
==== Front
World J Surg OncolWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology1477-7819BioMed Central London 1477-7819-2-321546178810.1186/1477-7819-2-32ReviewRole of primary surgery in advanced ovarian cancer Münstedt Karsten 1karsten.muenstedt@gyn.med.uni-giessen.deFranke Folker E 2folker.e.franke@patho.med.uni-giessen.de1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Klinikstrasse 32, D 35385 Giessen, Germany2 Institute of Pathology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Langhansstrasse 10, D 35385 Giessen, Germany2004 2 10 2004 2 32 32 4 7 2004 2 10 2004 Copyright © 2004 Münstedt and Franke; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.2004Münstedt and Franke; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background
Major issues in surgery for advanced ovarian cancer remain unresolved. Existing treatment guidelines are supported by a few published reports and fewer prospective randomized clinical trials.

Methods
We reviewed published reports on primary surgical treatment, surgical expertise, inadequate primary surgery/quality assurance, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, interval debulking, and surgical prognostic factors in advanced ovarian cancer to help resolve outstanding issues.

Results
The aim of primary surgery is a well-planned and complete intervention with optimal staging and surgery. Surgical debulking is worthwhile as there are further effective treatments available to control unresectable residual disease. Patients of gynecologic oncology specialist surgeons have better survival rates. This may reflect a working 'culture' rather than better technical skills. One major problem though, is that despite pleas to restrict surgery to experienced surgeons, specialist centers are often left to cope with the results of inadequate primary surgical resections. Patients with primary chemotherapy or those who have had suboptimal debulking may benefit from interval debulking. A proposal for a better classification of residual tumor is given.

Conclusions
Optimal surgical interventions have definite role to play in advanced ovarian cancers. Improvements in surgical treatment in the general population will probably improve patients' survival when coupled with improvements in current chemotherapeutic approaches.
==== Body
Background
The Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrigue (FIGO) classifies ovarian carcinoma in stage I to IV [1,2]. Stage I has been defined as growth limited to the ovaries; stage II as growth involving one or both ovaries with pelvic extension; stage III as tumor involving one or both ovaries with peritoneal implants, and outside the pelvis and/or positive retroperitoneal or inguinal nodes and stage IV as having distant metastasis [1,2].

Tumors in stages I and II are generally considered to represent early disease, while stages III and IV evince late or advanced disease [3,4]. The strong prognostic value of the FIGO classification system has been proved in number of studies [5].

Unfortunately, most ovarian carcinomas are detected only when they are advanced. Results of studies evaluating screening by tumor markers (a raised CA125 value) and/or ultrasonography to detect early disease are not clear [6,7]. Ultrasonography may become an increasingly important tool as it has been associated with higher detection rates in early stage disease and in patients with a genetic predisposition to tumor [8-11]. However, use of proteomics will perhaps identify more ovarian carcinomas at early stages in the future [12].

Though controversial till 70s, surgery is now recognized an integral part of the treatment armamentarium in advanced ovarian carcinoma. Aure et al., [13] presented convincing evidence that extensive tumor removal resulted in better survival even in advanced stage disease and introduced the idea of primary tumor debulking surgery. The value of primary debulking surgery was confirmed and its theoretical background was elucidated by Griffith and Fuller [14]. Subsequent work showed that debulking surgery improves an adverse vegetative function and nutritional problems such as loss of appetite and nausea [15,16]. It was also suggested that primary debulking surgery removes therapy-resistant tumor cells and increases the number of proliferating tumor cells (the Gompertzian phenomenon), which makes these cells more susceptible to subsequent chemotherapy [17-19]. These early hypotheses have partly been confirmed by the finding of increased postoperative tumor proliferation rates in patients after surgery [20].

Ongoing discussions about quality assurance and guideline-based therapy had helped to foster the impression that the main issues in treating ovarian cancer have been resolved and that the value of each procedure involved has been supported by high levels of scientific evidence [21-23]. Closer inspection reveals that it is not true. Only a few treatment guidelines are supported by published reports, and even fewer by prospective randomized clinical trials. However, we strongly believe the value of retrospective studies is greatly underestimated. Recent analyses show that the treatment effects assessed by observational studies do not greatly differ in magnitude or quality from those published in randomized, controlled trials [24,25]. Furthermore, biases created by the selection criteria inherent in prospective randomized trials are frequently ignored.

Thus, in this article we will concentrate on looking more closely at several issues in surgical treatment, their effects and importance in relation to outcome in advance ovarian cancer.

Primary surgical treatment
The utility of primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer is well established. Its aim should be a well-planned, extensive and complete intervention. Thus, no facility should offer surgery for patients with ovarian cancer if adequate standards of care cannot be met.

The optimal preparation of patients for surgery is very important. Patients must be in a position to give fully informed consent to any additional surgical procedures found necessary during the operation. They should also undergo colonic lavage, which will provide the surgeon with better access to the lymph nodes and reduce risks in cases where intestinal surgery is undertaken. Where cytological evaluation of peritoneal fluid aspired preoperatively, a raised concentration of serum CA125, or ultrasound results indicate advanced malignancy, the patient should be transferred to a specialist surgeon (see below).

Many cases where the staging is not clear, laparoscopy appears to be good tool for obtaining a definitive histological diagnosis in advanced ovarian cancer and helps in planning the best surgical approach. Laparoscopic staging, in particular, can give a clear view of the extent of surgery required and the difficulties that may be expected, and it may be helpful in selecting patients for primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy [26]. Video recording can document the findings during laparoscopy and can be used subsequently by the surgeon to plan optimal debulking surgery.

