Bondar O.V., Rybin A.I., Maximovskyi V.E., Kuznetsova O.V., Alieva S.O.
Odessa National Medical University, Odesa, Ukraine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/oncology.2023.03.222


Summary. Aim: to evaluate surgical complications, side effects of chemotherapy, 1- and 3-year survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer against the background of the introduction of optimized personalized treatment. Object and methods: for this purpose, a comparative analysis of the results of clinical examination and treatment of 74 patients with primary serous ovarian adenocarcinoma of stages III–IV (FIGO 2015) who were treated at the University Clinic of Odesa National Medical University was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group IA — patients with primary ovarian cancer who were treated with primary cytoreductive surgery (PDS) + adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) — 43 patients; IB group — patients with primary ovarian cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) + interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) + adjuvant chemotherapy — 16 patients. Results: the absence of statistical difference in the median overall survival in groups IA (PDS + ACT) and IB (NACT + ICS + ACT) was shown to be explained by the complete volume of cytoreduction performed. There was a change in 3-year survival from 56.3 to 70.7% (χ2 = 0.951; p = 0.329) and an increase in 5-year survival from 12.5 to 60.9% (φ = 0.0012; p < 0.05). In group IB, the percentage of postoperative complications in patients and the average length of hospital stay after cytoreductive surgery were lower than in group IA, but the difference was statistically insignificant. When comparing the frequency of side effects of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy treatment in groups IA and IB, the values of χ2 = 36.441; p = 0.0195 were obtained. Thus, it was proved that in the IB group, the toxic effects of chemotherapy of 3–4 degrees of severity were significantly more common. Conclusions: there was no statistical difference when comparing the median overall survival and progression-free survival in the study groups. It has also been shown that primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopically visible residual masses, especially in suboptimal and suboptimal volume (CC 2-3), leads to a significant decrease in survival rates in patients with ovarian cancer.



  1. Rybin AI, Demidchik RYa. Quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. АХТual problems transport medicine 2018; 4 (54): 59–63. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2525786
  2. Tkachenko ОІ, Rybin AI, Kuznetsova OV, Maximovsky VE. Modern strategies of surgical treatment of patients with ovarian cancer combined with pelvic carcinomatosis. Clin oncol 2018; 8 (3): 1–7. https://repo.odmu.edu.ua:443/xmlui/handle/123456789/7250.
  3. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(6):394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.
  4. Rybin AI, Kuznetsova OV, Maximovsky VE. Modern strategies of surgical treatment of patients with pelvic canceromatosis caused by the ovarian cancer. Visnyk morsʹkoyi medytsyny 2020; 2 (87): 55– 61 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3967728.
  5. Rybin AI. The results of personificated ovarian cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treatment. Reproductive health of woman 2022; (7): 35–40. https://doi.org/10.30841/2708-8731.7.2022.272470.
  6. Bondar O, Rybin A. The experience and results of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC used in advanced ovarian cancer. ScienceRise 2020; (5): 19–23. https://doi.org/10.21303/2313-8416.2020.001458.
  7. Di Vita M, Cappellani A, Piccolo G, et al. The role of HIPEC in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer: between lights and shadows. Anticancer Drugs 2015; 26 (2):123–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/cad.0000000000000179.
  8. Santillan A, Karam AK, Li AJ, et al. Secondary cytoreductive surgery for isolated nodal recurrence in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104 (3): 686–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.10.020.
  9. Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 1995; 221 (1): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199501000-00004.
  10. Bondar O, Rybin A, Patskov A. The quality of life of ovarian cancer patients as an indication of effectiveness of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Georgian medical news 2021; (11): 32–6. https://repo.odmu.edu.ua:443/xmlui/handle/123456789/10608.
  11. Cortez AJ, Tudre P, Kujawa KA, Lisowska KM. Advances in ovarian cancer therapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2018; 81 (1): 17–38. doi: 10.1007/s00280-017-3501-8.
  12. Deraco M, Baratti D, Kusamura S, et al. Surgical technique of parietal and visceral peritonectomy for peritoneal surface malignancies. J Surg Oncol 2009; 100 (4): 321–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21388.
  13. Oncogynecology. Rybin AI, et al. (eds). Odessa: ONMedU, 2013. 200 p. http://repo.odmu.edu.ua:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/1299.
  14. Deraco M, Kusamura S, Virzì S, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as upfront therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Multiinstitutional phase-II trial. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122 (2): 215–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.004.
  15. Deraco M, Virzì S, Iusco D, et al. Secondary cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJOG 2012; 119 (7): 800–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03207.
  16. Diab Y, Muallem MZ. Targeted therapy in ovarian cancer. A comprehensive systematic review of literature. Anticancer Research 2017; 37 (6): 2809–15. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.11631.
  17. Chandra A, Pius P, Nabeel M, et al. Ovariancancer: Current status and strategies for improving therapeutic outcomes. Cancer Med 2019; 8 (16): 7018–31. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2560/

No comments » Add comment