Single-Institution Propensity-Matched Study to Evaluate the Psychological Effect of Minimally Invasive Interval Debulking Surgery Versus Standard Laparotomic Treatment: From Body to Mind and Back.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To further investigate the psycho-oncologic effect of minimally invasive surgery comparing patients submitted to minimally invasive interval debulking surgery (MI-IDS) with a balanced population treated by standard laparotomy (L-IDS).

DESIGN: Single-institution propensity-matched study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING: Division of Gynecologic Oncology, "Policlinico A. Gemelli" Foundation, Rome, Italy.

PATIENTS: The investigational arm included 30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with MI-IDS, whereas the control arm included a consecutive series of 30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer submitted to L-IDS. For every patient preoperative data were collected to assess the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Perioperative data were also recorded.

INTERVENTIONS: A General Well-Being Schedule (GWBS) and a clinical assessment of body uneasiness, the Body Uneasiness Test, were administered by a psycho-oncologist immediately before IDS and within 30 days after surgery to evaluate the psychological burden in both groups.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Both groups were matched as closely as possible. No statistical differences were registered in terms of surgical procedures and residual tumor. A significantly longer median operative time in patients was counterbalanced by more favorable estimated blood loss and median length of stay and time to chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences were registered in terms of postoperative complications. Starting from a substantially homogenous psychological condition, psychometric evaluation underlined statistically significant differences in favor of MI-IDS. The mean GWBS score was 64.17 ± 11.77 in patients and 54.15 ± 14.76 in control subjects, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p = .004).

CONCLUSION: MI-IDS seems to play an important role in the quality of life and oncologic outcomes. Even if presented data testified a further evolutionary step in oncologic patient care, more experience with larger groups of patients is desirable to deeply investigate and assess our results.