Dataset Information

Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

To evaluate the effect of surgical approach on overall survival (OS) for women with advanced, epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with surgical approach.

Design

The primary exposure was surgical approach to interval cytoreduction, minimally invasive versus open, and was evaluated by intention to treat. Primary outcome was OS. Associations were examined using Chi-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards.

Setting

The National Cander Database was used to identify eligible patients.

Patients

Women diagnosed with stage IIIC/IV EOC from 2010-2016.

Interventions

Patients were included if they were treated with NACT within 90 days of diagnosis before interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

Measurements and main results

A total of 8085 women were identified; 6713 (83%) underwent open interval CRS, and 1372 (17%) underwent minimally invasive interval CRS. The proportion undergoing minimally invasive CRS after NACT increased from 2% in 2010 to 11% in 2016, a nearly 6-fold increase. There was no difference in OS between women who underwent minimally invasive and open interval CRS (median OS 36.5 vs 35.2 months, HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, including age, race, ethnicity, income, and Charlson/Deyo score, no difference in OS was observed (HR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). Women of older age (OR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.14-1.88) had increased odds of receiving minimally invasive CRS after NACT, whereas low income (<$38000/year) women had decreased odds (OR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.60-0.97, p = .03). Length of stay differed for patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open interval CRS (3 vs 5 days, p <.01), but there was no difference in need for postoperative readmission.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive CRS has similar survival outcomes to open CRS among women with EOC who have undergone NACT.

SUBMITTER: Persenaire C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8918010 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Persenaire Christianne C Pyrzak Adam A Barber Emma L EL

Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 20211011 3

<h4>Study objective</h4>To evaluate the effect of surgical approach on overall survival (OS) for women with advanced, epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with surgical approach.<h4>Design</h4>The primary exposure was surgical approach to interval cytoreduction, minimally invasive versus open, and was evaluated by intention to treat. Primary outcome was OS. Associations were examined using Chi-squ ...[more]

PMID: 34648931

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesNeoadjuvant 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionsIn 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:IntroductionWomen with advanced ovarian cancer commonly present with peritoneal disease both at primary diagnosis and relapse, with risk of subsequent bowel obstruction. The aims of this study were to assess the cumulative incidence of and survival after intervention for bowel obstruction in women with advanced ovarian cancer, to identify factors predictive of survival and the extent to which the intended outcome of the intervention was achieved.Material and methodsWomen diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer stages III and IV in 2009-2011 and 2014-2016 in the Stockholm-Gotland Region in Sweden were identified in the Swedish Quality Registry for Gynecologic Cancer. Through hospital records, types of intended and executed interventions for bowel obstruction were assessed, and as well as when in the course of oncologic treatment, the intervention was performed. Time from first intervention to death was analyzed with survival methodology and proportional hazard regression was used.ResultsOf 751 identified women, 108 had an intervention for bowel obstruction. Laparotomy was the most prevalent intervention and was used in 87% (94/108) of all women, with a success rate of 87% (82/94). An intervention for bowel obstruction was performed before or during first line treatment in 32% (35/108) with a cumulative incidence in the whole cohort of 14% (108/751, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11-16). Median survival after intervention for bowel obstruction was 4 months (95% CI 3-6). The hazard of death increased when the intervention was performed after completion of primary treatment (HR 4.46, 95% CI 1.61-12.29, P < 0.01), with a median survival of 3 months. In women subjected to radical surgery during primary treatment, the hazard of death after intervention for bowel obstruction decreased (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.91, P = 0.02).ConclusionsWomen with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing intervention for bowel obstruction have a dismal prognosis, regardless of which line of oncologic treatment the intervention was performed. In the majority of women an intervention for bowel obstruction was performed in a relapse situation with an even worse survival. Our findings emphasize the importance of a holistic approach in the decision-making before an intervention for bowel obstruction in women with advanced ovarian cancer.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials have found that, in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes compared with primary cytoreductive surgery. Despite this, considerable controversy remains about the appropriate use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the proportion of patients who receive this treatment varies considerably among cancer programs in the US.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between high levels of neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration and overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis leveraged differential adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs in the US and included women with a diagnosis of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2004 and December 2015 who were followed up through the end of 2018. The data were analyzed between September 2020 and January 2021.ExposuresTreatment in a cancer program with high levels of neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration (more often than expected based on case mix) or in a program that continued to restrict its use after the 2010 publication of a clinical trial demonstrating the noninferiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with primary surgery for the treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Main outcomes and measuresCase mix-standardized median overall survival time and 1-year all-cause mortality assessed with a flexible parametric survival model.ResultsWe identified 19 562 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [12.6] years; 3.2% Asian, 8.0% Black, 4.8% Hispanic, 82.5% White individuals) who were treated in 332 cancer programs that increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 21.7% in 2004 to 2009 to 42.2% in 2010 to 2015 and 19 737 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [12.6] years; 3.1% Asian, 7.7% Black, 6.5% Hispanic, 81.8% White individuals) who were treated in 332 programs that marginally increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (20.1% to 22.5%) over these periods. The standardized median overall survival times improved by similar magnitudes in programs with high (from 31.6 [IQR, 12.3-70.1] to 37.9 [IQR, 17.0-84.9] months; 6.3-month difference; 95% CI, 4.2-8.3) and low (from 31.4 [IQR, 12.1-67.2] to 36.8 [IQR, 15.0-80.3] months; 5.4-month difference, 95% CI, 3.5-7.3) use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after 2010 (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, -1.9 to 3.7). One-year mortality declined more in programs with high (from 25.6% to 19.3%; risk difference, -5.2%; 95% CI, -6.4 to -4.1) than with low (from 24.9% to 21.8%; risk difference, -3.2%, 95% CI, -4.3 to -2.0) use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (difference-in-differences, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.7 to -0.5).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness research study, compared with cancer programs with low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, those with high use had similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality.

Project description:Approximately 70% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are diagnosed with advanced stage disease, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The standard approach to treating patients with advanced EOC remains primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy. EOC is one of the most sensitive of all solid tumors to cytotoxic drugs, with over 80% of women showing a response to standard chemotherapy combined with taxane and platinum. Furthermore, residual disease is a major prognostic factor for survival. On the basis of the clinical features, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) is considered to be an alternative treatment option to standard treatment in patients unable to undergo complete resection during PDS. Noninferiority of NACT-IDS to PDS has been demonstrated in some randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. NACT would also lead to improved quality of life (QOL) of patients, however there are still problems to be solved in the treatment strategy. The uncertainty of perioperative visual assessment of tumor dissemination after NACT has been reported. In addition, several papers have shown the possibility that NACT induces platinum resistance. Furthermore, a notable risk associated with NACT is that patients with significant side effects and refractory disease will lose the opportunity for debulking surgery. Appropriate selection of the patient cohort for NACT is an important issue. Bevacizumab (Bev) is active in patients with advanced EOC. However, the use of Bev is not recommended in the neoadjuvant setting. Bev has a specific adverse event profile that needs to be considered, especially for surgical management, such as gastrointestinal perforation, hemorrhage, and thromboembolic events. NACT could be an alternative treatment option in patients with stage III or IV EOC. However, further studies are needed to clarify the precise role of NACT in the management of advanced EOC.

Dataset Information

Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Study objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Measurements and main results

Conclusions

Publications

Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets