Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;300(1):15-23. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05167-z. Epub 2019 May 1.

Treatments and overall survival in patients with Krukenberg tumor.

Author information

1
General Surgery Unit, Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
2
Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. antonio.travaglino.ap@gmail.com.
3
Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
4
Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
5
Pathology Unit, Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Krukenberg tumor (KT) is a rare secondary ovarian tumor, primarily localized at the gastrointestinal tract in most cases. KT is related to severe prognosis due to its aggressiveness, diagnostic difficulties and poor treatment efficacy. Several treatments have been used, such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS), adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and/or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). To date, it is still unclear which treatment or combination of treatments is related to better survival.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the most effective therapeutic protocol in terms of overall survival (OS).

METHODS:

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for all studies assessing the association of treatments with OS in KTs. The effectiveness of each treatment protocol was evaluated by comparing the OS between patients treated with different treatment protocols.

RESULTS:

Twenty retrospective studies, with a total sample size of 1533 KTs, were included in the systematic review. Therapeutic protocols used were CRS in 18 studies, CT in 13 studies, HIPEC in 7 studies, neoadjuvant CT in 2 studies, and some combinations of these in 6 studies. Seven studies showed that CRS significantly improved OS compared to other treatments or association of treatments without it. 11 studies showed that CRS without residual (R0 CRS) had a significantly better OS than CRS with residual (R + CRS). Five studies showed that CT significantly improved OS, but other five showed it did not. Two studies showed that HIPEC in association with CRS improved OS, while another study showed that efficacy of HIPEC was comparable to CT. Two studies evaluated neoadjuvant CT, but results were conflicting.

CONCLUSION:

CRS and in particular R0 CRS are the treatments showing the clearest results in improving OS in KT patients. Results about CT are conflicting. HIPEC appears effective both alone and in combination with CRS, and also related to fewer adverse effect than CT. The usefulness of neoadjuvant CT is still unclear. The association of R0 CRS with HIPEC seems to be the most effective and safe therapeutic protocol for KT patients.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer; Management; Metastasis; Prognosis; Therapy; hazard ratio; oncology

PMID:
31044302
DOI:
10.1007/s00404-019-05167-z

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center