Article

The Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in the Management of Patients With Advanced Stage Ovarian Cancer: Survey Results From Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists EDITORIAL COMMENT

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, 4911 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, Box 8064, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Gynecologic Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.69). 10/2010; 119(1):18-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.06.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent randomized controlled data suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with interval debulking (ID) may produce similar overall survival and progression free survival compared to standard primary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy. The object of our study was to assess current patterns of care among members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), specifically collating their opinions on and use of NACT for advanced stage ovarian cancer.
A 20-item questionnaire was sent to all working e-mail addresses of SGO members (n=1137). The data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics with commercially available online survey software. The Chi-square test for independence was used to determine differences in responses between groups.
Of 339 (30%) responding members, most rarely employ NACT, with 60% of respondents using NACT in less than 10% of advanced stage ovarian cancer cases. Respondents did not consider available evidence sufficient to justify NACT followed by ID (82%), nor did most think it should be preferred (74%). Sixty-two percent of respondents thought it was impossible to accurately predict preoperatively whether an optimal cytoreduction is possible. Thirty-nine percent believed that women with bulky upper abdominal disease on preoperative imaging would benefit from NACT versus primary debulking. If gross disease were found at ID, 43% would continue to treat with IV chemotherapy, and 42% would place an IP port if optimally cytoreduced. When ID reveals microscopic disease, 51% would continue IV treatment and the remaining IP therapy. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believed that both biological and surgical factors determine patient outcomes.
The majority of responding SGO members do not treat patients with NACT followed by ID. Currently available studies of NACT/ID have been insufficient to convince most gynecologic oncologists to incorporate it into practice. Our results provide a benchmark against which further research can assess the penetration of NACT/ID into clinical practice.

0 Followers
 · 
105 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Observational studies comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy to primary surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer are limited by strong selection bias. Multiple methods were used to control for confounding and selection bias to estimate the effect of primary treatment on survival for ovarian cancer. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify women ≥ 65 years of age with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer who survived > 6 months from the date of diagnosis and received treatment from 1991 through 2007. Traditional regression analysis, propensity score-based analysis, and an instrumental variable analysis (IVA) using geographic location as an instrument were used to compare survival between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary surgery. A total of 9587 patients with stage II-IV ovarian cancer were identified. Use of primary surgery decreased from 63.2% in 1991 to 49.5% by 2007, whereas primary chemotherapy increased from 19.7% in 1991 to 31.8% in 2007 (P < .0001). In the observational cohort survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-1.35) was inferior for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy; both median survival (15.8 versus 28.8 months) and 2-year survival (36% versus 56%) were lower in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group compared to those who underwent surgery. In the IVA, primary treatment had minimal effect on overall survival (HR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.67-1.60). The median survival for patients with a value of the instrument less than the median (24.0 months, 95% CI = 23.0-25.0) and greater than or equal to median value of the IV (24.0 months, 95% CI = 23.0-26.0) were similar. Use of neoadjuvant therapy has increased over time. Survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not differ significantly from primary surgery in elderly women in the United States. Cancer 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 04/2014; 120(8). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28508 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The standard treatment of advanced ovarian cancer is rapidly changing. As we begin to understand that epithelial ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease, our treatment strategies are evolving to include novel biologic drugs that specifically exploit altered pathways. Surgery remains an essential component in the treatment of ovarian cancer; however, the importance of surgical specialization and defining "optimal cytoreduction" as no visible residual disease has been further validated. Ongoing studies are defining the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the upfront treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. In addition, clinical trials are evaluating intraperitoneal, dose dense, antiangiogenic drugs as well as targeted maintenance therapies which will establish new standards of care in the near future.
    Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 01/2013; 24(1):83-91. DOI:10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.83 · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment is to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, it is not yet clear whether there are any advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery. To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows maximal cytoreductive surgery. For the original review we searched, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1966 to 1 Sept 2006), EMBASE via Ovid (from 1980 to 1 Sept 2006), CANCERLIT (from 1966 to 1 Sept 2006), PDQ (search for open and closed trials) and MetaRegister (most current search Sept 2006). For this update randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2011) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialised Register (2011), MEDLINE (August week 1, 2011), EMBASE (to week 31, 2011), PDQ (search for open and closed trials) and MetaRegister (August 2011). RCTs of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery. Data were extracted by two review authors independently, and the quality of included trials was assessed by two review authors independently. One high-quality RCT met the inclusion criteria. This multicentre trial randomised 718 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy. There were no significant differences between the study groups with regard to overall survival (OS) (670 women; HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18) or progression-free survival (PFS) (670 women; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).Significant differences occurred between the NACT and PDS groups with regard to some surgically related serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3/4) including haemorrhage (12 in NACT group vs 23 in PDS group; RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99), venous thromboembolism (none in NACT group vs eight in PDS group; RR 0.06; 95% CI 0 to 0.98) and infection (five in NACT group vs 25 in PDS group; RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50). Quality of life (QoL) was reported to be similar for the NACT and PDS groups.Three ongoing RCTs were also identified. We consider the use of NACT in women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer to be a reasonable alternative to PDS, particularly in bulky disease. With regard to selecting who will benefit from NACT, treatment should be tailored to the patient and should take into account resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. These results cannot be generalised to women with stage IIIa and IIIb ovarian cancer; in these women, PDS is the standard. We await the results of three ongoing trials, which may change these conclusions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 8(8):CD005343. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor