Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coleridge SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6822157 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEpithelial 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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsFor 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 criteriaRCTs 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 analysisData were extracted by two review authors independently, and the quality of included trials was assessed by two review authors independently.Main resultsOne 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' conclusionsWe 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.
| S-EPMC4050358 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer will ultimately develop recurrent disease after completion of initial treatment with primary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary cytoreductive surgery may have survival benefits in selected patients. However, a number of chemotherapeutic agents are active in recurrent ovarian cancer and the standard treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer remains poorly defined.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secondary surgical cytoreduction and chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, (CENTRAL) Issue 1 2009, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaWe searched for RCTs, quasi-randomised trials and non-randomised studies that compared secondary cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy to chemotherapy alonein women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.Data collection and analysisThree reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found and therefore no data were analysed.Main resultsThe search strategy identified 1431 unique references of which all were excluded on the basis of title and abstract.Authors' conclusionsWe found no evidence from RCTs to inform decisions about secondary surgical cytoreduction and chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Ideally, a large randomised controlled trial or, at the very least, well designed non-randomised studies that use multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances are needed to compare these treatment modalities.
| S-EPMC4170993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective. METHODS:A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS:NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time. CONCLUSIONS:In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature.
| S-EPMC6002777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is superior to primary debulking surgery (PDS) with regard to optimal cytoreduction, peri-operative morbidity, mortality, and quality of life (QOL) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Registers of Clinical Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NACT to PDS in women with Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ EOC. RevMan 5.3 software was utilized for statistical analysis.ResultsFour RCTs involving 1,607 women with advanced EOC were included. Compared with PDS, NACT provided a higher rate of complete cytoreduction (risk ratio [RR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 2.87), optimal cytoreduction (RR: 1.61 [95%CI: 1.05 to 2.47]), but there was no significant difference in residual disease 0-1 cm (p = 0.49). NACT was associated with lower peri-operative morbidity with respect to infection (RR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.56]), gastrointestinal fistula (RR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.95]), any grade 3 or 4 adverse event (RR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.11 to 0.78]), and less post-surgical death within 28 days (RR: 0.14 [95% CI: 0.04 to 0.49]). NACT provided better QOL in terms of fatigue (weight mean difference [WMD], -3.28; [95% CI: -3.99 to -2.57]), role functioning (WMD: 5.29 [95% CI: 4.44 to 6.14]), emotional functioning (WMD: 6.19 [95% CI: 5.57 to 6.82]), and cognitive functioning (WMD: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.43 to 1.61]) at 6-month follow-up compared with PDS.ConclusionsNACT is associated with superior optimal cytoreduction, lower peri-operative morbidity as well as post-surgical mortality, and better QOL compared to initial surgery in patients with advanced EOC. Future research should focus on improving the efficacy of NACT.
| S-EPMC5653345 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6033676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The best course of treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer is uncertain. We sought to determine whether secondary cytoreductive surgery for first recurrence of ovarian cancer improves overall survival compared with other treatments.We assessed survival using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data for advanced stage ovarian cancer cases diagnosed from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2007 with survival data through 2010 using multinomial propensity weighted finite mixture survival regression models to distinguish true from misclassified recurrences. Of 35,995 women ages 66 years and older with ovarian cancer, 3439 underwent optimal primary debulking surgery with 6 cycles of chemotherapy; 2038 experienced a remission.One thousand six hundred thirty-five of 2038 (80%) women received treatment for recurrence of whom 72% were treated with chemotherapy only, 16% with surgery and chemotherapy and 12% received hospice care. Median survival of women treated with chemotherapy alone, surgery and chemotherapy, or hospice care was 4.1, 5.4, and 2.2 years, respectively (P<0.001). Of those receiving no secondary treatments, 75% were likely true nonrecurrences with median survival of 15.9 years and 25% misclassified with 2.4 years survival. Survival among women with recurrence was greater for those treated with surgery and chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio=1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.47). Women who were older with more comorbidities and high-grade cancer had worse survival.Secondary surgery with chemotherapy to treat recurrent ovarian cancer increases survival by 1.3 years compared with chemotherapy alone and pending ongoing randomized trial results, may be considered a standard of care.
| S-EPMC5665721 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo treat advanced ovarian cancer, interval debulking surgery (IDS) is performed after 3 cycles each of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and postoperative chemotherapy (IDS group). If we expect that complete resection cannot be achieved by IDS, debulking surgery is performed after administering additional 3 cycles of chemotherapy without postoperative chemotherapy (Add-C group). We evaluated the survival outcomes of the Add-C group and determined their serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) levels to predict complete surgery.MethodsA retrospective chart review of all stage III and IV ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer patients treated with NAC in 2007-2016 was conducted.ResultsAbout 117 patients comprised the IDS group and 26 comprised the Add-C group. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that Add-C group had an equivalent effect on progression-free survival (PFS; p=0.09) and overall survival (OS; p=0.94) compared with the IDS group. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients who developed residual disease after surgery had worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.45-3.28) and OS (HR=2.33; 95% CI=1.43-3.79), and those who received <6 cycles of chemotherapy had worse PFS (HR=5.30; 95% CI=2.56-10.99) and OS (HR=3.05; 95% CI=1.46-6.38). The preoperative serum CA125 cutoff level was 30 U/mL based on Youden index method.ConclusionsAdministering 3 additional cycles of chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery exhibited equivalent effects on survival as IDS followed by 3 cycles of postoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative serum CA125 levels of ≤30 U/mL may be a useful predictor of achieving complete surgery.
| S-EPMC6658596 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8602974 | biostudies-literature