Dataset Information

Video-assisted thoracic surgery in the primary management of advanced ovarian carcinoma with moderate to large pleural effusions: A Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Team Ovary Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We assessed the utility of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in defining extent of intrathoracic disease in advanced ovarian carcinoma with moderate-to-large pleural effusions.

Methods

Beginning in 2001, VATS was performed on all patients with suspected advanced ovarian carcinoma and moderate-to-large pleural effusions, evaluating for macroscopic intrathoracic disease. The algorithm recommended primary debulking surgery (PDS) for ≤1 cm, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)/interval debulking surgery (IDS) for >1 cm intrathoracic disease. We reviewed records of patients undergoing VATS from 10/01-01/19. Differences between treatment groups were tested using standard statistical techniques.

Results

One-hundred patients met eligibility criteria (median age, 60; median CA-125 level, 1158 U/mL; medium serum albumin, 3.8 g/dL). Macroscopic pleural disease was found in 70 (70%). After VATS, 50 (50%) underwent attempted PDS (PDS group), 50 (50%) received NACT (NACT/IDS group). Forty-seven (94%) underwent IDS. Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort (n = 100) was 44.5 months (95% CI: 37.8-51.7). The PDS group had significantly longer survival than the NACT/IDS group [45.8 (95% CI: 40.5-87.8) vs. 37.4 months (95% CI: 33.3-45.2); p = .016]. On multivariable analysis, macroscopic intrathoracic disease (HR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.14-4.18; p = .019) and age ≥ 65 (HR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.16-3.40; p = .013) were independently associated with elevated death risk. Patients with the best outcome had no macroscopic disease at VATS and underwent PDS (median OS, 87.8 months).

Conclusions

VATS is useful in therapeutic decision-making for PDS vs. NACT/IDS in advanced ovarian cancer with moderate-to-large pleural effusions.

SUBMITTER: Boerner T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7541719 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe oncologic outcomes after using acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) to reduce requirement for allogenic red blood cell transfusions (ABT) in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsWe performed a post-hoc analysis of a recent prospective trial investigating the safety and feasibility of ANH during PDS for advanced ovarian cancer. We report long-term survival outcomes. We compared demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, survival outcomes in this cohort of Stage IIIB-IVB high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients undergoing ANH (ANH group), with a retrospective cohort of all other patients (standard group) undergoing PDS during the same time period (01/2012-04/2017). Standard statistical tests were used.ResultsThere were no demographic or clinicopathological differences between ANH (n = 33) and standard groups (n = 360), except for higher median age at diagnosis (57 vs. 62 years, respectively; p = 0.044) and shorter operative time (357 vs. 446 min, respectively; p < 0.001) in the standard group. Cytoreductive outcomes (ANH vs. standard): 0 mm, 69.7 vs. 63.9%; gross residual disease (RD) ≤1 cm, 21.2 vs. 26.9%; >1 cm, 9.1 vs. 9.2% (p = 0.78). RD after PDS was the only independent factor associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) on multivariable analysis (p < 0.001). Patients with BRCA mutations trended towards improved PFS (p = 0.057). Significant factors for overall survival (OS) on multivariable analysis: preoperative CA125 (p = 0.004), ascites (p = 0.018), RD after PDS (p = 0.04), BRCA mutation status (p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, ANH was not independently associated with PFS or OS [PFS: HR 0.928 (0.618-1.395); p = 0.721; OS: HR 0.588 (95%CI: 0.317-1.092); p = 0.093].ConclusionsANH is an innovative approach in intraoperative management. It was previously proven to decrease need for ABT while maintaining the ability to achieve complete gross resection and associated benefits.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer use 3 neoadjuvant cycles, real-world practice varies. We sought to evaluate the influence of increasing pre-operative cycles on survival, accounting for surgical outcomes.MethodsWe identified 199 women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer recommended for neoadjuvant chemotherapy who underwent interval debulking surgery from July 2015 to December 2018. Non-parametric tests were used to compare clinical characteristics by neoadjuvant cycles. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate differences in progression-free and overall survival. The log-rank test was used to assess the relationship of covariates to outcome.ResultsThe median number of neoadjuvant cycles was 4 (range 3-8), with 56 (28%) women receiving ≥5 cycles. Compared with those receiving 3 or 4, women with ≥5 neoadjuvant cycles received fewer or no post-operative cycles (p<0.001) but had no other differences in clinical factors (p>0.05). Complete gross resection rates were similar among those receiving 3, 4, and ≥5 neoadjuvant cycles (68.5%, 70%, and 71.4%, respectively, p=0.96). There were no significant differences in progression-free or overall survival when comparing 3 versus 4 neoadjuvant cycles. However, more cycles (≥5 vs 4) were associated with worse progression-free survival, even after adjustment for BRCA status and complete gross resection (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.33, p<0.001), and worse overall survival, even after adjustment for histology, response on imaging, and complete gross resection rates (HR 2.78, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.63, p=0.016). The most common reason for receiving ≥5 cycles was extent of disease requiring more neoadjuvant chemotherapy.ConclusionsDespite maximal cytoreduction, patients receiving ≥5 neoadjuvant cycles have a poorer prognosis than those receiving 3-4 cycles. Future studies should focus on reducing surgical morbidity and optimizing novel therapies in this high-risk group.