However, laparoscopic surgery of any suspicious adnexal mass is not encouraged unless the risk of capsular rupture and tumor spill is minimized by the use of endobags [27]. No cystic mass which is >10 cm in diameter and/or adherent to the lateral pelvic wall should be removed laparoscopically [28].

The fear due to some in-vitro and animal studies that showed carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum has adverse effects on outcomes is probably unfounded, as a recent analysis from second-look laparoscopies showed no influence of pneumoperitoneum on overall survival [29]. Certainly, more data on this issue is required.

Since laparoscopy may increase tumor growth rates, delays between laparoscopy and definitive surgery should be avoided [30]. Although this view has not yet been supported by any other study, we believe that the time between the suspected diagnosis of advanced ovarian cancer and surgery should be kept as short as possible. Delays may result in a higher preoperative tumor mass which has been identified as an adverse prognostic factor [31].

Surgical staging
Tumor stage is one of the primary prognostic factors. Appropriate staging is vitally important for effective postoperative therapeutic decision-making. Patients who have been accurately staged as stage I may not require adjuvant chemotherapy [32,33].

Requirements for appropriate staging after total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy include multiple cytological washings, random biopsies from the peritoneum and the diaphragm, omentectomy and lymphadenectomy. The value of peritoneal cytology is supported by prospective studies [34]. There are several issues surrounding lymphadenectomy, and these are discussed later. In two studies, optimal staging resulted in 30% to 50% of the patients being reclassified to a higher stage – a fact which has implications for subsequent treatment [35,36]. A classification system for determining the quality of surgical staging was introduced recently and is shown in Table 1[33]. However, it may be only helpful for comparisons of older studies since optimal staging is a prerequisite of later therapeutic decisions.

Table 1 Surgical quality categories for staging of ovarian carcinomas (based on Trimbos et al. 2003)

Category of surgical quality	Staging procedures included	
Optimal -	Inspection and palpation of all peritoneal surfaces; biopsies of any suspect lesion for metastasis; peritoneal washings; infra-colic omentectomy; blind biopsies of the right diaphragm and right and left para-colic gutter, pelvic side-walls of the ovarian fossa, of the bladder peritoneum and of the cul-de-sac and sampling of iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes	
Modified -	Everything between optimal and minimal staging	
Minimal -	Inspection and palpation of all peritoneal surfaces and the retroperitoneal area; biopsies of any suspect lesions for metastasis; peritoneal washing; infracolic omentectomy	
Inadequate -	Less than minimal staging but at least careful inspection and palpation of all peritoneal surfaces and the retroperitoneal area; biopsies of any suspect lesion for metastasis	
Extent of surgery
In addition to the staging procedures mentioned earlier, optimal surgical treatment for ovarian cancer comprises tumor removal; removal of remaining ovaries, uterus, and fallopian tubes, omentectomy, and radical para aortic and pelvic lymphadenctomy [3,37]. The German national treatment guidelines recommend a simultaneous appendectomy and removal of the cul de sac over the peritoneum of the small pelvis [38]. Since removal of all grossly visible tumor is considered crucial for long-term survival, surgery should be extended to include hemicolectomy, splenectomy and stripping of the peritoneal reflection of the diaphragm when the tumor masses infiltrate the entire abdominal cavity, the colon, the diaphragm or other structures respectively.

Although the reasoning behind performing these measures seems convincing, only lymphadenectomy has been partly evaluated in a prospective, randomized trial. The previously held belief that mere palpation of lymph nodes is sufficient to gauge nodal status was refuted in this study [39].

Lymphadenectomy plays a triple role in the treatment of ovarian cancer. First, it is of diagnostic value since tumors of apparently early stage show nodal involvement in about 20% to 40% of the cases [40], If found positive, the tumor must be classified as stage IIIc. Secondly, lymphadenectomy is of immense prognostic value. Most importantly, lymphadenectomy may also have a therapeutic effect as retrospective studies comparing lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy reported a survival benefits with this procedure [41-43]. The data on lymphadenectomy is however conflicting with one study showing that the patients with stage III disease (tumor residuals >2 cm) that has been debulked suboptimally do not benefit from lymphadenectomy [44]. Other workers report no benefit even if the residual tumor size is smaller (1 cm) [45]. Though not fully published, the only prospective, randomized trial shows that systematic lymphadenectomy did not result in better survival compared to selective lymphadenectomy [46]. Mainly based on the retrospective findings current views on treating stage III disease suggest: systematic lymphadenectomy in cases of residual tumors <1 cm, nodal debulking only where tumors are larger than intra-abdominal residuals, and nodal sampling in stage IV disease with pleural effusions only [47].

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study testing the benefit of hysterectomy or omentectomy. However, the concurrent incidence of endometrial carcinoma in 10% to 25 % of patients, or its precursors in about 30% to 50% of all ovarian cancers justifies this procedure [48,49].

