J Brian Szender1, Tiffany Emmons2, Sarah Belliotti3, Danielle Dickson3, Aalia Khan1, Kayla Morrell4, A N M Nazmul Khan5, Kelly L Singel2, Paul C Mayor1, Kirsten B Moysich6, Kunle Odunsi7, Brahm H Segal8, Kevin H Eng4. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 2. Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 3. University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, United States. 4. Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 5. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 6. Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 7. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States; Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States; Center for Immunotherapy, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States. 8. Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, United States. Electronic address: brahm.segal@roswellpark.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of ascites volume on ovarian cancer outcomes. METHODS: Clinicopathologic features of a cohort of patients with ovarian cancer were obtained from a curated database at a single institution. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded. Ascites volume at primary surgery was dichotomized at 2000mL and comparisons for high and low volume ascites were made. Additionally, to elucidate interactions between ascites and ovarian tumor progression, we evaluated the effect of intraperitoneal administrations of murine cell-free ascites versus saline in a syngeneic mouse model of epithelial ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Out of 685 patients identified, 58% had ascites present at the time of initial surgery. Considering the volume of ascites continuously, each liter of ascites was associated with shorter PFS (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.17) and OS (HR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.07-1.17). Patients with ascites greater than the median of 2000mL had significantly shorter PFS (14.5months vs. 22.7months; p<0.001) and OS (27.7months vs. 42.9months; p<0.001). After adjusting for stage, presence of ascites was inversely associated with ability to achieve optimal cytoreductive surgery. Consistent with these correlative results in patients, intraperitoneal administrations of murine cell-free ascites accelerated ovarian cancer progression in mice. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of ascites at initial diagnosis of ovarian cancer correlated with worse PFS and OS. The effect of large volume on prognosis is likely to be in part related to reduced likelihood for complete resection of tumor (R0). If these findings are confirmed in independent studies, consideration should be made to add the presence of large volume ascites at diagnosis to the staging criteria for ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of ascites volume on ovarian cancer outcomes. METHODS: Clinicopathologic features of a cohort of patients with ovarian cancer were obtained from a curated database at a single institution. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded. Ascites volume at primary surgery was dichotomized at 2000mL and comparisons for high and low volume ascites were made. Additionally, to elucidate interactions between ascites and ovarian tumor progression, we evaluated the effect of intraperitoneal administrations of murine cell-free ascites versus saline in a syngeneic mouse model of epithelial ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Out of 685 patients identified, 58% had ascites present at the time of initial surgery. Considering the volume of ascites continuously, each liter of ascites was associated with shorter PFS (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.17) and OS (HR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.07-1.17). Patients with ascites greater than the median of 2000mL had significantly shorter PFS (14.5months vs. 22.7months; p<0.001) and OS (27.7months vs. 42.9months; p<0.001). After adjusting for stage, presence of ascites was inversely associated with ability to achieve optimal cytoreductive surgery. Consistent with these correlative results in patients, intraperitoneal administrations of murine cell-free ascites accelerated ovarian cancer progression in mice. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of ascites at initial diagnosis of ovarian cancer correlated with worse PFS and OS. The effect of large volume on prognosis is likely to be in part related to reduced likelihood for complete resection of tumor (R0). If these findings are confirmed in independent studies, consideration should be made to add the presence of large volume ascites at diagnosis to the staging criteria for ovarian cancer.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: W Kuhn; S Rutke; K Späthe; B Schmalfeldt; G Florack; B von Hundelshausen; D Pachyn; K Ulm; H Graeff Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Raymond J Kelleher; Sathy Balu-Iyer; Jenni Loyall; Anthony J Sacca; Gautam N Shenoy; Peng Peng; Vandana Iyer; Anas M Fathallah; Charles S Berenson; Paul K Wallace; Joseph Tario; Kunle Odunsi; Richard B Bankert Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Natasa Obermajer; Ravikumar Muthuswamy; Kunle Odunsi; Robert P Edwards; Pawel Kalinski Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Margaret Gil; Marcin P Komorowski; Mukund Seshadri; Hanna Rokita; A J Robert McGray; Mateusz Opyrchal; Kunle O Odunsi; Danuta Kozbor Journal: J Immunol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Jo Marie Tran Janco; Gretchen Glaser; Bohyun Kim; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lin Zhang; Jose R Conejo-Garcia; Dionyssios Katsaros; Phyllis A Gimotty; Marco Massobrio; Giorgia Regnani; Antonis Makrigiannakis; Heidi Gray; Katia Schlienger; Michael N Liebman; Stephen C Rubin; George Coukos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anm Nazmul H Khan; Nonna Kolomeyevskaya; Kelly L Singel; Melissa J Grimm; Kirsten B Moysich; Sayeema Daudi; Kassondra S Grzankowski; Sashikant Lele; Lourdes Ylagan; Gill A Webster; Scott I Abrams; Kunle Odunsi; Brahm H Segal Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-05-10
Authors: Kelly L Singel; Tiffany R Emmons; Anm Nazmul H Khan; Paul C Mayor; Shichen Shen; Jerry T Wong; Kayla Morrell; Kevin H Eng; Jaron Mark; Richard B Bankert; Junko Matsuzaki; Richard C Koya; Anna M Blom; Kenneth R McLeish; Jun Qu; Sanjay Ram; Kirsten B Moysich; Scott I Abrams; Kunle Odunsi; Emese Zsiros; Brahm H Segal Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2019-03-07
Authors: Tiffany R Emmons; Thejaswini Giridharan; Kelly L Singel; Anm Nazmul H Khan; Jason Ricciuti; Kaitlyn Howard; Stephanie L Silva-Del Toro; Ivy L Debreceni; Cathelijn E M Aarts; Mieke C Brouwer; Sora Suzuki; Taco W Kuijpers; Ilse Jongerius; Lee-Ann H Allen; Viviana P Ferreira; Anna Schubart; Holger Sellner; Jörg Eder; Steven M Holland; Sanjay Ram; James A Lederer; Kevin H Eng; Kirsten B Moysich; Kunle Odunsi; Michael B Yaffe; Emese Zsiros; Brahm H Segal Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 12.020
Authors: Chunyan Yang; Ce Wang; Zhiwei Rong; Zhenyi Xu; Kui Deng; Weiwei Zhao; Lei Cao; Yaxin Lu; Humara Adnan; Kang Li; Yan Hou Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Alfonso Parrilla; Marta Barber; Blanca Majem; Josep Castellví; Juan Morote; José Luis Sánchez; Asunción Pérez-Benavente; Miguel F Segura; Antonio Gil-Moreno; Anna Santamaria Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 6.639