Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers

Rohini Vinayak Kulkarni; Manoranjan Mohapatra; Bhagyalaxmi Nayak; Sagarika Samantaray; Janmejaya Mohapatra; Jita Parija; Sushil Kumar Giri

doi:10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519

Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers

Ecancermedicalscience. 2023 Mar 13:17:1519. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Rohini Vinayak Kulkarni^{1

2}, Manoranjan Mohapatra^{3

4}, Bhagyalaxmi Nayak^{3

5}, Sagarika Samantaray^{6

7}, Janmejaya Mohapatra^{3

8}, Jita Parija^{3

9}, Sushil Kumar Giri^{3

10}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai 400012, India.
² https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4466-1703.
³ Department of Gynecological Oncology, Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer, Cuttack 753007, Odisha, India.
⁴ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9436-4072.
⁵ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6319-5365.
⁶ Department of Pathology, Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer, Cuttack 753007, Odisha, India.
⁷ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7589-2953.
⁸ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5577-3850.
⁹ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8397-3921.
¹⁰ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8158-7605.

Abstract

Introduction: Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy.

Methods: The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods.

Results: Micrometastasis to PGA was present in 36.4% of the patients in group 1. The predictors for this involvement included gross involvement and microscopic involvement of the mobile part of the omentum (p < 0.001), pre surgery Meyer's score (p < 0.05) and requirement of peritonectomy (p < 0.05) during the CRS implying that higher the peritoneal carcinomatosis, more are the chances of microscopic involvement of PGA. On comparing postoperative outcomes between the two groups, we noted a statistically significant difference in intra-operative time (p < 0.01), prolonged recovery time with increased intensive care unit and hospital stay (p < 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet.

Conclusion: Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.

Keywords: micrometastasis; omentectomy; ovarian cancer; perigastric arcade.