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, a 5-year follow-up.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huelsmann E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5344220 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
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, a 5-year follow-up.
Huelsmann Erica E Zighelboim Israel I Ahmed Amina A Dewdney Summer S
Gynecologic oncology reports 20170216
•NACT use among SGO members for ovarian cancer is explored given recent trials.•Fewer SGO members feel they can't predict optimal cytoreduction pre-operatively.•Laparoscopy use has increased both for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.•Very high optimal cytoreduction rates are reported from SGO members.•Despite recent studies, SGO members don't regularly treat patients with NACT/ID. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction among women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer.The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.Four phase III clinical trials form the primary evidence base for the recommendations. The published studies suggest that for selected women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction are noninferior to primary cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy with respect to overall and progression-free survival and are associated with less perioperative morbidity and mortality.All women with suspected stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy. The primary clinical evaluation should include a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging (CT preferred). Women with a high perioperative risk profile or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to < 1 cm of residual disease (ideally to no visible disease) should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, and with potentially resectable disease, may receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery. However, primary cytoreductive surgery is preferred if there is a high likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to < 1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) with acceptable morbidity. Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have confirmation of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/NACT-ovarian-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
| S-EPMC5512594 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeTo provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction among women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.ResultsFour phase III clinical trials form the primary evidence base for the recommendations. The published studies suggest that for selected women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction are non-inferior to primary cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy with respect to overall and progression-free survival and are associated with less perioperative morbidity and mortality.RecommendationsAll women with suspected stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy. The primary clinical evaluation should include a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging (CT preferred). Women with a high perioperative risk profile or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to <1cm of residual disease (ideally to no visible disease) should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, and with potentially resectable disease, may receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery. However, primary cytoreductive surgery is preferred if there is a high likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to <1cm (ideally to no visible disease) with acceptable morbidity. Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have confirmation of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/NACT-ovarian-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
| S-EPMC5413203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retrospective studies suggest that minimally-invasive surgery may be safe and effective for the treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer as well as interval cytoreduction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Adoption rates and attitudes towards its use remain largely unknown. We aimed to determine the current use of minimally-invasive surgery for the treatment of ovarian cancer and identify perceived barriers towards further adoption of this method. Electronic survey was administered to physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Chi-square analysis was used to determine if any correlation existed between variables and the current use of minimally invasive surgery in general practice and, specifically, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. There was a survey response rate of 15.1%. Sixty-five percent of respondents practiced in an academic setting, and 32.1% of respondents had completed fellowship training within the past 5 years. Ninety percent of respondents were performing >50% of their current procedures using minimally invasive surgery. Over seventy percent of respondents said that they performed minimally invasive surgery for primary staging and interval cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Concern for residual disease and lack of scientific validation were the most frequently cited barriers to the implementation of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of ovarian cancer. A majority of respondents have adopted the use of MIS for the management of early stage ovarian cancer. Advances in imaging to detect occult tumor deposits and a randomized trial to study and promote the use of minimally invasive surgery in ovarian cancer is warranted.
| S-EPMC7415833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutcomes of patients with ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have been widely studied, but there is limited information on the outcomes of patients with non-HGSC. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of NAC in non-HGSC patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent NAC for advanced stage non-HGSC between 2002 and 2017 in 17 institutions. Demographics, surgical outcomes, and survival rates were evaluated according to histological subtypes.ResultsA total of 154 patients were included in this study, comprising 20 cases (13.0%) of mucinous adenocarcinoma, 31 cases (20.1%) of endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 28 (18.2%) cases of clear cell carcinoma, 29 (18.8%) cases of low-grade serous carcinoma and 12 cases (7.8%) of carcinosarcoma. Complete remission/partial remission after the third cycle of NAC was achieved in 100 (64.9%) patients and optimal debulking surgery (residual disease ≤1 cm) at interval debulking surgery was achieved in 103 (66.9%) patients. The most common reason for performing NAC was high tumor burden (n = 106, 68.8%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.3 months and median overall survival (OS) was 52.9 months. In multivariate analyses, mucinous and clear cell carcinoma were negative prognostic factors for both PFS (p = 0.007 and p = 0.017, respectively) and OS (p = 0.002 and p = 0.013, respectively).ConclusionsIn this study, poor survival outcomes were observed in patients with mucinous and clear cell carcinoma undergoing NAC. Different treatment strategies are urgently required to improve survival outcomes for this disease subset.
