Prognostic indices in ovarian cancer. Their significance in treatment planning.

Ovarian cancer exhibits a wide spectrum of behavior, the effectiveness of therapies varies and the circumstances of patients differ. Better outcomes will require more selective treatment strategies considerate of these variables. 1. The need for treatment As long as outcome is affected more by disease than by treatment, survival will be determined by the bulk and growth-rate of residual tumor-prognostic factors reflect these. They indicate the need for treatment, but not whether benefit is likely. FIGO stage is the international standard, but this alone is inadequately predictive. Grade reflects virulence, but subjectivity has limited its usefulness. Newer quantitative pathology techniques (such as DNA ploidy) more reproducibly reflect behavior. Prognostic factors can be used to define subsets of patients at differing degrees of disease risk. 2. Efficacy of treatment No response predictors are yet of practical use in selecting primary chemotherapy on an individual basis. Generally, response is more likely if the tumor is less extensive and if dose and treatment frequency are higher. Monitoring biomarkers can more quickly identify those with a suboptimal response who may require a change or discontinuation of treatment. Re-laparotomy has limited usefulness. Response predictors for second-line treatment (e.g. the failure-free interval) are available and also have implications for new drug testing. 3. Suitability of treatment Advanced age or serious additional illness may render intensive treatment inappropriate. The informed patient's wishes are of prime importance. An evolving strategy of selective management is described.