Brooke A Schlappe1, Jennifer J Mueller1, Oliver Zivanovic2, Ginger J Gardner2, Kara Long Roche2, Yukio Sonoda2, Dennis S Chi2, Roisin E O'Cearbhaill3. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: gynbreast@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies have demonstrated improved ovarian cancer survival with the administration of a combination of intravenous (IV) and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy following optimal cytoreduction. Despite this, IV/IP chemotherapy is not uniformly used. In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the documented reasons for giving IV-only chemotherapy. METHODS: All patients who had optimal primary cytoreductive surgery for stage III ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, met eligibility criteria for GOG-172, and received primary chemotherapy at our institution between 2006 and 2013 were identified. Patients who received at least one cycle of adjuvant IV/IP therapy were included in the IP group. Patient characteristics, treatment information, and reason cited for not administering IP therapy were collected. RESULTS: Of the patients evaluated, 330 met inclusion criteria. The majority (n=261, 79%) received at least one IV/IP cycle (median, 6; range, 1-6), and 62% completed 6cycles. The most common reason for giving IV-only therapy was postoperative status (i.e., delayed wound healing, performance status), accounting for 18 (26%) of the 69 IV-only patients (5% of the entire cohort). Other cited reasons were baseline comorbidities (15%) and IP port complications (12%). Receipt of ≥1cycle of IP chemotherapy (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80) and no gross residual disease (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.71) were associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors identified as leading to the use of IV-only chemotherapy were postoperative status and IP port complications, which if altered, could potentially lead to increased IP chemotherapy use.
OBJECTIVE: Studies have demonstrated improved ovarian cancer survival with the administration of a combination of intravenous (IV) and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy following optimal cytoreduction. Despite this, IV/IP chemotherapy is not uniformly used. In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the documented reasons for giving IV-only chemotherapy. METHODS: All patients who had optimal primary cytoreductive surgery for stage III ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, met eligibility criteria for GOG-172, and received primary chemotherapy at our institution between 2006 and 2013 were identified. Patients who received at least one cycle of adjuvant IV/IP therapy were included in the IP group. Patient characteristics, treatment information, and reason cited for not administering IP therapy were collected. RESULTS: Of the patients evaluated, 330 met inclusion criteria. The majority (n=261, 79%) received at least one IV/IP cycle (median, 6; range, 1-6), and 62% completed 6cycles. The most common reason for giving IV-only therapy was postoperative status (i.e., delayed wound healing, performance status), accounting for 18 (26%) of the 69 IV-only patients (5% of the entire cohort). Other cited reasons were baseline comorbidities (15%) and IP port complications (12%). Receipt of ≥1cycle of IP chemotherapy (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80) and no gross residual disease (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.71) were associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors identified as leading to the use of IV-only chemotherapy were postoperative status and IP port complications, which if altered, could potentially lead to increased IP chemotherapy use.
Keywords:
GOG-172; Intraperitoneal chemotherapy; National Cancer Institute guideline adherence; Optimal cytoreduction; Rationale; Serous ovarian cancer
Authors: Margaret I Liang; Adam C ElNaggar; Silpa Nekkanti; David M O'Malley; Erinn M Hade; Larry J Copeland; Jeffrey M Fowler; Ritu Salani; Floor J Backes; David E Cohn Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jason A Konner; Diana M Grabon; Scott R Gerst; Alexia Iasonos; Howard Thaler; Sandra D Pezzulli; Paul J Sabbatini; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; William P Tew; Martee L Hensley; David R Spriggs; Carol A Aghajanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen M Fairfield; Kimberly Murray; Jason A LaChance; Heidi R Wierman; Craig C Earle; Edward L Trimble; Joan L Warren Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ahmed N Al-Niaimi; Mostafa Ahmed; Nikki Burish; Saygin A Chackmakchy; Songwon Seo; Stephen Rose; Ellen Hartenbach; David M Kushner; Nasia Safdar; Laurel Rice; Joseph Connor Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joyce N Barlin; Fanny Dao; Nadim Bou Zgheib; Sarah E Ferguson; Paul J Sabbatini; Martee L Hensley; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; Jason Konner; William P Tew; Carol Aghajanian; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: D S Alberts; P Y Liu; E V Hannigan; R O'Toole; S D Williams; J A Young; E W Franklin; D L Clarke-Pearson; V K Malviya; B DuBeshter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Frederic Amant; Karin Leunen; Isabelle Cadron; Toon Van Gorp; Patrick Neven; Patrick Berteloot Journal: Oncologist Date: 2008-04
Authors: Lisa M Landrum; James Java; Cara A Mathews; Grainger S Lanneau; Larry J Copeland; Deborah K Armstrong; Joan L Walker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Jonathan R Edwards; Wendy Bamberg; Zintars G Beldavs; Ghinwa Dumyati; Marion A Kainer; Ruth Lynfield; Meghan Maloney; Laura McAllister-Hollod; Joelle Nadle; Susan M Ray; Deborah L Thompson; Lucy E Wilson; Scott K Fridkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna P Lietz; Davis T Weaver; Alexander Melamed; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Jason D Wright; Alexi A Wright; Amy B Knudsen; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 3.240