Optimal debulking
Ovarian cancer is one of the tumors where surgical debulking is considered worthwhile. This is due to availability of further effective treatments that are available to control the unresectable residual disease. As early as 1934, Meigs suggested that maximum cytoreductive surgery was beneficial [50]. Many years later, in 1968, Munnell followed this idea and proposed the idea of 'maximum surgical effort' [51]. He distinguished between definitive surgery, partial removal of the tumor and biopsy only. Since partial removal covers a wide range of interventions that requires varying amount of efforts, optimal debulking was distinguished from suboptimal debulking. Although there is no generally accepted definition, most early studies considered a residual tumor size of <2 cm as optimal [52]. In a more recent survey among gynecological oncologists from United States of America (USA), 12% of the responders defined optimal debulking surgery as no visible tumor residuals, while 14% described it as residual tumor masses less than 0.5 cm. However, 61% chose a 1 cm threshold and 13% considered a tumor of 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm as optimal [53]. Comparative analysis of diameters of various residual diseases has shown that there exists some sort of a threshold at 2 cm, above which no significant differences in survival can be found. In contrast, subset analyses of smaller diameters in residual disease show improved patient prognosis [54]. This variation in the interpretation of thresholds with prognostic impact calls for a commonly accepted definition (see concluding remarks) and more controlled trials, that need to be non-randomized as it will not be ethically possible to leave some tumor behind.

The results of an earlier meta analysis on cytoreductive surgery might have been flawed not only due to absence of clear definitions but also due to the combined effects of subsequent chemotherapy [52]. In this study, the then novel, platinum-containing chemotherapy had a stronger impact on survival than cytoreductive surgery. A recent and otherwise comparable meta analysis however, confirms the greater survival benefit of patients undergoing maximum cytoreduction [55]. Another interesting study stated that optimal cytoreduction means no visible residual tumor [31]. It has been further shown that the volume of the residual tumor and the success of subsequent chemotherapy are interdependent [56].

Expertise of gynecological oncology surgeons
Based on available evidence it is generally accepted that the experience and technical expertise of a surgeon are important prognostic factors. Comparisons of overall survival in patients treated by gynecological oncology, gynecologists and general surgeons have shown that patients treated by surgeons trained in gynecology (gynecological oncology) have a significantly better prognosis [57,58]. This finding may not reflect primarily on the technical skills of these surgeons but rather reflection the 'environment' in which they work – where views and thoughts on the biology of advanced tumors are freely shared and patients are often treated by a team rather then individuals. As for surgeons there are only select patients with uncommon neoplasms like gastrinomas, glucagonomas, stomatostatinomas, and VIPomas, who profit from debulking surgery with particular reference to prevent deleterious hormonal side-effects [59]. It is expected that new chemotherapy and immunotherapeutical approaches will probably lead to a re-evaluation of debulking surgery as a complementary approach [60-62]. Till such time where definite evidence is available, it is strongly recommended that all patients should be treated by a gynec-oncologist. There had been constant calls to regionalize specialist surgery, however, no studies have yet shown better survival in patients treated by 'high volume' operators or such specialists [63,64]. A recent study on quality control from Hesse, Germany, showed striking deficiencies even at central-referral hospitals [23]. Treatment by a multidisciplinary team of specialists, has been shown to increase patients' chances of survival without any disputes [65,66]. Patients probably benefit most from being treated in centers which promote excellent scientific exchange, and continuous education and self-evaluation among surgeons besides providing multidisciplinary approach to management.

Coping with inadequate primary surgery
Surgical treatment of advanced ovarian cancer is one of the most demanding procedures in gynecological surgery. Despite repeated requests to restrict surgery to experienced surgeons, considerable numbers of patients are still operated by others. A population based study from Germany showed that omentectomies were performed in about 50% of all cases of ovarian cancer and lymphadenectomy were carried out only in 30% [22]. Another study from USA showed that only about half of the patients receive 'standard' care [68]. In spite of the establishment of gynecological oncology as a specialty in the USA, fewer than half of the patients were originally seen by such a specialist [68]. More over the terminologies like "standard" are not defined well.

The situation with regard to specialism depends strongly on the medical infrastructure, and varies from country to country and region to region. However, the problem of inadequate primary surgery is real, and coping with it is a frequent task in specialist centers even in developed countries. The question is what should be done for the patient concerned? Interestingly, this is something that cannot be found in textbooks [3,69,70]. Some of the literature suggest re-laparotomy by experienced surgeons to achieve reductions in all possible tumor mass [71,72] however, there is no evidence to support this strategy.

In general, one of two situations occurs. First patients present with no evidence of macroscopic tumor residuals but staging procedures and/or operative measures were omitted. Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify enlarged lymph nodes or possible residual tumors in these situations may help to decide on the need for second surgery. The belief that tumor cells in retroperitoneal lymph nodes are better able to survive chemotherapy is supported by low cytotoxic drug concentrations in these [73]. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider enlarged lymph nodes as a decisive factor favoring a direct surgical approach. It is interesting to note that in endometrial carcinomas, a clinically negative omentum was also found to be histologically negative in most cases (sensitivity 89%) [74].

Patients with residual tumor mass have to be evaluated to determine if it is possible to achieve no residual tumor or microscopic residual tumor by immediate secondary surgery. Although immediate laparotomy seems to be a good idea, the limited capacity for surgery at specialist departments and delays in having the surgery are to be considered. The peritoneum shows inflammation shortly after surgery reaching a high about 7 to 14 days afterwards [75]. Surgery at this time is considered far more complicated and may result in higher blood loss and greater risk of injury to neighboring abdominal organs [76]. However, waiting for the inflammatory processes to resolve will give the tumor further time to proliferate [20]. Therefore, interval debulking surgery after three courses of chemotherapy should be considered as an appropriate alternative.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Disease spread >2 cm to the spleen, diaphragm, liver surface, mesentery, or gallbladder is generally believed to be inoperable. However, even these patients may often undergo effective debulking procedures [26,77]. As mentioned earlier, laparoscopy can be used to reach decisions on surgery. The only problem with laparoscopy in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a 30% rate of port site metastasis, which is believed to be a result of the pneumoperitoneum procedure created for laparoscopy [78]. These metastases should be excised at the time of any subsequent surgery [79].

