Thomas C Krivak1, Chunqiao Tian2, G Scott Rose3, Deborah K Armstrong4, G Larry Maxwell3. 1. Magee Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Electronic address: tkrivak@mail.magee.edu. 2. Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA. 3. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington DC, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Serum CA-125 values have been advocated in the monitoring of ovarian cancer patients receivingintravenous (IV) chemotherapy. This evaluation sought to determine if the CA-125 test can be used to monitor treatment effect among patients receiving intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP). METHODS: Patient charts from a phase III clinical trial (GOG 172) were retrospectively reviewed. Serum CA-125 levels prior to each cycle of therapy were collected and compared between the IV and IP chemotherapy delivery. The association between CA-125 and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) was estimated and the homogeneity of the results between IP and IV chemotherapy was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were treated with IV chemotherapy and 165 patients with IP chemotherapy with CA-125 data available were included in this analysis. The observed difference was not statistically significant in median CA-125 levels between the IV and IP arms at any time point (P>0.05 for all). Following surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with an abnormal CA-125 >35 U/ml were 2.45 times more likely to have disease progression (95% CI: 1.52-3.95, P<0.001) and 2.78 times more likely to die of disease (95% CI: 1.66-4.65, P<0.001), compared to those with a CA-125 <35 U/ml. These results were consistent with IP and IV chemotherapy. CONCLUSION:Serum CA-125 levels decrease in a similar manner during IP chemotherapy when compared to IV chemotherapy. Serum CA-125 algorithms for monitoring treatment effect that have been established for IV chemotherapy may also be applied for patients receiving IP chemotherapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Serum CA-125 values have been advocated in the monitoring of ovarian cancerpatients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. This evaluation sought to determine if the CA-125 test can be used to monitor treatment effect among patients receiving intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP). METHODS:Patient charts from a phase III clinical trial (GOG 172) were retrospectively reviewed. Serum CA-125 levels prior to each cycle of therapy were collected and compared between the IV and IP chemotherapy delivery. The association between CA-125 and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) was estimated and the homogeneity of the results between IP and IV chemotherapy was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were treated with IV chemotherapy and 165 patients with IP chemotherapy with CA-125 data available were included in this analysis. The observed difference was not statistically significant in median CA-125 levels between the IV and IP arms at any time point (P>0.05 for all). Following surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with an abnormal CA-125 >35 U/ml were 2.45 times more likely to have disease progression (95% CI: 1.52-3.95, P<0.001) and 2.78 times more likely to die of disease (95% CI: 1.66-4.65, P<0.001), compared to those with a CA-125 <35 U/ml. These results were consistent with IP and IV chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Serum CA-125 levels decrease in a similar manner during IP chemotherapy when compared to IV chemotherapy. Serum CA-125 algorithms for monitoring treatment effect that have been established for IV chemotherapy may also be applied for patients receiving IP chemotherapy.
Authors: G J Rustin; A E Nelstrop; P McClean; M F Brady; W P McGuire; W J Hoskins; H Mitchell; H E Lambert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D S Alberts; P Y Liu; E V Hannigan; R O'Toole; S D Williams; J A Young; E W Franklin; D L Clarke-Pearson; V K Malviya; B DuBeshter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C A Yedema; P Kenemans; C M Thomas; L F Massuger; T Wobbes; R Verstraeten; G J van Kamp; J Hilgers Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1993 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Debra L Richardson; Leigh G Seamon; Matthew J Carlson; David M O'Malley; Jeffrey M Fowler; Larry J Copeland; David E Cohn Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Maurie Markman; P Y Liu; Mace L Rothenberg; Bradley J Monk; Mark Brady; David S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alena A Chekmasova; Thapi D Rao; Yan Nikhamin; Kay J Park; Douglas A Levine; David R Spriggs; Renier J Brentjens Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Madhumita Chatterjee; Greg Dyson; Nancy K Levin; Jay P Shah; Robert Morris; Adnan Munkarah; Michael A Tainsky Journal: Cancer Biomark Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.388
Authors: E Sun Paik; Jeong Won Lee; Jeong Yeol Park; Ju Hyun Kim; Mijung Kim; Tae Joong Kim; Chel Hun Choi; Byoung Gie Kim; Duk Soo Bae; Sung Wook Seo Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Maria Lee; Min Young Chang; Hanna Yoo; Kyung Eun Lee; Doo Byung Chay; Hanbyoul Cho; Sunghoon Kim; Young Tae Kim; Jae-Hoon Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.759