Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Incorporating robotic surgery into the management of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
  1. Jeremie Abitbol1,2,
  2. Walter Gotlieb1,
  3. Ziggy Zeng3,
  4. Agnihotram Ramanakumar4,
  5. Roy Kessous1,
  6. Liron Kogan1,
  7. Valerie Pare-Miron4,
  8. Marcelo Rombaldi1,
  9. Shannon Salvador1,
  10. Beste Kucukyazici5,
  11. Sonya Brin1,
  12. Jeffrey How3 and
  13. Susie Lau1
  1. 1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McGill University Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  2. 2Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3Department of Ob-Gyn, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  4. 4Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  5. 5Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Walter Gotlieb, McGill University Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC H3T1E0, Canada; walter.gotlieb{at}


Introduction With the rapid uptake of robotic surgery in surgical oncology, its use in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancers is being evaluated. Complete cytoreduction represents the goal of surgery either at primary cytoreduction or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the setting of interval cytoreduction. In selected patients, the extent of disease would enable minimally invasive surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of introducing robotic surgery for interval cytoreduction of selected patients with stage III–IV ovarian cancer.

Methods All patients who underwent surgery from November 2008 to 2014 (concurrent time period when robotic and open surgery were used simultaneously) after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer (stage III–IV) were compared with all consecutive patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery by laparotomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 2006 and November 2008. Inclusion criteria included an interval cytoreductive surgery by laparotomy or robotic assistance for stage III–IV non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Exclusion criteria included patients treated concurrently for a non-gynecologic cancer, as well as secondary cytoreductive surgeries and diagnostic surgeries without an attempt at tumor reduction. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and peri-operative outcomes were compared for the entire patient cohort with those with advanced ovarian cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy immediately before and after the introduction of robotic surgery.

Results A total of 91 patients were selected to undergo interval cytoreduction either via robotic surgery (n=57) or laparotomy (n=34) after the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median age of the cohort was 65 years (range 24–88), 78% had stage III disease, and the median follow-up time was 37 months (5.6–91.4 months). The median survival was 42.8±3.1 months in the period where both robotic surgery and laparotomy were offered compared with 37.9±9.8 months in the time period preceding when only laparotomy was performed (p=0.6). All patients selected to undergo interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a reduction of cancer antigen 125 by at least 80%, resolution of ascites, and CT findings suggesting the potential to achieve optimal interval cytoreduction. All these patients achieved optimal cytoreduction with <1 cm residual disease, including 82% with no residual disease. The median blood loss was 100 mL (mean 135 mL, range 10–1250 mL), and the median hospital stay was 1 day.

Conclusion Robotic interval cytoreductive surgery is feasible in well-selected patients. Future studies should aim to define ideal patients for minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery.

  • cystadenocarcinoma, serous

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors JA: contributed to study design, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. WG and SL: oversaw each step of the study’s conception, design, and development. XZ: contributed to study design, data collection, and writing of the manuscript. AR: contributed to statistical analysis. RK and LK: participated in the data collection and analysis. V-P-M, MR, SB, RN, and JH: contributed to data collection and data management. SS: helped in the study design and its development. BK: provided guidance on data analysis. All authors reviewed, edited, and agreed with the final version of the manuscript. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere.

  • Funding This study was supported by grants from the Rossy Cancer Network, the Israel Cancer Research Fund, the Gloria’s Girls Fund, the Susan and Jonathan Wener Fund, and the Anne-Marie and Mitch Garber Fund.

  • Competing interests WG and SL obtained partial travel support for proctoring robotic surgery.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Linked Articles