An analysis of several retrospective studies on neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed that there are no good reasons to assume that this approach is associated with a poorer prognosis [26]. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) protocol 55971 comparing upfront tumor debulking surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIc or IV disease is accruing and its results will provide better insights on this issue.

Interval tumor debulking
Interval debulking, is another approach to reduce tumor burden between the cycles of chemotherapy. It has been evaluated in two prospective randomized trials [80,81]. The EORTC study showed a clear survival advantage for interval debulking (still noted in the 2001 update), the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG-152) study has, as yet, failed to show any benefit from interval debulking [80,81]. Patients with residual tumor >1 cm received three courses of cyclophosphamide/cisplatinum in the EORTC study [80] or three courses of paclitaxel/cisplatinum in the GOG-152 study. In both studies, patients who did not respond to chemotherapy were removed from the study. Those who responded were randomized to either secondary surgery or no surgery. Afterwards, all patients received three more courses of the earlier chemotherapeutic regimen.

Although there seem to be only minor differences in the design of both trials, a closer look shows that in the GOG-152 study, the number of stage IV patients was lower (6%) compared with the EORTC (21%) study, the performance status was better, and there was less residual tumor. This was due to the eligibility criteria for GOG 152 which stated that patients should have had surgery with maximal effort to resect the uterus, tubes, ovaries, omentum, and all gross residual ovarian cancer at the time of primary surgery.

The questions about the benefit of interval debulking surgery remain unresolved. However, it appears that patients who have had neoadjuvant chemotherapy or suboptimal debulking may profit from this treatment, while those who have undergone primary, maximum effort surgery by a gynecological oncologist are less likely to profit from it [82].

Surgical prognostic factors
Size of the residual tumor, volume of the residual disease and experience of the surgeon are important prognostic factors [56,77]. Among these, only few can be influenced by human intervention. Except for dose intensity of chemotherapy, recent literature indicates that the hemoglobin concentrations before chemotherapy are of prognostic value [83,84]. The latter may be influenced by the use of erythropoietin which has shown positive effects on survival in cervical cancer [86].

As mentioned above, the frequently used definition of <2 cm for optimal debulking is arbitrary since every further reduction in the size of residual tumor improves the prognosis [54]. Thus, each threshold between 0 and 2 cm will have its own prognostic relevance. While the criterion 'diameter of residual tumor' reflects tumor cell hypoxia and reduces the pool of proliferating tumor cells susceptible to chemotherapy, the criterion 'residual tumor volume' alludes to the removal of therapy-resistant tumor cells, which are believed to be responsible for early recurrences. A comparison of both criteria in relation to their prognostic impact has shown that residual tumor volume is of greater importance [56]. As shown in subgroup analyses of the intergroup trial confirming the results of the GOG-111 study, a possibly superior chemotherapeutic regimen containing taxanes cannot compensate for the tumor left behind after primary surgery [19].

Future trends
It is difficult to assess the future role of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may become more important. However, as the tumor debulking surgery works, except in stage IV patients with solid distant metastasis, it may be worth trying combined ultrasound-guided laser interstitial thermotherapy for non-resectable liver metastasis with conventional debulking surgery [87]. Apart from technical innovations, quality control, quality assurance and documentation of patient outcomes after surgery will probably play major parts in treatment improvements.

Conclusion
Numerous studies have analyzed the effects of various kind of chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. In contrast, only a few prospective randomized studies have focused on surgical issues in this type of tumor [46,80,81]. This lack of surgical trials has probably contributed to inhomogenous definitions regarding the terminology of surgical interventions and surgical stages (early compared with late) and the classification of operative success in general.

In future, we must aim to ensure that all patients are treated along the generally accepted guidelines and receive optimal debulking surgery which leaves only microscopically detectable residual tumor as shown in number of studies; it is certainly unethical at present to evaluate this procedure in randomized clinical trials (see Introduction). Other then this, there are many other relevant issues which need to be resolved or clarified with special reference to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, interval debulking, the surgeon's training, and inadequate primary treatment. It would certainly be very helpful to demonstrate clearly the consequences of what is supposed to be an inadequate treatment.

The simple dichotomization of FIGO stages to early or late does not correspond to any diagnostic, biological or therapeutic advantage. We believe that it is far more reasonable to consider stage I alone as early disease (perhaps even only stage Ia and b), stages II and III (perhaps even stage IV with pleural effusions) as intermediate disease, and stage IV with organ metastasis as advanced disease. Such a classification would follow current views on treatment, since early ovarian carcinomas are treated primarily by surgery (eventually fertility-sparing) and adjuvant chemotherapy in cases of increased risk, intermediate ones by surgery and routine chemotherapy, and advanced disease by chemotherapy only. Thus far, results of studies on stage IV patients with organ metastases are inconsistent regarding the benefit of surgery. This is another issue to be resolved [88]. In this respect, FIGO may find subdividing stage IV into stage IVa (pleural effusions) and IVb (organ metastasis) worthwhile.

