Stage I ovarian cancer: comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy on staging and survival

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare staging accurateness as well as survival when managing early ovarian cancers by laparoscopy or laparotomy.

Material and methods: We have conducted a retrospective and multicentric study in France. Only Stage I ovarian epithelial cancers operated on from January 1, 1985 to December 31, 1999 were taken into account. Respondents had to fill in a form detailing in each case the surgical access; the surgical acts performed during the initial intervention as well as data on the patient's follow-up. Lack of follow-up or final Stage > I were considered as exclusion criteria. Data were recorded and analysed with SPSS 7.5 and STATA (Stata statistical sofware 7.0). (ANOVA, chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and log-rank test).

Results: 105 cases were included: 14 patients were exclusively operated on by laparoscopy (group 1), 13 other patients were subjected to a conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy (group 2) and 78 patients exclusively underwent laparotomy (group 3). Patients in group 3 were significantly more frequently postmenopausal and had larger lesions. Cyst rupture was rare during laparoscopy (21%) and the use of an endobag was achieved in only 21% of the patients in group 1. Radical treatment was significantly more frequent in group 3 when compared to group 1 (67% vs 23%, p < 0.05). Laparoscopy was not adequate for staging since no lymphadenectomy was carried out by this approach. However, only 27% of patients subjected to an open approach underwent lymphadenectomy and omentectomy. The outcome in terms of survival was similar in the three groups with a mean follow-up period of 1,221 days (+/- 832) (p = 0.1).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic management of early ovarian cancer is poorly efficient in staging although disease-free survival does not seem to be affected. Further evaluation of laparoscopy in this indication is needed.