OBJECTIVE: Mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC) representing about 10% of all EOC are known to be possibly resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy and bear a poorer prognosis with respect to other subtypes of EOC. This study was undertaken to compare response and survival to platinum-based chemotherapy between patients with advanced stages III and IV mEOC and serous EOC (sEOC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 47 patients with advanced stage of mEOC treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the context of several study protocols of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) between 6/7/1983 and 25/2/2003. The outcome was compared to that of 94 patients with sEOC treated with the same protocols during the same study period (ratio mucinous: serous 1:2). RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients (47 stages III and IV mEOC, 94 stages III and IV sEOC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were analyzed. The overall response rate for mEOC was 38.5% (complete remission 18%) (95% CI 23.4-55.4%) and 70% (complete remission 47%) (95% CI 58.5-80.3%) for sEOC (P = 0.001). After a median follow-up of 77.8 months, median survival and time to tumor progression (TTP) were not significantly different between the two groups (33.2 months [95% CI 23.3-43.1 months] vs. 38.0 months [95% CI 26.8-49.2 months], P = 0.46, 11.8 months [95% CI 7.2-16.4 months] vs. 20.0 months [95% CI 15.7-24.2 months], P = 0.18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with mEOC have significantly lower response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy compared to patients with sEOC. This low response to platinum-based chemotherapy was not translated in inferior TTP or survival. Our data indicate that a new strategy for chemotherapy in mEOC should be adopted, one that focuses on new agents without cross-resistance to platinum agents.
OBJECTIVE:Mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC) representing about 10% of all EOC are known to be possibly resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy and bear a poorer prognosis with respect to other subtypes of EOC. This study was undertaken to compare response and survival to platinum-based chemotherapy between patients with advanced stages III and IV mEOC and serous EOC (sEOC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 47 patients with advanced stage of mEOC treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the context of several study protocols of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) between 6/7/1983 and 25/2/2003. The outcome was compared to that of 94 patients with sEOC treated with the same protocols during the same study period (ratio mucinous: serous 1:2). RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients (47 stages III and IV mEOC, 94 stages III and IV sEOC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were analyzed. The overall response rate for mEOC was 38.5% (complete remission 18%) (95% CI 23.4-55.4%) and 70% (complete remission 47%) (95% CI 58.5-80.3%) for sEOC (P = 0.001). After a median follow-up of 77.8 months, median survival and time to tumor progression (TTP) were not significantly different between the two groups (33.2 months [95% CI 23.3-43.1 months] vs. 38.0 months [95% CI 26.8-49.2 months], P = 0.46, 11.8 months [95% CI 7.2-16.4 months] vs. 20.0 months [95% CI 15.7-24.2 months], P = 0.18, respectively). CONCLUSION:Patients with mEOC have significantly lower response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy compared to patients with sEOC. This low response to platinum-based chemotherapy was not translated in inferior TTP or survival. Our data indicate that a new strategy for chemotherapy in mEOC should be adopted, one that focuses on new agents without cross-resistance to platinum agents.
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Kathleen M Schmeler; Anais Malpica; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: A F Leary; M Quinn; K Fujiwara; R L Coleman; E Kohn; T Sugiyama; R Glasspool; I Ray-Coquard; N Colombo; M Bacon; A Zeimet; A Westermann; E Gomez-Garcia; D Provencher; S Welch; W Small; D Millan; A Okamoto; G Stuart; K Ochiai Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Yongmei Huang; Oliver Zivanovic; Muneaki Shimada; Hiroko Machida; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tao Liu; Wei Hu; Heather J Dalton; Hyun Jin Choi; Jie Huang; Yu Kang; Sunila Pradeep; Takahito Miyake; Jian H Song; Yunfei Wen; Chunhua Lu; Chad V Pecot; Justin Bottsford-Miller; Behrouz Zand; Nicholas B Jennings; Cristina Ivan; Gary E Gallick; Keith A Baggerly; David G Hangauer; Robert L Coleman; Michael Frumovitz; Anil K Sood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jessica N McAlpine; Kimberly C Wiegand; Russell Vang; Bridgett M Ronnett; Anna Adamiak; Martin Köbel; Steve E Kalloger; Kenneth D Swenerton; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Dianne M Miller Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 4.430