Disappointingly, the Tumor-Nodes-Metastasis (TNM) classification follows the FIGO system and violates its own principles by not accepting distant peritoneal metastasis as a natural indicator of primary tumor size but also by summarizing a nodal-positive disease stage as T3c (corresponding to FIGO IIIC) regardless of intra-abdominal findings. This inconsistency has already created curious confusions in current research. Nodal involvement has been shown to impair prognosis, however, smaller intra-abdominal tumors with nodal involvement (presented as stage I to IIIb disease but, by definition, all stage IIIC) show a significantly better prognosis than extensive intra-abdominal tumor masses (again stage IIIC) [89].

Furthermore, residual disease should be properly defined. The most rational approach is to regard microscopic residuals as optimal. Case series claim that experienced gynecologic-oncologic surgeons can clear up to 85% of patients in the unfavorable subgroups (FIGO stage IIIc and IV) of all visible tumor, leading to an extraordinarily high five year survival rate of about 50% [77]. As discussed (see surgical prognostic factors), a good definition of residual tumor would include aspects of both residual tumor size and volume. A proposal is made in Table 2.

Table 2 Surgical documentation of residual tumor after debulking of ovarian carcinomas

Residual tumor status*	Maximum diameter of residual tumor	Maximum total volume of residual tumor	
Optimal	Microscopic	No visible tumor	
Minimal	< 1 cm	≤ 10 cm3	
Intermediate	1 – 2 cm	> 10 cm3 but ≤ 100 cm3	
Gross	> 2 cm	> 100 cm3	
*To assign residual tumor to a certain status, both criteria, diameter and volume, have to be fulfilled. Otherwise the next lower category should be used.

In summary, more attention need be paid to surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. These include necessary improvements in treatment in the general population, uniform definitions and terminology, and increasing number of surgical clinical trials. Extrapolating from the results of truly optimal ovarian cancer surgery, we believe that improvements in surgery will lead to better patient survival than improvements in current chemotherapeutic approaches [55,90,91].

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions
KM and FEF both participated equally in literature search, conceptualization and preparation of the manuscript. Both authors have read the manuscript and approve it for publication.

