Does the Performance of Splenectomy as Part of Cytoreductive Surgery Carry a Worse Prognosis Than in Patients Not Receiving Splenectomy? A Propensity Score Analysis and Review of the Literature

Abstract

Background & Objectives

Ultra-radical (UR) procedures, including splenectomy, are utilized to increase complete cytoreduction rates during Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) performed with the aim of complete macroscopic clearance of disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate if splenectomy negatively impacts survival when undertaken during CRS for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and compare published splenectomy and cytoreduction rates.

Methods

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for AOC between 16/05/2013-28/01/2019. Survival, baseline patient characteristics, complications and surgical parameters were recorded. Propensity scored matching (PSM) was performed to reduce bias.

Results

154 patients identified over 71 months. 97 underwent standard, 57 underwent UR surgery, 27 patients received splenectomy (17.5%) No difference was seen in overall survival (OS) between all patients (median OS 34 months (95%CI 25.9–41.1) and patients who underwent splenectomy (median OS not yet reached) (p = >0.05). After PSM for various baseline covariates, no significant difference in splenectomy versus non-splenectomy patients (3-year survival 54% compared to 56%) (P > 0.05). Three splenectomy specific complications occurred; one each of pancreatic tail injury, left pleural effusion and streptococcal pharyngitis during chemotherapy. We found wide variation in utilization of splenectomy in published case series; from 9% to 35%.

Conclusions

Splenectomy performed as part of CRS is not detrimental to survival in AOC. There is a wide variation in utilization of splenectomy in published case series with little correlation with cytoreduction rates.

KEYWORDS:

• Propensity
• psm
• ovarian cancer
• cytoreduction
• primary debulking surgery
• interval debulking surgery
• splenectomy
• ultra radical

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).