OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival impact of initial disease distribution on patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) cytoreduced to microscopic residual. METHODS: We reviewed data from 417 stage III EOC patients cytoreduced to microscopic disease and givenadjuvant intravenous platinum/paclitaxel on one of three randomized Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials. We subdivided patients into three groups based on preoperative disease burden: (1) minimal disease (MD) defined by pelvic tumor and retroperitoneal metastasis (2) abdominal peritoneal disease (APD) with disease limited to the pelvis, retroperitoneum, lower abdomen and omentum; and (3) upper abdominal disease (UAD) with disease affecting the diaphragm, spleen, liver or pancreas. We assessed the survival impact of potential prognostic factors, focusing on initial disease distribution using a proportional hazards model and estimated Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: The study groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in MD patients compared to 80 and 56 months in the APD and UAD groups (P<0.05). The five-year survival percentages for MD, APD, and UAD were 67%, 63%, and 45%. In multivariate analysis, the UAD group had a significantly worse prognosis than MD and APD both individually and combined (Progression Free Survival (PFS) Hazards Ratio (HR) 1.44; P=0.008 and OS HR 1.77; P=0.0004 compared to MD+APD). CONCLUSION:Stage III EOC patients with initial disease in the upper abdomen have a worse prognosis despite cytoreductive surgery to microscopic residual implying that factors beyond cytoreductive effort are important in predicting survival. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival impact of initial disease distribution on patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) cytoreduced to microscopic residual. METHODS: We reviewed data from 417 stage III EOC patients cytoreduced to microscopic disease and given adjuvant intravenous platinum/paclitaxel on one of three randomized Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials. We subdivided patients into three groups based on preoperative disease burden: (1) minimal disease (MD) defined by pelvic tumor and retroperitoneal metastasis (2) abdominal peritoneal disease (APD) with disease limited to the pelvis, retroperitoneum, lower abdomen and omentum; and (3) upper abdominal disease (UAD) with disease affecting the diaphragm, spleen, liver or pancreas. We assessed the survival impact of potential prognostic factors, focusing on initial disease distribution using a proportional hazards model and estimated Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: The study groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in MD patients compared to 80 and 56 months in the APD and UAD groups (P<0.05). The five-year survival percentages for MD, APD, and UAD were 67%, 63%, and 45%. In multivariate analysis, the UAD group had a significantly worse prognosis than MD and APD both individually and combined (Progression Free Survival (PFS) Hazards Ratio (HR) 1.44; P=0.008 and OS HR 1.77; P=0.0004 compared to MD+APD). CONCLUSION: Stage III EOC patients with initial disease in the upper abdomen have a worse prognosis despite cytoreductive surgery to microscopic residual implying that factors beyond cytoreductive effort are important in predicting survival. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: M Markman; B N Bundy; D S Alberts; J M Fowler; D L Clark-Pearson; L F Carson; S Wadler; J Sickel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Rafael S Tomacruz; Deborah K Armstrong; Edward L Trimble; F J Montz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert F Ozols; Brian N Bundy; Benjamin E Greer; Jeffrey M Fowler; Daniel Clarke-Pearson; Robert A Burger; Robert S Mannel; Koen DeGeest; Ellen M Hartenbach; Rebecca Baergen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew Berchuck; Edwin S Iversen; Johnathan M Lancaster; Holly K Dressman; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins; Jeffrey R Marks Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Scott M Eisenkop; Nick M Spirtos; Richard L Friedman; Wei-Chien Michael Lin; Albert L Pisani; Sergio Perticucci Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Neil S Horowitz; Austin Miller; Bunja Rungruang; Scott D Richard; Noah Rodriguez; Michael A Bookman; Chad A Hamilton; Thomas C Krivak; G Larry Maxwell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca L Stone; Keith A Baggerly; Guillermo N Armaiz-Pena; Yu Kang; Angela M Sanguino; Duangmani Thanapprapasr; Heather J Dalton; Justin Bottsford-Miller; Behrouz Zand; Rehan Akbani; Lixia Diao; Alpa M Nick; Koen DeGeest; Gabriel Lopez-Berestein; Robert L Coleman; Susan Lutgendorf; Anil K Sood Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Diogo Torres; Chen Wang; Amanika Kumar; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Gottfried E Konecny; Ellen L Goode; William A Cliby Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Edward J Tanner; Kara C Long; Qin Zhou; Rachel M Brightwell; Ginger J Gardner; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Alexia Iasonos; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ya-si Xu; Jian-guo Feng; Dan Zhang; Bo Zhang; Min Luo; Dan Su; Neng-ming Lin Journal: Acta Pharmacol Sin Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: C A Hamilton; A Miller; Y Casablanca; N S Horowitz; B Rungruang; T C Krivak; S D Richard; N Rodriguez; M J Birrer; F J Backes; M A Geller; M Quinn; M J Goodheart; D G Mutch; J J Kavanagh; G L Maxwell; M A Bookman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 5.482