Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCSS, "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy
Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) Group and Department of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCSS, "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jun;30(6):819-824. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-001172. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
Laparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma.
A 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group.
A total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer.
This study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.
腹腔镜检查是用于高级卵巢癌、输卵管癌和腹膜癌复杂临床决策过程的诊断工具之一。本文介绍了在欧洲妇科肿瘤学试验网络（ENGOT）组内进行的一项调查结果，该调查旨在回顾妇科肿瘤中心在评估高级卵巢癌、输卵管癌和腹膜癌切除术中的当前实践模式。
向目前属于 ENGOT 组的 20 个合作组的主席发送了一份包含 24 个项目的问卷，并转发给每个组内的成员。
共收回 142 份问卷。只有 39 名受访者（27.5%）报告使用某种形式的临床（非手术）评分来评估切除。诊断性腹腔镜检查评估疾病状态和切除可行性的使用频率如下：从不，21 个中心（15%）；仅在选择的情况下，83 个中心（58.5%）；常规进行，36 个中心（25.4%）。当进行腹腔镜检查时，64%的使用者表示他们根据个人/工作人员的意见决定进行最大限度的努力减瘤手术，36%的使用者表示根据腹腔镜评分决定。在是否应将腹腔镜检查视为评估切除的金标准的问题上，71 名受访者（50%）回答否，66 名受访者（46.5%）回答是，而 5 名受访者（3.5%）未作答。
本研究发现，在欧洲只有 25.4%的中心常规进行腹腔镜检查以评估减瘤的可行性。然而，它常用于选择患者，在少数中心中从未使用过。当采用腹腔镜检查时，只有少数中心的治疗策略仅基于腹腔镜评分。
