Minimally Invasive Surgery and Risk of Capsule Rupture for Women With Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer | Minimally Invasive Surgery | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Trends and Outcomes Associated With Capsule Rupture in Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Trends and Outcomes Associated With Capsule Rupture in Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

A, Temporal trends of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) use and capsule rupture in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer between 2010 and 2015. Cochran-Armitage trend test for P value. Observed values and 95% CIs are shown for MIS use (dark blue) and stage I epithelial ovarian cancer with capsule rupture (light blue). B, Overall survival of women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer stratified by surgery type and capsule rupture status. The y-axis is truncated to 80% to 100%.

Table.  Multivariable Analysis for MIS Use and Capsule Rupture
Multivariable Analysis for MIS Use and Capsule Rupture
1.
Siegel  RL, Miller  KD, Jemal  A.  Cancer statistics, 2019.   CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian cancer including fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer. NCCN guidelines. Accessed January 5, 2020. https://www.nccn.org/
3.
Matsuo  K, Chang  EJ, Matsuzaki  S,  et al.  Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer: association between hospital surgical volume and short-term perioperative outcomes.   Gynecol Oncol. Published online May 10, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.045Google Scholar
4.
Falcetta  FS, Lawrie  TA, Medeiros  LR,  et al.  Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD005344. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005344.pub4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Matsuo  K, Machida  H, Yamagami  W,  et al.  Intraoperative capsule rupture, postoperative chemotherapy, and survival of women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.   Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):1017-1026. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003507 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Walker  JL, Piedmonte  MR, Spirtos  NM,  et al.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.   J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-5336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Research Letter
    June 11, 2020

    Minimally Invasive Surgery and Risk of Capsule Rupture for Women With Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
    • 2Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
    • 3Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
    • 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    • 5Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(7):1110-1113. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1702

    Ovarian cancer remains the deadliest gynecologic malignant neoplasm in the United States.1 Salpingo-oophorectomy with the intact removal of the ovary and fallopian tube is the standard approach for suspected ovarian malignant neoplasm apparently confined to the ovary.2 Surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer has historically been performed via laparotomy. However, in recent years, more women with ovarian cysts and masses have been treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopy.3 To date, there are limited data to support the safety and oncologic outcomes of MIS for early-stage ovarian cancer.4 The objective of this study was to examine the association between MIS use, capsule rupture, and survival of women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.

    Methods

    This is an observational study of women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent surgery from 2010 to 2015 and were registered in the National Cancer Database. All women underwent adnexectomy. The study used deidentified data and was deemed exempt by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board.

    Procedures were stratified based on the surgical approach as laparotomy vs MIS (including laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery). Trends in MIS use and capsule rupture over time were examined. Factors associated with capsule rupture were examined using multivariable analyses. The association between route of surgery, capsule rupture, and overall survival were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression models. All P values were from 2-sided tests and results were deemed statistically significant at P < .05.

    Results

    Among 8850 women (mean [SD] age, 55.6 [13.7] years) with stage I ovarian cancer, 2600 women (29.4%) underwent MIS. Use of MIS increased from 19.8% (263 of 1330) in 2010 to 34.9% (554 of 1589) in 2015 (1.8-fold increase; P < .001; Figure, A). In a multivariable model, more recent year of surgery and serous histologic characteristics were associated with use of MIS (Table).

    A total of 1994 women (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture. The rate of rupture increased from 20.2% (269 of 1330) in 2010 to 23.9% (379 of 1589) in 2015 (18.3% relative increase; Cochran-Armitage trend test P = .02; Figure, A). In a multivariable analysis, MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29; Table). Larger tumor size was also associated with higher risk of capsule rupture. Women with ruptured tumors were more likely than women with nonruptured tumors to receive chemotherapy (unilateral tumors: 1252 of 1869 [67.0%] vs 2500 of 6484 [38.6%]; and bilateral tumors: 100 of 125 [80.0%] vs 219 of 372 [58.9%]; P < .001).

