Jocelyn M Stewart1, Alicia A Tone1, Haiyan Jiang1, Marcus Q Bernardini1, Sarah Ferguson1, Stephane Laframboise1, K Joan Murphy1, Barry Rosen1, Taymaa May1. 1. From the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ont. (Stewart, Tone, Bernardini, Ferguson, Laframboise, Murphy, Rosen, May); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bernardini, Ferguson, Laframboise, Murphy, Rosen, May); and the Department of Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Jiang).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) is commonly treated with surgery and chemotherapy. We investigated the survival of patients treated with primary or interval surgery at different times following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Their survival was compared with that of patients treated with primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage III or IV HGSC were included in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical data were obtained from patient records. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery (NAC) or with primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (PCS). Study groups were stratified by several clinical variables. RESULTS: We included 334 patients in our study: 156 in the NAC and 178 in the PCS groups. Survival of patients in the NAC group was independent of when they underwent interval cytoreductive surgery following initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Optimal surgical cytoreduction had no impact on overall survival in the NAC group (p < 0.001). Optimal cytoreduction (p < 0.001) and platinum sensitivity (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of improved survival in the PCS but not in the NAC group. Patients in the NAC group had significantly worse overall survival than those in the PCS group (31.6 v. 61.3 mo, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Women with advanced HGSC who underwent PCS had better survival than those who underwent interval NAC, regardless of the number of cycles of neoadjuvant therapy. Optimal cytoreduction did not provide a survival advantage in the NAC group.
BACKGROUND: Advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) is commonly treated with surgery and chemotherapy. We investigated the survival of patients treated with primary or interval surgery at different times following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Their survival was compared with that of patients treated with primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS:Patients with stage III or IV HGSC were included in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical data were obtained from patient records. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery (NAC) or with primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (PCS). Study groups were stratified by several clinical variables. RESULTS: We included 334 patients in our study: 156 in the NAC and 178 in the PCS groups. Survival of patients in the NAC group was independent of when they underwent interval cytoreductive surgery following initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Optimal surgical cytoreduction had no impact on overall survival in the NAC group (p < 0.001). Optimal cytoreduction (p < 0.001) and platinum sensitivity (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of improved survival in the PCS but not in the NAC group. Patients in the NAC group had significantly worse overall survival than those in the PCS group (31.6 v. 61.3 mo, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Women with advanced HGSC who underwent PCS had better survival than those who underwent interval NAC, regardless of the number of cycles of neoadjuvant therapy. Optimal cytoreduction did not provide a survival advantage in the NAC group.
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Tom Ehlen; Nick S Reed; Antonio Casado Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W G McCluggage; R W Lyness; R J Atkinson; S P Dobbs; I Harley; H R McClelland; J H Price Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Tate Thigpen; Andreas duBois; Jessica McAlpine; Philip DiSaia; Keiichi Fujiwara; William Hoskins; Gunnar Kristensen; Robert Mannel; Maurie Markman; Jacobus Pfisterer; Michael Quinn; Nick Reed; Ann Marie Swart; Jonathan Berek; Nicoletta Colombo; Gilles Freyer; Dolores Gallardo; Marie Plante; Andres Poveda; Lawrence Rubinstein; Monica Bacon; Henry Kitchener; Gavin C E Stuart Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Andrew Bryant; Shaun Hiu; Patience T Kunonga; Ketankumar Gajjar; Dawn Craig; Luke Vale; Brett A Winter-Roach; Ahmed Elattar; Raj Naik Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-26
Authors: Benjamin Gravesteijn; Eline Krijkamp; Jan Busschbach; Geert Geleijnse; Isabel Retel Helmrich; Sophie Bruinsma; Céline van Lint; Ernest van Veen; Ewout Steyerberg; Kees Verhoef; Jan van Saase; Hester Lingsma; Rob Baatenburg de Jong Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.725