L C Hanker1, S Loibl2, N Burchardi3, J Pfisterer4, W Meier5, E Pujade-Lauraine6, I Ray-Coquard7, J Sehouli8, P Harter9, A du Bois9. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main. Electronic address: hanker@med.uni-frankfurt.de. 2. German Breast Group Forschungs GmbH, Neu Isenburg, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach am Main. 3. Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, Philipps-University, Marburg. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Städtisches Klinikum, Solingen. 5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Evangelical Hospital, Duesseldorf, Germany. 6. Department of Oncology, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Paris. 7. Department of Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France. 8. Department of Gynecology, Charité/Campus Virchow Klinikum Medical University, Berlin. 9. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recent progress in the treatment of ovarian cancer, the majority of patients eventually relapse. There is little information on the effectiveness of chemotherapy in higher treatment lines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characterization of the second to sixth line therapy and its effects on survival was carried out, based on data of n = 1620 patients from three large randomized phase III trials investigating primary therapy. RESULTS:Median progression-free survival (PFS) after the first, second, third, fourth and fifth relapse was 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.6-10.7], 6.4 (5.9-7.0), 5.6 (4.8-6.2), 4.4 (3.7-4.9) and 4.1 (3.0-5.1) months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) after the first, second, third, fourth and fifth relapse was 17.6 (95% CI 16.4-18.6), 11.3 (10.4-12.9), 8.9 (7.8-9.9), 6.2 (5.1-7.7) and 5.0 (3.8-10.4) months, respectively. The most frequent second and third line chemotherapy was platinum combination (n = 313, 24.5%) and topotecan (n = 118, 23.6%), respectively. Relapse treatment improved PFS and OS at the second to fourth recurrence, although frequently not performed according to the standard of care. In multivariate analysis, platinum sensitivity and optimal primary tumor debulking were revealed as independent prognostic factors for PFS up to third relapse. CONCLUSION: A maximum of three lines of subsequent relapse treatment seems to be beneficial for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Optimal primary tumor debulking and platinum sensitivity remain independent prognostic factors even after more frequent relapses.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite recent progress in the treatment of ovarian cancer, the majority of patients eventually relapse. There is little information on the effectiveness of chemotherapy in higher treatment lines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characterization of the second to sixth line therapy and its effects on survival was carried out, based on data of n = 1620 patients from three large randomized phase III trials investigating primary therapy. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) after the first, second, third, fourth and fifth relapse was 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.6-10.7], 6.4 (5.9-7.0), 5.6 (4.8-6.2), 4.4 (3.7-4.9) and 4.1 (3.0-5.1) months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) after the first, second, third, fourth and fifth relapse was 17.6 (95% CI 16.4-18.6), 11.3 (10.4-12.9), 8.9 (7.8-9.9), 6.2 (5.1-7.7) and 5.0 (3.8-10.4) months, respectively. The most frequent second and third line chemotherapy was platinum combination (n = 313, 24.5%) and topotecan (n = 118, 23.6%), respectively. Relapse treatment improved PFS and OS at the second to fourth recurrence, although frequently not performed according to the standard of care. In multivariate analysis, platinum sensitivity and optimal primary tumor debulking were revealed as independent prognostic factors for PFS up to third relapse. CONCLUSION: A maximum of three lines of subsequent relapse treatment seems to be beneficial for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Optimal primary tumor debulking and platinum sensitivity remain independent prognostic factors even after more frequent relapses.
Authors: Evanthia Galanis; Pamela J Atherton; Matthew J Maurer; Keith L Knutson; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Paul Haluska; Harry J Long; Ann Oberg; Ileana Aderca; Matthew S Block; Jamie Bakkum-Gamez; Mark J Federspiel; Stephen J Russell; Kimberly R Kalli; Gary Keeney; Kah Whye Peng; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bryan Oronsky; Carolyn M Ray; Alexander I Spira; Jane B Trepel; Corey A Carter; Hope M Cottrill Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Mary L Disis; Matthew H Taylor; Karen Kelly; J Thaddeus Beck; Michael Gordon; Kathleen M Moore; Manish R Patel; Jorge Chaves; Haeseong Park; Alain C Mita; Erika P Hamilton; Christina M Annunziata; Hans Juergen Grote; Anja von Heydebreck; Jaspreet Grewal; Vikram Chand; James L Gulley Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Adam C ElNaggar; Uksha Saini; Shan Naidu; Ross Wanner; Millie Sudhakar; John Fowler; Masaki Nagane; Periannan Kuppusamy; David E Cohn; Karuppaiyah Selvendiran Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2016-10-02 Impact factor: 4.742