OBJECTIVE: Recent randomized controlled data suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with interval debulking (ID) may produce similar overall survival and progression free survival compared to standard primary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy. The object of our study was to assess current patterns of care among members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), specifically collating their opinions on and use of NACT for advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was sent to all working e-mail addresses of SGO members (n=1137). The data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics with commercially available online survey software. The Chi-square test for independence was used to determine differences in responses between groups. RESULTS: Of 339 (30%) responding members, most rarely employ NACT, with 60% of respondents using NACT in less than 10% of advanced stage ovarian cancer cases. Respondents did not consider available evidence sufficient to justify NACT followed by ID (82%), nor did most think it should be preferred (74%). Sixty-two percent of respondents thought it was impossible to accurately predict preoperatively whether an optimal cytoreduction is possible. Thirty-nine percent believed that women with bulky upper abdominal disease on preoperative imaging would benefit from NACT versus primary debulking. If gross disease were found at ID, 43% would continue to treat with IV chemotherapy, and 42% would place an IP port if optimally cytoreduced. When ID reveals microscopic disease, 51% would continue IV treatment and the remaining IP therapy. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believed that both biological and surgical factors determine patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of responding SGO members do not treat patients with NACT followed by ID. Currently available studies of NACT/ID have been insufficient to convince most gynecologic oncologists to incorporate it into practice. Our results provide a benchmark against which further research can assess the penetration of NACT/ID into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Recent randomized controlled data suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with interval debulking (ID) may produce similar overall survival and progression free survival compared to standard primary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy. The object of our study was to assess current patterns of care among members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), specifically collating their opinions on and use of NACT for advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was sent to all working e-mail addresses of SGO members (n=1137). The data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics with commercially available online survey software. The Chi-square test for independence was used to determine differences in responses between groups. RESULTS: Of 339 (30%) responding members, most rarely employ NACT, with 60% of respondents using NACT in less than 10% of advanced stage ovarian cancer cases. Respondents did not consider available evidence sufficient to justify NACT followed by ID (82%), nor did most think it should be preferred (74%). Sixty-two percent of respondents thought it was impossible to accurately predict preoperatively whether an optimal cytoreduction is possible. Thirty-nine percent believed that women with bulky upper abdominal disease on preoperative imaging would benefit from NACT versus primary debulking. If gross disease were found at ID, 43% would continue to treat with IV chemotherapy, and 42% would place an IP port if optimally cytoreduced. When ID reveals microscopic disease, 51% would continue IV treatment and the remaining IP therapy. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believed that both biological and surgical factors determine patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of responding SGO members do not treat patients with NACT followed by ID. Currently available studies of NACT/ID have been insufficient to convince most gynecologic oncologists to incorporate it into practice. Our results provide a benchmark against which further research can assess the penetration of NACT/ID into clinical practice.
Authors: Nathaniel L Jones; Ling Chen; Sudeshna Chatterjee; Ana I Tergas; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jocelyn M Stewart; Alicia A Tone; Haiyan Jiang; Marcus Q Bernardini; Sarah Ferguson; Stephane Laframboise; K Joan Murphy; Barry Rosen; Taymaa May Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Melissa M Thrall; Heidi J Gray; Rebecca Gaston Symons; Noel S Weiss; David R Flum; Barbara A Goff Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Arthur-Quan Tran; Daniel O Erim; Stephanie A Sullivan; Ashley L Cole; Emma L Barber; Kenneth H Kim; Paola A Gehrig; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Jennifer Tsui; Sherry A Glied; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ashley L Cole; Emma L Barber; Anagha Gogate; Arthur-Quan Tran; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jennifer J Mueller; Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Farah A Alvi; Amr El Haraki; Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Ginger J Gardner; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Carol Aghajanian; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 5.482