Acknowledgments
The author takes the opportunity to thank Professor Dr. Wolfgang Künzel, FRCOG, for his helpful comments on the manuscript.
==== Refs
Benedet JL Bender H Jones H Ngan HY Pecorelli S  FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000 70 209 262 11041682 10.1016/S0020-7292(00)90001-8 
Wittekind C Meyer HJ Bootz F  TNM-Klassifikation maligner Tumoren Heidelberg, Springer 2003 
Ozols RF Rubin SC Thomas G Robboy S  Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC  Epithelial ovarian cancer Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology 1997 Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers 919 986 
Winter-Roach B Hooper L Kitchener H  Systematic review of adjuvant therapy for early stage (epithelial) ovarian cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003 13 395 404 12911714 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13316.x 
Brinkhuis M Meijer GA Baak JPA  An evaluation of prognostic factors in advanced ovarian cancer Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995 63 115 124 8903765 10.1016/0301-2115(95)02211-2 
Jacobs IJ Skates SJ MacDonald N Menon U Rosenthal AN Davies AP Woolas R Jeyarajah AR Sibley K Lowe DG Oram DH  Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial Lancet 1999 353 1207 1210 10217079 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10261-1 
Bell R Petticrew M Sheldon T  The performance of screening tests for ovarian cancer: results of a systematic review Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998 105 1136 1147 9853761 
Bourne TH Campbell S Reynolds KM Whitehead MI Hampson J Royston P Crayford TJ Collins WP  Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with transvaginal ultrasonography and color blood flow imaging BMJ 1993 306 1025 1029 8490496 
van Nagell JR DePriest PD Reedy MB Gallion HH Ueland FR Pavlik EJ Kryscio RJ  The efficacy of transvaginal sonographic screening in asymptomatic women at risk for ovarian cancer Gynecol Oncol 2000 77 350 356 10831341 10.1006/gyno.2000.5816 
DePriest PD Gallion HH Pavlik EJ Kryscio RJ van Nagell JR  Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for the detection of early ovarian cancer Gynecol Oncol 1997 65 408 414 9190966 10.1006/gyno.1997.4705 
Tailor A Bourne TH Campbell S Okokon E Dew T Collins WP  Results from an ultrasound-based familial ovarian cancer screening clinic: a 10-year observational study Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003 21 378 385 12704748 10.1002/uog.65 
Petricoin EF Ardekani AM Hitt BA Levine BA Fusaro VA Steinberg SM Mills GB Simone C Fishman DA Kohn EC Liotta LA  Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer Lancet 2002 359 572 577 11867112 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07746-2 
Aure JC Hoeg K Kolstad P  Clinical and histologic studies of ovarian carcinoma. Long-term follow-up of 990 cases Obstet Gynecol 1971 37 1 9 4321469 
Griffith CT Fuller AF  Intensive surgical and chemotherapeutic management of advanced ovarian cancer Surg Clin North Am 1978 58 131 142 417410 
Michel G De Iaco P Castaigne D el-Hassan MJ Lobreglio R Lhomme C Rey A Duvillard P  Extensive cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1997 18 9 15 9061314 
Griffiths CT  Blackledge G, Chan KK  Surgery at the time of diagnosis of ovarian cancer Management of ovarian cancer 1986 London: Butterworth 60 
Goldie JH Coldman AJ  A mathematical model for relating the drug sensitivity of tumors to their spontaneous mutation rate Cancer Treat Rep 1979 63 1727 1733 526911 
McGuire WP Hoskins WJ Brady MF Kucera PR Partridge EE Look KY Clarke-Pearson DL Davidson M  Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer N Engl J Med 1996 334 1 6 7494563 10.1056/NEJM199601043340101 
Piccart MJ Bertelsen K James K Cassidy J Mangioni C Simonsen E Stuart G Kaye S Vegote I Blom R Grimshaw R Atkinson RJ Swenerton KD Tropé C Nardi M Kaern J Tumolo S Timmers P Roy JA Lhoas F Lindwall B Bacon M Birt A Anderson JE Zee B Paul J Baron B Pecorelli S  Randomized intergroup trial of ciplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: three-year results J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 92 699 708 10793106 10.1093/jnci/92.9.699 
Kehoe ST Luesley DM Ward K Chan KK  In vivo evidence of increased malignant cell proliferation following surgery in ovarian cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 1995 5 121 127 11578466 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1995.05020121.x 
Shaw M Wolfe C Raju KS Papadopoulos A  National guidance on gynecological cancer management: an audit of gynecological cancer services and management in the South East of England Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2003 24 246 250 12807233 
Münstedt K von Georgi R Zygmunt M Misselwitz B Stillger B Künzel W  Shortcomings and deficits in surgical treatment of gynecological cancers: a German problem only? Gynecol Oncol 2002 86 337 343 12217757 10.1006/gyno.2002.6767 
Münstedt K von Georgi R Misselwitz B Zygmunt M Stillger R Künzel W  Centralizing surgery for gynecologic oncology – a strategy assuring better quality treatment? Gynecol Oncol 2003 89 4 8 12694647 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00071-4 
Benson K Hartz AJ  A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials N Engl J Med 2000 342 1878 86 10861324 10.1056/NEJM200006223422506 
Concato J Shah N Horwitz RI  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs N Engl J Med 2000 342 1887 1892 10861325 10.1056/NEJM200006223422507 
Vergote I  Controversies in surgery in ovarian cancer – what is its real role? Eur J Cancer 2003 39 115 125 
Arzouman DA Caccavale RJ Sisler GE Lewis RJ  Endobag Ann Thorac Surg 1993 55 1266 1267 8494451 
Childers JM Nasseri A Survit EA  Laparoscopic management of suspicious adnexal masses Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 175 1451 1459 8987924 
Abu-Rustum NR Sonoda Y Chi DS Teoman H Dizon DS Venkatraman E Barakat RR  The effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on the survival of women with persistent metastatic ovarian cancer Gynecol Oncol 2003 90 431 434 12893213 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00330-5 
Volz J Koster S Scaeff B  Laparoscopic management of gynaecologic malignancies, time to hesitate Gynecol Endosc 1997 84 358 361 
Eisenkop SM Spirtos  Friedman RL Lin W-CM Pisani AL Perticucci S  Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study Gynecol Oncol 2003 90 390 396 12893206 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00278-6 
Zanetta G Rota S Chiari S Bonazzi C Bratina G Torri V Mangioni C  The accuracy of staging: an important prognostic determinator in stage I ovarian carcinoma. A multivariate analysis Ann Oncol 1998 9 1097 1101 9834822 10.1023/A:1008424527668 
