Literature DB >> 29758492

Review of methodological challenges in comparing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer in the United States.

Ashley L Cole1, Anna E Austin2, Ryan P Hickson3, Matthew S Dixon3, Emma L Barber4.   

Abstract

Randomized trials outside the U.S. have found non-inferior survival for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). However, these trials reported lower overall survival and lower rates of optimal debulking than U.S. studies, leading to questions about generalizability to U.S. practice, where aggressive debulking is more common. Consequently, comparative effectiveness in the U.S. remains controversial. We reviewed U.S. comparative effectiveness studies of NACT versus PDS for AOC. Here we describe methodological challenges, compare results to trials outside the U.S., and make suggestions for future research. We identified U.S. studies published in 2010 or later that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of NACT versus PDS on survival in AOC through a PubMed search. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from eligible articles. Nine of 230 articles were eligible for review. Methodological challenges included unmeasured confounders, heterogeneous treatment effects, treatment variations over time, and inconsistent measurement of treatment and survival. Whereas some limitations were unavoidable, several limitations noted across studies were avoidable, including conditioning on mediating factors and immortal time introduced by measuring survival beginning from diagnosis. Without trials in the U.S., non-randomized studies are an important source of evidence for the ideal treatment for AOC. However, several methodological challenges exist when assessing the comparative effectiveness of NACT versus PDS in a non-randomized setting. Future observational studies must ensure that treatment is consistent throughout the study period and that treatment groups are comparable. Rapidly-evolving oncology data networks may allow for identification of treatment intent and other important confounders.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative effectiveness research; Cytoreduction surgical procedures; Epidemiology; Neoadjuvant therapy; Observational study; Ovarian neoplasms; Review

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29758492      PMCID: PMC6054914          DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.05.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-7821            Impact factor:   2.984


  57 in total

1.  Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: what is the value of comparing apples with oranges?

Authors:  Ignace Vergote; Karin Leunen; Frédéric Amant
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182.

Authors:  Neil S Horowitz; Austin Miller; Bunja Rungruang; Scott D Richard; Noah Rodriguez; Michael A Bookman; Chad A Hamilton; Thomas C Krivak; G Larry Maxwell
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Prospective validation of a laparoscopic predictive model for optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Anna Fagotti; Gabriella Ferrandina; Francesco Fanfani; Giorgia Garganese; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Vito Carone; Maria Giovanna Salerno; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary debulking surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 285 patients.

Authors:  I Vergote; I De Wever; W Tjalma; M Van Gramberen; J Decloedt; P van Dam
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the better treatment option in some patients with stage IIIc to IV ovarian cancer.

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

6.  Ovarian cancer in the elderly: outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreduction.

Authors:  Kate A McLean; Chirag A Shah; Sara A Thompson; Heidi J Gray; Ron E Swensen; Barbara A Goff
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Causal Inference Under Multiple Versions of Treatment.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2013-05-01

8.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy lessens surgical morbidity in advanced ovarian cancer and leads to improved survival in stage IV disease.

Authors:  June Y Hou; Michael G Kelly; Herbert Yu; Jessica N McAlpine; Masoud Azodi; Thomas J Rutherford; Peter E Schwartz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Optimizing the treatment of ovarian cancer: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking versus primary debulking surgery for epithelial ovarian cancers likely to have suboptimal resection.

Authors:  Sarah E Gill; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; William A Cliby; Carrie L Langstraat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 10.  Chronic myeloid leukemia: an update of concepts and management recommendations of European LeukemiaNet.

Authors:  Michele Baccarani; Jorge Cortes; Fabrizio Pane; Dietger Niederwieser; Giuseppe Saglio; Jane Apperley; Francisco Cervantes; Michael Deininger; Alois Gratwohl; François Guilhot; Andreas Hochhaus; Mary Horowitz; Timothy Hughes; Hagop Kantarjian; Richard Larson; Jerald Radich; Bengt Simonsson; Richard T Silver; John Goldman; Rudiger Hehlmann
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  3 in total

1.  Ovarian Cancer Treatment Stratification Using Ex Vivo Drug Sensitivity Testing.

Authors:  Ines Lohse; Diana J Azzam; Hassan Al-Ali; Claude-Henry Volmar; Shaun P Brothers; Tan A Ince; Claes Wahlestedt
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.480

2.  Clinicopathological prognostic parameters in patients with tubo-ovarian carcinoma effusions.

Authors:  Ben Davidson; Mari Bunkholt Elstrand
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 1.286

3.  High expression of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) predicts poor outcome in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Min Li; Xue Cheng; Rong Rong; Yan Gao; Xiuwu Tang; Youguo Chen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 4.430

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.