Radical Oophorectomy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Feasibility Study from Tertiary Care Cancer Centre in Eastern India.

OA: closed
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-04 · read from full text

This feasibility study from a tertiary cancer center in Eastern India evaluated radical oophorectomy in 16 patients with advanced ovarian cancer extensively infiltrating pelvic organs and peritoneum, using modified en bloc pelvic resection approaches (Type 1 versus Type 2) and analyzing perioperative morbidity. Patients were selected from an initial 23 screened cases using high-level CT resectability criteria and exclusion of extra-abdominal metastasis, secondary cancers, and complete intestinal obstruction, but the work excluded seven due to study criteria. The authors reported no surgery-related deaths, with perioperative complications limited to one burst abdomen attributed to poor nutritional status and one death from pulmonary embolism 5 days postoperatively. The study’s main limitation is its small retrospective feasibility design without a control group and with waiver of ethics review due to retrospective routine care. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BackgroundRadical oophorectomy was first performed by Hudson in order to remove an "intact ovarian tumour lodged in the pelvis, with the entire peritoneum remaining attached". We report 16 cases of radical oophorectomy done at our institute in the past 3 years and have analysed the perioperative morbidity as well as feasibility of performing the surgery without much of perioperative complication.MethodsTwenty-three patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent modified en bloc pelvic resection at our institute, between November 2018 and October 2021, were initially enrolled. Patients below 70 years, resectable disease on CT scan and no significant comorbidities were included. Exclusion criteria were extra-abdominal metastasis, secondary cancers or complete intestinal obstruction. Initially, 23 patients were enrolled out of which seven patients were excluded. Hence, a total of 16 patients with ovarian cancer extensively infiltrating into nearby pelvic organs and peritoneum were included. In Type 1 radical oophorectomy, retrograde modified radical hysterectomy alongwith in toto removal of the bilateral adnexae, pelvic cul-de-sac and affected pelvic peritoneum is done. Type 2 radical oophorectomy includes total parietal and visceral pelvic peritonectomy as well as an en bloc resection of the rectosigmoid colon below the peritoneal reflection.ResultsRadical oophorectomy is feasible with acceptable complication rate. In our study, only one patient had burst abdomen that too due to the poor nutritional status of the patient. There was no surgery-related deaths, but one patient succumbed to pulmonary embolism 5 days after the operation.ConclusionHence, radical oophorectomy proves to be an effective, feasible and secure surgical technique in cases of advanced ovarian malignancies with extensive involvement of peritoneum, pelvis and visceras.
Full text 7,036 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Radical oophorectomy was first performed by Hudson in order to remove an "intact ovarian tumour lodged in the pelvis, with the entire peritoneum remaining attached". We report 16 cases of radical oophorectomy done at our institute in the past 3 years and have analysed the perioperative morbidity as well as feasibility of performing the surgery without much of perioperative complication.

Methods

Twenty-three patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent modified en bloc pelvic resection at our institute, between November 2018 and October 2021, were initially enrolled. Patients below 70 years, resectable disease on CT scan and no significant comorbidities were included. Exclusion criteria were extra-abdominal metastasis, secondary cancers or complete intestinal obstruction. Initially, 23 patients were enrolled out of which seven patients were excluded. Hence, a total of 16 patients with ovarian cancer extensively infiltrating into nearby pelvic organs and peritoneum were included. In Type 1 radical oophorectomy, retrograde modified radical hysterectomy alongwith in toto removal of the bilateral adnexae, pelvic cul-de-sac and affected pelvic peritoneum is done. Type 2 radical oophorectomy includes total parietal and visceral pelvic peritonectomy as well as an en bloc resection of the rectosigmoid colon below the peritoneal reflection.

Results

Radical oophorectomy is feasible with acceptable complication rate. In our study, only one patient had burst abdomen that too due to the poor nutritional status of the patient. There was no surgery-related deaths, but one patient succumbed to pulmonary embolism 5 days after the operation.

Conclusion

Hence, radical oophorectomy proves to be an effective, feasible and secure surgical technique in cases of advanced ovarian malignancies with extensive involvement of peritoneum, pelvis and visceras. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Tate S, Nishikimi K, Matsuoka A, et al. Introduction of rectosigmoid colectomy improves survival outcomes in early-stage ovarian cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26(5):986–94. Alcazar JL, Jurado M, Minguez JA, et al. En-bloc rectosigmoid and mesorectum resection as part of pelvic cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. J Turk German Gynecol Assoc. 2020;21(3):156. Hall M, Savvatis K, Nixon K, et al. Maximal-effort cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer patients with a high tumor burden: variations in practice and impact on outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2943–51. Ghisoni E, Katsaros D, Maggiorotto F, et al. A predictive score for optimal cytoreduction at interval debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer: a two-centers experience. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):1–7. Thomas QD, Boussere A, Classe JM, et al. Optimal timing of interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective study from the ESME national cohort. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;167(1):11–21. Vanderpuye VD, Clemenceau JR, Temin S, et al. Assessment of adult women with ovarian masses and treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2022;77(2):96–7. Munoz-Zuluaga CA, Sardi A, Sittig M, et al. Critical analysis of Stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer patients after treatment with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy followed by Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). Int J Surg Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1467403. Erkilinç S, Karataşli V, Demir B, et al. Rectosigmoidectomy and Douglas peritonectomy in the management of Serosal implants in advanced-stage ovarian cancer surgery: survival and surgical outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(9):1699–705. Kim MS, Noh JJ, Lee YY. En bloc pelvic resection of ovarian cancer with rectosigmoid colectomy: a literature review. Gland Surg. 2021;10(3):1195. Shan Y, Jin Y, Li Y, et al. Rectosigmoid sparing en bloc pelvic resection for fixed ovarian tumors: Surgical technique and perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1–8. Somashekhar SP, Ashwin KR, Yethadka R, et al. Impact of extent of parietal peritonectomy on oncological outcome after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. Pleura Perit. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2019-0015. Wang D, Zhang G, Peng C, et al. Choosing the right timing for interval debulking surgery and perioperative chemotherapy may improve the prognosis of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective study. J Ovarian Resa. 2021;14(1):1–9. Liu Y, Zhang T, Wu Q, et al. Relationship between initiation time of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in ovarian cancer patients: a dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–8. Lee MJ, Vaughan-Shaw P, Vimalachandran D. ACPGBI GI Recovery Group. A systematic review and meta-analysis of baseline risk factors for the development of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg England. 2020;102(3):194–203. Lecointre L, Gabriele V, Faller E, et al. Laparoscopic En Bloc Pelvic Resection with rectosigmoid resection and anastomosis for stage IIB Ovarian Cancer: Hudson’s procedure revisited. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29(9):1035. Funding No funding received. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical approval Ethical approval was waived by the Institutional Ethics Committee of in view of the retrospective nature of the study, and all the procedures being performed were part of the routine care. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Dr. Sony Nanda has completed her MCH Gynaecologic Oncology from Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer in 2023. Currently she is posted as an Assistant Professor at JK Medical College & Hospital. Dr. Manoranjan Mahapatra is an Associate Professor. Dr. Janmejaya Mohapatra is an associate Professor. Dr. Ashok Padhy is an assistant Professor. Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Nayak is a Professor. Dr. Jita Parija is a Professor. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Nanda, S., Mahapatra, M., Mohapatra, J. et al. Radical Oophorectomy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Feasibility Study from Tertiary Care Cancer Centre in Eastern India. J Obstet Gynecol India 74, 265–270 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-024-01945-1 Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-024-01945-1

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-05T06:13:34.187606+00:00