Trimbos JB Vergote I Bolis G Vermorken JB Mangioni C Madronal C Franchi M Tateo S Zanetta G Scarfone G Giurgea L Timmers P Coens C Pecorelli S  Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer – Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Ovarian Neoplasm Trial J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 95 113 125 12529344 10.1093/jnci/95.2.113 
Simojoki M Santala M Vuopala S Kauppila A  The prognostic value of peritoneal cytology in ovarian cancer Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1999 20 357 360 10609494 
Young RC Decker DG Wharton JT Piver MS Sindelair WF Edwards BK Smith JP  Staging laparotomy in early ovarian cancer JAMA 1983 250 3072 3061 6358558 10.1001/jama.250.22.3072 
Soper JT Johnson P Johnson V Berchuck A Clarke-Pearson DL  Comprehensive restaging laparotomy in women with apparent early ovarian carcinoma Obstet Gynecol 1992 80 949 953 1333065 
Moore DH  Rubin SC, Sutton GP  Primary surgical management of early epithelial ovarian carcinoma. In: Rubin SC, Sutton GP Ovarian cancer 2001 Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 201 218 
Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie  Leitlinien Maligne Ovarialtumoren Frauenarzt 2000 41 909 915 
Eisenkop SM Spirtos NM  The clinical significance of occult macroscopically positive retroperitoneal nodes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer Gynecol Oncol 2001 82 143 149 11426976 10.1006/gyno.2001.6232 
Morice P Joulie F Camatte S Atallah D Rouzier R Pautier P Pomel C Lhomme C Duvillard P Castaigne D  Lymph node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of 276 pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomies and surgical implications J Am Coll Surg 2003 197 198 205 12892797 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00234-5 
Allen DG Coulter J  Survival of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and the effect of lymphadenectomy in those with stage 3 disease Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 39 420 424 10687756 
Kikkawa F Ishikawa H Tamakoshi K Suganuma N Mizuno K Kawai M Arii Y Tamakoshi A Kuzuya K Tomoda Y  Prognostic evaluation of lymphadenectomy for epithelial ovarian cancer J Surg Oncol 1995 60 227 231 8551730 
Yokoyama Y Sakamoto T Sato S Saizo Y  Evaluation of cytoreductive surgery with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy and intermittent cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy for improvement of long-term survival in ovarian cancer Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1999 20 361 366 10609495 
Saygili U Guclu S Uslu T Erten O Ture S Demir N  Does systematic lymphadenectomy have a benefit on survival of suboptimally debulked patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma? A DEGOG* Study J Surg Oncol 2002 81 132 137 12407725 10.1002/jso.10124 
Parazzini F Valsecchi G Bolis G Guarnerio P Reina S Polverino G Silvestri D  Pelvic and paraortic lymph node status in advanced ovarian cancer and survival Gyncol Oncol 1999 74 7 11 10.1006/gyno.1999.5397 
Favalli G Odicino F Torri V Pecorelli S  Early stage ovarian cancer: the Italian contribution to clinical research. An update Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001 11 12 19 11488997 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2001.11(suppl.1)sup1012.x 
di Re F Baiocchi G Fontanelli R Grosso G Cobellis L Raspagliesi F di Re E  Systematic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy for advanced ovarian cancer: prognostic significance of node metastasis Gynecol Oncol 1996 62 360 365 8812533 10.1006/gyno.1996.0249 
Wheeler JE  Rubin SC, Sutton GP  Pathology of malignant ovarian epithelial tumors and miscellaneous and rare ovarian and paraovarian neoplasms Ovarian cancer 2001 Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 99 134 
Breitenecker G Bartl W Schreiber V  Die prognostische Bedeutung morphologischer Parameter bei malignen Ovarialtumoren Pathologe 1983 4 29 40 6302656 
Meigs JV  Tumors of the female pelvic organs New York, McMillan 1934 
Munnell E  The changing prognosis and treatment in cancer of the ovary. A report of 235 patients with primary ovarian carcinoma 1952–1961 Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968 100 790 805 4296050 
Hunter RW Alexander ND Soutter WP  Meta-analysis of surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma: is maximum cytoreductive surgery an independent determinant of prognosis? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992 166 504 511 1531572 
Eisenkop SM Spirtos NM  What are the current surgical objectives, strategies, and technical capabilities of gynecologic oncologists treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol 2001 82 489 497 11520145 10.1006/gyno.2001.6312 
Hoskins WJ McGuire WP Brady MF Homesley HD Creasman WT Berman M Ball H Berek JS  The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994 170 974 980 8166218 
Bristow RE Tomacruz RS Armstrong DK Trimble EL Montz FJ  Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis J Clin Oncol 2002 20 1248 1259 11870167 10.1200/JCO.20.5.1248 
von Georgi R Franke FE Münstedt K  The influence of tumorbiology, surgery, and postoperative therapy on patient prognosis in advanced ovarian carcinomas Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003 111 189 196 14597250 10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00239-2 
Kehoe S Powell J Wilson S Woodman C  The influence of the operating surgeons's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma Br J Cancer 1994 70 1014 1017 7947077 
Nguyen HN Averette HE Hoskins W Penalver M Sevin BU Steren A  National survey of ovarian carcinoma. Part V. The impact of physician's specialty on patients' survival Cancer 1993 72 3663 3670 8252483 
Zollinger RM Ellison EC Fabri PJ Johnson J Sparks J Carey LC  Primary peptide ulceration of the jejunum associated with islet cell tumors. Twenty-five year appraisal Ann Surg 1980 120 422 430 6251758 
Merlo A Müller-Brand J Mäcke HR  Comparing monoclonal antibodies and small peptidic hormones for local targeting of malignant gliomas Acta Neurochir Suppl 2003 88 83 91 14531566 
Sarmiento JM Heywood G Rubin J Ilstrup DM Nagorney DM Que FG  Surgical treatment of neuroendocrine metastases to the liver: a plea for resection to increase survival J Am Coll Surg 2003 197 29 37 12831921 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00230-8 
Kondo K Monden Y  Therapy for thymic epithelial tumors: a clinical study of 1,320 patients from Japan Ann Thorac Surg 2003 76 878 884 12963221 10.1016/S0003-4975(03)00555-1 