    The median follow-up was 39.4 months, and the 4-year overall survival rate decreased by 5.0% between 2010 (overall survival, 91.0%) and 2015 (overall survival, 86.0%). Women with ruptured tumors had lower overall survival compared with those with nonruptured tumors in univariable analysis: 4-year rates, 86.8% for open surgery and ruptured tumors, 88.9% for MIS and ruptured tumors, 90.5% for open surgery and nonruptured tumors, and 91.5% for MIS and nonruptured tumors (log-rank test, P = .001; Figure, B). In the adjusted model, use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality compared with use of MIS and nonruptured capsules (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.97). A similar association was observed for laparotomy, where use of laparotomy with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality compared with use of laparotomy and nonruptured capsules (adjusted-hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.73).

    Discussion

    There has been a significant increase in the use of MIS among women with early-stage ovarian cancer in the United States.3 In the present study, MIS was associated with an increased risk of capsule rupture, which was associated with increased mortality. An increased rate of capsular rupture among women with benign adnexal cysts undergoing MIS has been previously reported, but this association has received little attention for women with ovarian cancer.4

    Previous work on the prognostic significance of capsular rupture has reported mixed findings.5 Theoretically, rupture of the ovarian capsule may result in tumor seeding of the abdominal cavity and may be associated with increased mortality.5 We recognize a number of limitations of this study, including the inability to determine the timing of capsule rupture and whether or not the rupture was contained within a tissue extraction bag at the time of occurrence. Some data, including preoperative diagnosis, tumor marker values, substage, and body mass index, were not available.

    Several factors, including widespread use of MIS for other procedures, decreased perioperative morbidity, and availability of improved technology, were likely associated with the uptake of MIS adnexal surgery.6 Guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MIS for early-stage ovarian cancer should be limited to selected patients and experienced surgeons.2 Until more data become available, careful preoperative patient selection and intraoperative assessment prior to endoscopic oophorectomy should be performed to minimize the risk of tumor disruption and spillage.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: April 8, 2020.

    Corresponding Author: Jason D. Wright, MD, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 161 Fort Washington Ave, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10032 (jw2459@columbia.edu).

    Published Online: June 11, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1702

    Author Contributions: Drs Huang and Wright had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Matsuo and Huang contributed equally to the work.

    Concept and design: Matsuo, Matsuzaki, Klar, Sood, Wright.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Matsuo, Huang, Klar, Roman, Wright.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Matsuo, Matsuzaki, Klar, Wright.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Huang, Klar, Roman, Sood, Wright.

    Statistical analysis: Matsuo, Huang, Matsuzaki, Klar, Wright.

    Obtained funding: Matsuo.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Matsuo, Roman, Wright.

    Supervision: Klar, Roman, Sood, Wright.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Matsuo reported receiving an honorarium from Chugai, textbook editorial expense from Springer, and investigator meeting attendance expense from VBL Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Matsuzaki reported receiving research grants from MSD outside the submitted work. Dr Klar reported receiving consultation fees from Tesaro and GSK outside the submitted work. Dr Roman reported receiving consultation fees from Quantgene outside the submitted work. Dr Sood reported receiving consultation fees from Merck and Kiyatec, being a shareholder for Bio-Path Holdings, and receiving research grants from M-Trap outside the submitted work. Dr Wright reported receiving grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant NCI R01CA169121-01A1 from the National Cancer Institute (Dr Wright); grant NCI CA217685 from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research (Dr Sood); and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research (Dr Matsuo).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Information: The data on which this study is based are publicly available upon request at https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb.

    References
    1.
    Siegel  RL, Miller  KD, Jemal  A.  Cancer statistics, 2019.   CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian cancer including fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer. NCCN guidelines. Accessed January 5, 2020. https://www.nccn.org/
    3.
    Matsuo  K, Chang  EJ, Matsuzaki  S,  et al.  Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer: association between hospital surgical volume and short-term perioperative outcomes.   Gynecol Oncol. Published online May 10, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.045Google Scholar
    4.
    Falcetta  FS, Lawrie  TA, Medeiros  LR,  et al.  Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD005344. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005344.pub4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Matsuo  K, Machida  H, Yamagami  W,  et al.  Intraoperative capsule rupture, postoperative chemotherapy, and survival of women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.   Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):1017-1026. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003507 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Walker  JL, Piedmonte  MR, Spirtos  NM,  et al.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.   J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-5336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×