Literature DB >> 26037898

Evaluation of in vitro chemoresponse profiles in women with Type I and Type II epithelial ovarian cancers: An observational study ancillary analysis.

Rebecca Previs1, Charles A Leath2, Robert L Coleman1, Thomas J Herzog3, Thomas C Krivak4, Stacey L Brower5, Chunqiao Tian5, Angeles Alvarez Secord6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Type I epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are reported to be relatively chemoresistant. This study sought to compare pretreatment chemoresponse assays in Type I vs. Type II EOCs. STUDY
DESIGN: 383 women with stage III-IV EOC enrolled in an observational study, with known chemoresponse assay results for 7 common therapeutic agents, were included. Type I EOCs were defined as grade 1 serous/endometrioid cancers and all clear cell/mucinous cancers. Type II EOCs were classified as grade 2-3 serous/endometrioid cancers and undifferentiated cancers. Chemotherapy assay responses were classified as sensitive (S), intermediately sensitive (I), or resistant (R). All patients were treated with platinum/taxane therapy following cytoreductive surgery.
RESULTS: Thirty (7.8%) tumors were classified as Type I EOC, and 353 (92.2%) as Type II EOC. Type I patients were younger at the time of diagnosis (median age: 57 vs. 62 years, p=0.018) and had longer survival compared to Type II patients (mPFS: 25.8 vs. 16.4 months, HR=1.71, p=0.042). Eighty-six percent of Type I EOC specimens demonstrated a sensitive chemoresponse assay result to at least 1 agent; 35.7% were pan-S to all 7 agents. After adjusting for stage, debulking status, and type of EOC, multi-drug resistance was twice as likely in women with Type I EOC compared to Type II EOC (pan-R, 14.3% vs. 6.8% (p=0.268); pan-S, 35.7% vs. 51.2% (p=0.183)), but did not attain statistical significance. CONCLUSION(S): The majority of women with Type I EOC displayed assay sensitivity to at least one agent. Given the small sample size these findings need to be evaluated further.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemoresponse assay; Clinical outcomes; Type I ovarian cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26037898     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.05.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  5 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of Chemosensitivity and Resistance Assays as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Bradley J Monk; Thomas J Herzog; Krishnansu S Tewari
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 3.116

2.  In vitro chemosensitivity in ovarian carcinoma: Comparison of three leading assays.

Authors:  Burak Tatar; Gökhan Boyraz; İlker Selçuk; Alper K Doğan; Alp Usubütün; Zafer Selçuk Tuncer
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2016-01-12

3.  Analysis of in vitro chemoresponse assays in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: an observational ancillary analysis.

Authors:  Brittany A Davidson; Jonathan Foote; Stacey L Brower; Chunqiao Tian; Laura J Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Res Pract       Date:  2016-12-01

4.  Lymphocyte and macrophage infiltration in omental metastases indicates poor prognosis in advance stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Tao Zhang; Qin Liu; Yingfan Zhu; Yizhou Huang; Jiale Qin; Xiaodong Wu; Songfa Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.671

5.  Clinical factors associated with prognosis in low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: experiences at two large academic institutions in Korea and Taiwan.

Authors:  Jun-Hyeok Kang; Yen-Ling Lai; Wen-Fang Cheng; Hyun-Soo Kim; Kuan-Ting Kuo; Yu-Li Chen; Yoo-Young Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.