Devansu Tewari1, James J Java1, Ritu Salani1, Deborah K Armstrong1, Maurie Markman1, Thomas Herzog1, Bradley J Monk1, John K Chan2. 1. Devansu Tewari, Kaiser Permanente Irvine Medical Center, Irvine; John K. Chan, California Pacific/Palo Alto Medical Foundation/Sutter Research Institute, San Francisco, CA; James J. Java, Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; Ritu Salani, Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Columbus; Thomas Herzog, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; Deborah K. Armstrong, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Maurie Markman, Eastern Regional Medical Center, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, PA; Bradley J. Monk, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ. 2. Devansu Tewari, Kaiser Permanente Irvine Medical Center, Irvine; John K. Chan, California Pacific/Palo Alto Medical Foundation/Sutter Research Institute, San Francisco, CA; James J. Java, Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; Ritu Salani, Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Columbus; Thomas Herzog, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; Deborah K. Armstrong, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Maurie Markman, Eastern Regional Medical Center, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, PA; Bradley J. Monk, Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ. chanjohn@sutterhealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine long-term survival and associated prognostic factors after intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols 114 and 172 were retrospectively analyzed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: In 876 patients, median follow-up was 10.7 years. Median survival with IP therapy was 61.8 months (95% CI, 55.5 to 69.5), compared with 51.4 months (95% CI, 46.0 to 58.2) for intravenous therapy. IP therapy was associated with a 23% decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90; P = .002). IP therapy improved survival of those with gross residual (≤ 1 cm) disease (AHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92; P = .006). Risk of death decreased by 12% for each cycle of IP chemotherapy completed (AHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94; P < .001). Factors associated with poorer survival included: clear/mucinous versus serous histology (AHR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.83 to 4.24; P < .001), gross residual versus no visible disease (AHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.48 to 2.43; P < .001), and fewer versus more cycles of IP chemotherapy (AHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94; P < .001). Younger patients were more likely to complete the IP regimen, with a 5% decrease in probability of completion with each year of age (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.96; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The advantage of IP over intravenous chemotherapy extends beyond 10 years. IP therapy enhanced survival of those with gross residual disease. Survival improved with increasing number of IP cycles.
PURPOSE: To determine long-term survival and associated prognostic factors after intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols 114 and 172 were retrospectively analyzed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: In 876 patients, median follow-up was 10.7 years. Median survival with IP therapy was 61.8 months (95% CI, 55.5 to 69.5), compared with 51.4 months (95% CI, 46.0 to 58.2) for intravenous therapy. IP therapy was associated with a 23% decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90; P = .002). IP therapy improved survival of those with gross residual (≤ 1 cm) disease (AHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92; P = .006). Risk of death decreased by 12% for each cycle of IP chemotherapy completed (AHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94; P < .001). Factors associated with poorer survival included: clear/mucinous versus serous histology (AHR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.83 to 4.24; P < .001), gross residual versus no visible disease (AHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.48 to 2.43; P < .001), and fewer versus more cycles of IP chemotherapy (AHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94; P < .001). Younger patients were more likely to complete the IP regimen, with a 5% decrease in probability of completion with each year of age (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.96; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The advantage of IP over intravenous chemotherapy extends beyond 10 years. IP therapy enhanced survival of those with gross residual disease. Survival improved with increasing number of IP cycles.
Authors: M Markman; E Rowinsky; T Hakes; B Reichman; W Jones; J L Lewis; S Rubin; J Curtin; R Barakat; M Phillips Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W P McGuire; W J Hoskins; M F Brady; H D Homesley; W T Creasman; M L Berman; H Ball; J S Berek; J Woodward Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David E Cohn; Laura J Havrilesky; Kathryn Osann; Joseph Lipscomb; Susie Hsieh; Joan L Walker; Alexi A Wright; Ronald D Alvarez; Beth Y Karlan; Robert E Bristow; Paul A DiSilvestro; Mark T Wakabayashi; Robert Morgan; Dana B Mukamel; Lari Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Deepa Magge; Lekshmi Ramalingam; Yongli Shuai; Robert P Edwards; James F Pingpank; Steven S Ahrendt; Matthew P Holtzman; Herbert J Zeh; David L Bartlett; Haroon A Choudry Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Kathleen N Moore; Austin Miller; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; Russell J Schilder; Joan L Walker; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Saketh R Guntupalli; Deborah K Armstrong; Andrea R Hagemann; Heidi J Gray; Linda R Duska; Cara A Mathews; Alice Chen; David O'Malley; Sarah Gordon; Paula M Fracasso; Carol Aghajanian Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Danielle A Jandial; William E Brady; Stephen B Howell; Heather A Lankes; Russell J Schilder; Jan H Beumer; Susan M Christner; Sandra Strychor; Matthew A Powell; Andrea R Hagemann; Kathleen N Moore; Joan L Walker; Paul A DiSilvestro; Linda R Duska; Paula M Fracasso; Don S Dizon Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joanne O'Dwyer; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Robert Wylie; Saoirse O'Mahony; Michael O'Dwyer; Garry P Duffy; Eimear B Dolan Journal: Adv Ther (Weinh) Date: 2020-08-16
Authors: Yang Deng; Fan Yang; Emiliano Cocco; Eric Song; Junwei Zhang; Jiajia Cui; Muneeb Mohideen; Stefania Bellone; Alessandro D Santin; W Mark Saltzman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Aaron H Colby; Nicholas H Oberlies; Cedric J Pearce; Victoria L M Herrera; Yolonda L Colson; Mark W Grinstaff Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2017-02-09