, Kim BG, Bae DS, Park SY. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:13–17. doi: 10.1002/jso.21398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ovarian cancer surgical resectability: relative impact of disease, patient status, and surgeon. Aletti GD, Gostout BS, Podratz KC, Cliby WA. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:33–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182. Horowitz NS, Miller A, Rungruang B, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:937–943. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Surgical outcome prediction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer using computed tomography scans and intraoperative findings. Kim HJ, Choi CH, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS, Kim BG. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53:343–347. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2013.10.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Nomogram for suboptimal cytoreduction at primary surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer. Gerestein CG, Eijkemans MJ, Bakker J, Elgersma OE, van der Burg ME, Kooi GS, Burger CW. https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/31/11/4043.long. Anticancer Res. 2011;31:4043–4049. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–1259. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:166–172. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.1.166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ovarian carcinoma: value of CT in predicting success of debulking surgery. Meyer JI, Kennedy AW, Friedman R, Ayoub A, Zepp RC. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:875–878. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, Hricak H, Okuno WT, Powell B. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96:301–306. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.The utility of multi-detector computed tomography in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion in the patients with ovarian cancer. Kim KW, Choi HJ, Kang S, et al. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:230–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Prat J. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Predictors of survival outcomes after primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer in Lagos, Nigeria. Okunade KS, Adejimi AA, Ohazurike EO, et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2021;7:89–98. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Predictors of optimal cytoreduction in patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: time to incorporate laparoscopic assessment into the standard of care. Gómez-Hidalgo NR, Martinez-Cannon BA, Nick AM, Lu KH, Sood AK, Coleman RL, Ramirez PT. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:553–558. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.The ability of preoperative serum CA-125 to predict optimal primary tumor cytoreduction in stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Chi DS, Venkatraman ES, Masson V, Hoskins WJ. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:227–231. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pattern and clinical predictors of lymph node metastases in epithelial ovarian cancer. Harter P, Gnauert K, Hils R, Lehmann TG, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Traut A, du Bois A. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:1238–1244. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00931.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lymph node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of 276 pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomies and surgical implications. Morice P, Joulie F, Camatte S, et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:198–205. doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00234-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishman EK, O'Neill MJ, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Cancer. 2000;89:1532–1540. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001001)89:7<1532::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:455–461. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Efficacy of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of malignant ascites. Randle RW, Swett KR, Swords DS, Shen P, Stewart JH, Levine EA, Votanopoulos KI. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1474–1479. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3224-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Different sequential approaches of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in treating ovarian cancer with malignant ascites. Ba M, Long H, Zhang X, et al. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1497–1506. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1692-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Model for prediction of optimal debulking of epithelial ovarian cancer. Arab M, Jamdar F, Sadat Hosseini M, Ghodssi- Ghasemabadi R, Farzaneh F, Ashrafganjoei T. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19:1319–1324. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.5.1319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Development of a prediction model for residual disease in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Janco JM, Glaser G, Kim B, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]