Peptides DB
Research-centric peptide and protocol reference hub
Study 5 of 17PE 22-28 literaturePubMed · Observational2024

MIRRORS: a prospective cohort study assessing the feasibility of robotic interval debulking surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Robotic interval debulking surgery shows promising feasibility and safety in advanced ovarian cancer, with significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays compared to open surgery.

Read at PubMedAdd to compare

Where it sits

this study against the rest of the pe 22-28 corpus
1
Preclinical
15
Observational · this one
0
Open-label
1
Randomised
0
Reviews

Summary and findings

This study assessed the feasibility and safety of robotic interval debulking surgery in women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. The intervention involved robot-assisted laparoscopic assessment followed by surgery in patients with a pelvic mass ≤8 cm. The study reported a recruitment rate of 95.8% and various surgical outcomes, including median blood loss and length of stay.

How much of this paper we could read: full text read (0.80). We had a clear abstract, so the summary below closely tracks the paper. What this means →
Median estimated blood loss was 50 mL for robotic (range 20-500 mL) vs 2026 mL for open (range 2000-2800 mL), p=0.001.2024

Abstract

The authors’ words, as PubMed supplied them

<h4>Objective</h4>To establish the feasibility and safety of robotic interval debulking surgery following the MIRRORS protocol (robot-assisted laparoscopic assessment prior to robotic or open surgery) in women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. MIRRORS is the first of three planned trials: MIRRORS, MIRRORS-RCT (pilot), and MIRRORS-RCT.<h4>Methods</h4>The participants were patients with stage IIIc-IVb epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, suitable for interval debulking surgery with a pelvic mass ≤8 cm. The intervention was robot-assisted laparoscopic assessment prior to robotic or open interval debulking surgery (MIRRORS protocol). The primary outcome was feasibility of recruitment, and the secondary outcomes were quality of life (EORTC QLQC30/OV28, HADS questionnaires), pain, surgical complications, complete cytoreduction rate (%), conversion to open surgery (%), and overall and progression-free survival at 1 year.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 95.8% (23/24) of patients who were eligible were recruited. Median age was 68 years (range 53-83). All patients had high grade serous histology and were BRCA negative. In total, 56.5% were stage IV, 43.5% were stage III, 87.0% had a partial response, while 13.0% had stable disease by RECIST 1.1. Median peritoneal cancer index was 24 (range 6-38). Following MIRRORS protocol, 87.0% (20/23) underwent robotic interval debulking surgery, and 13.0% (3/23) had open surgery. All patients achieved R<1 (robotic R0=47.4%, open R0=0%). No patients had conversion to open. Median estimated blood loss was 50 mL for robotic (range 20-500 mL), 2026 mL for open (range 2000-2800 mL) (p=0.001). Median intensive care length of stay was 0 days for robotic (range 0-8) and 3 days (range 3-13) for MIRRORS Open (p=0.012). The median length of stay was 1.5 days for robotic (range 1-17), 6 days for open (range 5-41) (p=0.012). The time to chemotherapy was as follows 18.5 days for robotic (range 13-28), 25 days for open (range 22-28) (p=0.139).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Robotic interval debulking surgery appears safe and feasible for experienced robotic surgeons in patients with a pelvic mass ≤8 cm. A randomized controlled trial (MIRRORS-RCT) will determine whether MIRRORS protocol has non-inferior survival (overall and progression-free) compared with open interval debulking surgery.

Background

The paper addresses the clinical question of whether robotic interval debulking surgery is a feasible option for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Previous studies have explored various surgical techniques for this condition, but the use of robotic surgery remains less understood. This study is significant as it aims to provide insights into the practicality and outcomes of robotic surgery in this patient population.

Methods

Not reported in abstract.

Results

Not reported in abstract.

Interpretation

Not reported in abstract.

Key findings

  • Not reported in abstract.

Limitations

  • Not reported in abstract.

Elsewhere in the PE 22-28 corpus

BClinical outcomes and mortality risk among inborn and referred newborns admitted to hospitals in Kenyabiorxiv-preprint · 2026 · Unadjusted mortality among referred newborns was 29.0% compared to 11.3% in those inborn, p<0.001.HumanBAssessment of ageing using global mass-spectrometry based metabolomics: A cross-cohort longitudinal study in the UK and Irelandbiorxiv-preprint · 2026 · Each standard deviation higher metabolomic age acceleration (∼5 years) was associated with 43% higher mortality risk.HumanASafety and immunogenicity of a booster dose of COVAC-2, a Sepivac SWE™ adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine in previously vaccinated healthy adults; a randomized controlled multicentre trial.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026 · Peak antibody titers observed 14 d after COVAC-2 vaccination.HumanBPhysical activity, sleep, dietary habits, and screen time in Bogotá's children post-pandemic lockdown: a mixed-methods study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026 · 66% met ≥3 days/week of moderate physical activity.HumanBEngaging youth in health and research in rural Cambodia: a qualitative study.Global health action · 2026HumanBInfection outbreaks caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales: An epidemiological surveillance study in public hospitals in Chile, 2017-2024.Global epidemiology · 2026 · n=5000 · Median outbreak size: pandemic 7 cases.Human