Project description:BackgroundExtraneural metastasis of glioma is a rare event, often occurring in patients with advanced disease. Genomic alterations associated with extraneural glioma metastasis remain incompletely understood.MethodsTen patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center diagnosed with extraneural metastases of glioblastoma (9 patients) and gliosarcoma (1 patient) from 2003 to 2018 were included in our analysis. Patient characteristics, clinical course, and genomic alterations were evaluated.ResultsPatient age at diagnosis ranged from 14 to 73, with 7 men and 3 women in this group. The median overall survival from initial diagnosis and from diagnosis of extraneural metastasis was 19.6 months (range 11.2 to 57.5 months) and 5 months (range 1 to 16.1 months), respectively. The most common site of extraneural metastasis was bone, with other sites being lymph nodes, dura, liver, lung, and soft tissues. All patients received surgical resection and radiation, and 9 patients received temozolomide, with subsequent chemotherapy appropriate for individual cases. 1 patient had an Ommaya and then ventriculoperitoneal shunt placed, and 1 patient underwent craniectomy for cerebral edema associated with a brain abscess at the initial site of resection. Genomic analysis of primary tumors and metastatic sites revealed shared and private mutations with a preponderance of tumor suppressor gene alterations, illustrating clonal evolution in extraneural metastases.ConclusionsSeveral risk factors emerged for extraneural metastasis of glioblastoma and gliosarcoma, including sarcomatous dedifferentiation, disruption of normal anatomic barriers during surgical resection, and tumor suppressor gene alterations. Next steps with this work include validation of these genomic markers of glioblastoma metastases in larger patient populations and the development of preclinical models. This work will lead to a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of metastasis to develop targeted treatments for these patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe proliferation of relationships between community health systems and academic medical centers has created a need to identify effective components of these models. This article reports on frontline physician experiences, with one such relationship established through the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) Cancer Alliance. MSK created the Alliance with the goals of rapidly bringing the newest standards of care into community settings and increasing patient access to clinical trials in their local communities.MethodsAlliance leadership administered a 10-question anonymous survey to physicians treating patients with cancer across the 3 Alliance member health systems: Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute, and Miami Cancer Institute at Baptist Health South Florida. The purpose of the survey was to identify opportunities to improve physician engagement.ResultsThere were 103 clinician respondents across Alliance members, of which 87 reported participation in a disease management team and were included in the final analysis. Most respondents reported high value from Alliance activities, such as attending MSK tumor boards (94%) and lecture series (96%), among those who reported them applicable. Across all respondents, most reported satisfaction with engagement opportunities, such as MSK physician participation in their institution's meetings (76%). When asked where they would like to see increased engagement, the most commonly reported response was for more lecture series (45%). Most respondents (88%) reported that the Alliance led to practice change, either for themselves or for other clinicians at their institution. Many attributed this practice change to MSK disease-specific process measures.ConclusionsThe activities most valued by community physicians were heavily physician relationship-based. The encouraging experience of the MSK Cancer Alliance suggests that activities involving physician investment may be effective for promoting practice change in the context of cross-institution relationships. Future research is needed in this area.