Renee A Cowan1, Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson1, Sara M Jaber1, Qin Zhou2, Alexia Iasonos2, Oliver Zivanovic3, Mario M Leitao3, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum3, Dennis S Chi3, Ginger J Gardner4. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 3. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States. 4. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: gardnerg@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine compliance and outcomes using Memorial Sloan Kettering "(MSK) criteria" to predict complete gross resection (CGR) and compare them with the validated Tian and AGO models. METHODS: Patients who underwent SCS for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from 5/2001-6/2014 were identified. The AGO and Tian models were applied to the study population; appropriate statistical tests were used to determine ability to predict CGR. RESULTS: 214 SCS cases were identified. Since the implementation of MSK criteria, the CGR rate has been 86%. The AGO model had a 49% accuracy rate in predicting CGR, and predicted gross residual disease (RD) in 51%; however, CGR was achieved in 86%. The Tian model had an 88% accuracy rate. Of the 4% scored as Tian high risk for gross RD, 33% achieved a CGR. Comparing models, McNemar's p-value was 0.366 between the Tian and MSK models and <0.001 between AGO and MSK criteria. Median PFS was 21.3 (95%CI, 18.2-24.5), 22.5 (95%CI, 19.4-25.3), and 14.1months (95%CI, 9.7-22.1) for the entire cohort, for those achieving CGR, and for those left with RD, respectively (p=0.013). OS was 82.2 (95%CI, 60.2-123.3), 95.6 (95%CI, 63.6-NE), and 57.5months (95%CI, 27.5-113.9), respectively (p=0.014). CONCLUSION: CGR during SCS is associated with extended PFS and OS. We report a high rate of CGR using MSK criteria. There was good concordance between the Tian and MSK models; however, the latter has fewer variables and is more user-friendly. Tian criteria may be applied to intermediate MSK cases for further stratification.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine compliance and outcomes using Memorial Sloan Kettering "(MSK) criteria" to predict complete gross resection (CGR) and compare them with the validated Tian and AGO models. METHODS:Patients who underwent SCS for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from 5/2001-6/2014 were identified. The AGO and Tian models were applied to the study population; appropriate statistical tests were used to determine ability to predict CGR. RESULTS: 214 SCS cases were identified. Since the implementation of MSK criteria, the CGR rate has been 86%. The AGO model had a 49% accuracy rate in predicting CGR, and predicted gross residual disease (RD) in 51%; however, CGR was achieved in 86%. The Tian model had an 88% accuracy rate. Of the 4% scored as Tian high risk for gross RD, 33% achieved a CGR. Comparing models, McNemar's p-value was 0.366 between the Tian and MSK models and <0.001 between AGO and MSK criteria. Median PFS was 21.3 (95%CI, 18.2-24.5), 22.5 (95%CI, 19.4-25.3), and 14.1months (95%CI, 9.7-22.1) for the entire cohort, for those achieving CGR, and for those left with RD, respectively (p=0.013). OS was 82.2 (95%CI, 60.2-123.3), 95.6 (95%CI, 63.6-NE), and 57.5months (95%CI, 27.5-113.9), respectively (p=0.014). CONCLUSION: CGR during SCS is associated with extended PFS and OS. We report a high rate of CGR using MSK criteria. There was good concordance between the Tian and MSK models; however, the latter has fewer variables and is more user-friendly. Tian criteria may be applied to intermediate MSK cases for further stratification.
Authors: Mohammad Y Zaidi; Rachel M Lee; Adriana C Gamboa; Shelby Speegle; Jordan M Cloyd; Charles Kimbrough; Travis Grotz; Jennifer Leiting; Keith Fournier; Andrew J Lee; Sean Dineen; Sophie Dessureault; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Nikhil V Kotha; Callisia Clarke; T Clark Gamblin; Sameer H Patel; Tiffany C Lee; Ryan J Hendrix; Laura Lambert; Sean Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Courtney Pokrzywa; Andrew M Blakely; Byrne Lee; Fabian M Johnston; Nadege Fackche; Maria C Russell; Shishir K Maithel; Charles A Staley Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Oliver Zivanovic; Dennis S Chi; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Jason A Konner; Vicky Makker; Rachel N Grisham; Amy K Brown; Stacy Nerenstone; John P Diaz; Eric D Schroeder; Carrie L Langstraat; Viktoriya Paroder; Yulia Lakhman; Krysten Soldan; Katy Su; Ginger J Gardner; Vaagn Andikyan; Jianxia Guo; Elizabeth L Jewell; Kara Long Roche; Tiffany Troso-Sandoval; Stuart M Lichtman; Lea A Moukarzel; Kimberly Dessources; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Carol Aghajanian; William P Tew; Jan Beumer; Yukio Sonoda; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Beryl L Manning-Geist; Dennis S Chi; Kara Long Roche; Oliver Zivanovic; Yukio Sonoda; Ginger J Gardner; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.304