Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Perioperative outcomes of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in elderly women with epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of a prospective registry
  1. Laura M Chambers1,
  2. Meng Yao2,
  3. Molly Morton3,
  4. Anna Chichura3,
  5. Anthony B Costales4,
  6. Max Horowitz1,
  7. Morgan F Gruner3,
  8. Peter G Rose1,
  9. Chad M Michener1 and
  10. Robert DeBernardo1
  1. 1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  2. 2Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  3. 3Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
  4. 4Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Laura M Chambers, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA; chambel2{at}


Objective To evaluate perioperative outcomes in elderly versus non-elderly women with advanced or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

Methods A single-institution prospective registry was analyzed for women with ovarian cancer who underwent surgery with HIPEC from January 2014 to December 2020. Elderly age was defined as ≥65 years at surgery. Complications were defined according to the Accordion scale. Univariate and multivariable analysis was used to compare progression-free survival and overall survival.

Results Of 127 women who underwent surgery with HIPEC, 33.1% (n=42) were ≥65 and 17.3% (n=22) were ≥70 years old. The median age for non-elderly and elderly patients were 55.7±8.3 versus 72.0±5.4 years, respectively (p<0.001). The majority of non-elderly versus elderly patients underwent HIPEC at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (52.9% vs 73.8%, p=0.024). There were no differences in moderate (15.3% vs 26.2%) or severe postoperative complications (10.6% vs 11.9%, p=0.08), acute kidney injury (7.1% vs 16.7%, p=0.12), and length of stay (5.0 vs 5.0 days, p=0.56) for non-elderly versus elderly patients. With a median follow-up of 20 months (95% CI 9.1 to 32.7 months), there was no difference in progression-free survival (18.8 vs 15.7 months, p=0.75) or overall survival (61.6 months vs not estimable, p=0.72) for non-elderly versus elderly patients. Comparing patients 65–69 versus ≥70 years, progression-free survival (33.0 vs 12.5 months, p=0.002) was significantly improved in patients aged 65–69, without difference in overall survival (not estimable vs 36.0 months, p=0.91). On multivariable analysis, age ≥65 did not impact progression-free survival (p=0.74).

Conclusions In this prospective registry of women with ovarian cancer, perioperative morbidity is not increased for non-elderly versus elderly patients following surgery with HIPEC. While age should not exclude patients from surgery with HIPEC, additional research is needed regarding oncologic benefits in elderly women.

  • ovarian cancer
  • gynecologic surgical procedures
  • postoperative complications

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • Twitter @laurajmoulton, @AnnaChichuraMD, @abcmd07

  • Contributors All authors have contributed to the manuscript equally.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.