| S-EPMC6458623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the factors associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and the ability to undergo interval tumor reductive surgery (iTRS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review from April 2013 to March 2019 of patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer triaged to NACT based on our standard triage algorithm. Clinicopathologic and treatment data were analyzed for factors associated with response to NACT, outcomes at iTRS, and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS).Results562 patients met inclusion criteria and triaged to NACT following laparoscopy (n = 132) or without laparoscopy (n = 430). 413 patients underwent iTRS (74%). Factors that correlated with a patient reaching iTRS included increasing age (p < 0.001), higher Charlson comorbidity index (p < 0.001), ECOG status 2 or 3 (<0.001), and laparoscopic assessment (<0.001). Patients with CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS had higher rates of complete gross resection (88% vs. 65%, p < 0.001) and improved PFS (16.8 vs. 12.7 months, p < 0.001). Patients receiving dose-dense paclitaxel (76% vs. 60%, p = 0.004) and CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS (85% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) had higher rates of complete radiographic response. On multivariate analysis, germline BRCA 1/2 mutation (p = 0.001), iTRS vs. no surgery (R0, p < 0.001; ≤1 cm, p < 0.001; >1 cm, p < 0.001), dose-dense chemotherapy (p = 0.01), and CA-125 ≤ 35 U/mL at iTRS (p = 0.001) were independent significant factors affecting PFS.ConclusionsNormalization of CA-125 at the time of iTRS following NACT may serve as a surrogate marker for prognosis in this high-risk population. Our NACT cohort experienced improved response rates and PFS with dose-dense therapy compared to conventional dosing.
| S-EPMC8287765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA single-arm phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus durvalumab and tremelimumab in the treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer has begun in Korea. We hypothesized that adding durvalumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody) and tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody) to chemotherapy in treating this cancer can increase progression-free survival (PFS) with minimal effects on safety.MethodsDuring treatment, serial biopsies will be performed on pre-treatment, at interval debulking surgery and progression to identify immune biomarkers and changes in the tumor microenvironment. Patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer are offered durvalumab, tremelimumab plus chemotherapy for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy for adjuvant chemotherapy. Twenty-four patients will be included from four Korean institutions within 1 year. The primary endpoint is a 12-month PFS rate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03899610.
| S-EPMC6779618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveUp to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.MethodsWe utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.ResultsRural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.ConclusionThere is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.
| S-EPMC7869694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer.A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts.Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented.Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.
| S-EPMC4702266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no consensus regarding the optimal number of chemotherapy cycles to be administered before and after interval debulking surgery (IDS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (POAC) cycles on the survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing NAC/IDS/POAC.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 203 patients who underwent NAC/IDS/POAC at Yonsei Cancer Hospital between 2006 and 2016. All patients underwent taxane plus carboplatin chemotherapy for NAC and POAC. The patient outcomes were analyzed according to the number of NAC, POAC, and total chemotherapy (NAC+POAC) cycles.ResultsPatients who received fewer than 6 cycles of total chemotherapy (n = 8) had poorer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than those completing at least 6 cycles (p = 0.005 and p<0.001, respectively). Among patients who completed at least 6 cycles of total chemotherapy (n = 189), Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in either PFS or OS according to the number of NAC cycles (1-3 vs. ?4; p = 0.136 and p = 0.267, respectively). Among patients who experienced complete remission after 3 cycles of POAC (n = 98), the addition of further POAC cycles did not improve the PFS or OS (3 vs. ?4; p = 0.641 and p = 0.104, respectively).ConclusionIDS after 4 cycles of NAC may be a safe and effective option when completing 6 cycles of total chemotherapy. Furthermore, the addition of more than 3 cycles of POAC does not appear to influence the survival of patients achieving completion remission after 3 cycles of POAC.
| S-EPMC5584794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine disparities in utilization of gynecologic oncologists (GOs) across race and other sociodemographic factors for women with ovarian cancer.Data sourcesObtained SEER-Medicare linked dataset for 4,233 non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic of any race, and Non-Hispanic Asian women aged ? 66 years old diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2000-2002 from 17 SEER registries. Physician specialty was identified by linking data to the AMA master file using Unique Physician Identification Numbers.Study designRetrospective claims data analysis for 1999-2006. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between GO utilization and race/ethnicity in the initial, continuing, and final phases of care.Principal findingsGO use decreased from the initial to final phase of care (51.4-28.8 percent). No racial/ethnic differences were found overall and by phase of cancer care. Women >70 years old and those with unstaged disease were less likely to receive GO care compared to their counterparts. GO use was lower in some SEER registries compared to the Atlanta registry.ConclusionsGO use for the initial ovarian cancer treatment or for longer term care was low but not different across racial/ethnic groups. Future research should identify factors that affect GO utilization and understand why use of these specialists remains low.
| S-EPMC3681247 | biostudies-literature