Dataset Information

Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

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.

Objectives

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.

Search methods

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).

Selection criteria

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 collection and analysis

Data were extracted by two review authors independently, and the quality of included trials was assessed by two review authors independently.

Main results

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.

Authors' conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Morrison J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4050358 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains controversial in the United States. Generalizability of existing trial results has been criticized because of less aggressive debulking procedures than commonly used in the United States. As a result, economic evaluations using input data from these trials may not accurately reflect costs and outcomes associated with more aggressive primary surgery. Using data from an ongoing trial performing aggressive debulking, we investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of NACT versus PDS for AEOC. METHODS:A decision tree model was constructed to estimate differences in short-term outcomes and costs for a hypothetical cohort of 15,000 AEOC patients (US annual incidence of AEOC) treated with NACT versus PDS over a 1-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Outcomes included costs per cancer-related death averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Base-case probabilities, costs, and utilities were based on the Surgical Complications Related to Primary or Interval Debulking in Ovarian Neoplasms trial. Base-case analyses assumed equivalent survival; threshold analysis estimated the maximum survival difference that would result in NACT being cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to characterize model uncertainty. RESULTS:Compared with PDS, NACT was associated with $142 million in cost savings, 1098 fewer cancer-related deaths, and 1355 life-years and 1715 QALYs gained, making it the dominant treatment strategy for all outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, NACT remained dominant in 99.3% of simulations. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds if survival differences were less than 2.7 and 1.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In the short term, NACT is cost-saving with improved outcomes. However, if PDS provides a longer-term survival advantage, it may be cost-effective. Research is needed on the role of patient preferences in tradeoffs between survival and quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy.ObjectivesTo determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals up to May 2011.Selection criteriaThe analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration.Data collection and analysisWe extracted data on overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software.Main resultsNine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease-free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route.Authors' conclusionsIntraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression-free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta-analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta-analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.