Woodman C Baghdady A Collins S Clyma JA  What changes in the organization of cancer services will improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997 104 135 139 9070126 
Grilli R Minozzi S Tinazzi A Labianca R Sheldon TA Liberati A  Do specialists do it better? The impact of specialization on the processes and outcomes of care for cancer patients Ann Oncol 1998 9 365 374 9636826 10.1023/A:1008201331167 
Junor EJ Hole DJ Gillis CR  Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters Br J Cancer 1994 70 363 370 8054286 
Junor EJ Hole DJ McNulty L Mason M Young J  Specialist gynaecologists and survival outcome in ovarian cancer: a Scottish national study of 1866 patients Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 106 1130 1136 10549956 
Harlan LC Clegg LX Trimble EL  Trends in surgery and chemotherapy for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States J Clin Oncol 2003 21 3488 3494 12972525 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.061 
Carney ME Lancaster JM Ford C Tsodikov A Wiggins CL  A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not? Gynecol Oncol 2002 84 36 42 11748973 10.1006/gyno.2001.6460 
Gershenson DM McGuire WP  Ovarian cancer: controversies in management New York: Churchill Livingstone 1998 
Rubin SC Sutton GP  Ovarian cancer Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2001 
Hirsch HA Käser O Iklé FA  Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen Stuttgart, New York: Thieme 1999 349 351 
Kuhn W Hamann U Kimmig R Rehbock J Schmalfeldt B Schwoerer M  Operative Therapie Tumorzentrum München (Kuhn W). Maligne Ovarialtumoren – Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge. München, Bern, Wien, New York: Zuckschwerdt 2001 4 31 
Tokuhashi Y Kikkawa F Ishikawa H Tamakoshi K Hattori S Matsuzawa K Inoue T Suganuma N Tomoda Y  Distribution of platinum in human gynecologic tissues and pelvic lymph nodes after administration of cisplatin Gynecol Obstet Invest 1997 44 270 274 9415527 
Gehrig PA Van Le L Fowler WC  The role of omentectomy during the surgical staging of uterine serous carcinoma Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003 13 212 215 12657126 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2003.13355.x 
Sendt W Amberg R Schoffel U Hassan A von Specht BU Farthmann EH  Local inflammatory peritoneal response to operative trauma: studies on cell activity, cytokine expression, and adhesion molecules Eur J Surg 1999 165 1024 1030 10595604 10.1080/110241599750007838 
Salzer H Denison U Breitenecker G Lax G Kapp K  Ovarialkarzinom [accessed October 11th, 2003] 
Eisenkop SM Friedman RL Wang HJ  Complete cytoreductive surgery is feasable and maximizes survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study Gynecol Oncol 1998 69 103 108 9600815 10.1006/gyno.1998.4955 
Cavina E Goletti O Molea N Buccianti P Chiarugi M Boni G Lazzeri E Bianchi R  Trocar site tumor recurrences. May pneumoperitoneum be responsible? Surg Endosc 1998 12 1294 1299 9788849 10.1007/s004649900843 
Gryspeerdt S Clabout L Van Hoe L Berteloot P Vergote IB  Intraperitoneal contrast material combined with CT for detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian cancer Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1998 19 434 437 9863905 
van der Burg ME van Lent M Buyse M Kobierska A Colombo N Favalli G Lacave AJ Nardi M Renard J Pecorelli S  The effect of debulking surgery after induction chemotherapy on the prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer N Engl J Med 1995 332 629 634 7845426 10.1056/NEJM199503093321002 
Rose PG Nerenstone S Brady M Clarke-Pearson D Olt G Rubin SC Moore DH  A phase III randomized study of interval secondary cytoreduction in patients with advanced stage ovarian carcinoma with suboptimal residual disease: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002 21 201a [Abstract 802] 
van der Burg MEL Vergote I  The role of interval debulking surgery in ovarian cancer Curr Oncol Rep 2003 5 473 481 14521806 
Münstedt K Hering Kv Prittwitz J Zygmunt M Franke FE Vahrson H  Verletzungen des therapieplans und des chemotherapieprotokolls beim ovarialkarzinom – Gründe und Konsequenzen Zentralbl Gynäkol 1998 120 534 539 
Münstedt K Kovacic M Zygmunt M von Georgi R  Impact of hemoglobin levels before and during chemotherapy on survival of patients with ovarian cancer Int J Oncol 2003 23 837 843 12888925 
Gaducci A Cosio S Fanucchi A Manganelli L Conte PF Cristofani R Genazzani AR  Is pretreatment hemoglobin level a predictor of complete response to salvage chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-pretreated ovarian carcinoma? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2003 24 405 410 14584657 
Blohmer U Wurschmidt F Petry U Weise G Sehouli J Kimmig R Dressler  Kentenich  Kohls A Lichtenegger W for the NOGGO-AGO-Intergroup  6th interim analysis of a prospective, randomized, open and controlled AGO- and NOGGO-intergroup study: Sequential adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy with vs without epoetin alfa for patients with high-risk cervical cancer Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003 22 447 [Abstract 1798] 
Wietzke-Braun P Ritzel U Nolte W Leonhardt U Armbrust T Koc M Funke M Grabbe E Ramadori G  Ultrasound-guided laser interstitial thermo therapy for treatment of non-resectable primary and secondary liver tumours – a feasibility study Ultrasound Med 2003 24 107 112 10.1055/s-2003-38664 
Berek JS Bertelsen K du Bois A Leonhardt U Armbrust T Koc M Funke M Grabbe F Ramadori G  Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: 1998 consensus statements Ann Oncol 1999 10 87 92 10219460 10.1023/A:1008323922057 
Konazawa K Suzuki T Tokashiki M  The validity and significance of substage IIIC by node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of nodal metastasis on patient survival Gynecol Oncol 1999 73 237 241 10329040 10.1006/gyno.1999.5349 
Lück HJ du Bois A Weber B Pfisterer J Goupil A Kuhn W Barats JC Blohmer J Mousseau M Schröder W Meier W Möbus V Richter B for the AGO-GINECO Intergroup  The integration of anthracyclines in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001 11 34 38 11489001 
Pfisterer J Lortholary A Kimmig R Weber B Du Bois A Bourgeois H Wagner U Coudert B Meier W Costa S for the AGO and GINECO Study Groups  Paclitaxel/carboplatin (TC) vs. paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by topotecan (TC-TOP) in first-line treatment of ovarian cancer FIGO stages IIB – IV. Interim results of a Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase III trial of the AGO Ovarian Cancer Study Group and GINECO Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003 22 446 [Abstract 1793]

