Prognostic impact of cytoreductive surgery conducted with primary intent, versus cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancers: a multicentre, propensity score‐matched study from the FRANCOGYN group
Abstract
Objective
To compare survival and morbidity rates between primary cytoreductive surgery (pCRS) and interval cytoreductive surgery (iCRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), using a propensity score.
Design
We conducted a propensity score‐matched cohort study, using data from the FRANCOGYN cohort.
Setting
Retrospective, multicentre study of data from patients followed in 15 French department specialized in the treatment of ovarian cancer.
Sample
Patients included were those with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV EOC, with peritoneal carcinomatosis, having undergone CRS.
Methods
The propensity score was designed using pre‐therapeutic variables associated with both treatment allocation and overall survival (OS).
Main Outcome Measures
The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included recurrence‐free survival (RFS), quality of CRS and other variables related to surgical morbidity.
Results
A total of 513 patients were included. Among these, 334 could be matched, forming 167 pairs. No difference in OS was found (hazard ratio, HR = 0.8, p = 0.32). There was also no difference in RFS (median = 26 months in both groups) nor in the rate of CRS leaving no macroscopic residual disease (pCRS 85%, iCRS 81.4%, p = 0.76). The rates of gastrointestinal tract resections, stoma, postoperative complications and hospital stay were significantly higher in the pCRS group.
Conclusions
Analysis of groups of patients made comparable by propensity score matching showed no difference in survival, but lower postoperative morbidity in patients treated with iCRS.