Literature DB >> 33661392

Response evaluation after neoadjuvant therapy: evaluation of chemotherapy response score and serological and/or radiological assessment of response in ovarian cancer patients.

Jan Philipp Ramspott1,2, Thaïs Baert3,4, Michelle Louise MacKintosh5, Alexander Traut3, Beyhan Ataseven3,6, Mareike Bommert3, Florian Heitz3,7, Helmut Plett3,7, Stephanie Schneider3, Kai-Uwe Waltering8, Sebastian Heikaus9, Philipp Harter3, Andreas du Bois3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The chemotherapy response score (CRS) is a histopathological tool to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (OC). We critically evaluated the clinical value of CRS and compared its predictive power to standard serological (CA125) and radiological response.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 277 OC patients, who received primary chemotherapy, was performed. CRS, serological, and radiological findings were correlated with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: CRS could be determined in 172 of 277 patients (62.1%). In patients with CRS3, a longer median PFS and OS was observed compared with CRS1/2 patients (31.2 vs. 18.9, P < 0.001; 55.0 vs. 36.1 months, P = 0.050). CA125 and radiological response evaluation were also predictive for PFS and OS. Patients with serological and radiological complete response showed longer PFS (23.0 vs. 14.4, P = 0.011; 21.4 vs. 9.6 months, P < 0.001) and OS (49.5 vs. 29.0, P = 0.003; 45.0 vs. 12.9 months, P < 0.001). Patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had the best median PFS (52.8 months), even compared with non-pCR CRS3 (27.8 months). In the total study cohort, serological, and radiological complete response was better at predicting PFS (hazard ratio 2.23 and 2.77).
CONCLUSION: In this study, evaluation of response to chemotherapy by CRS was not superior to conventional methods (CA125 or radiology). Independent of the evaluation method, response to NACT was predictive of PFS and OS. We observed no added value for CRS as a prognostic marker. The clinical relevance of CRS should be discussed, as no therapeutic consequences result from CRS evaluation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemotherapy; Debulking surgery; Ovarian cancer

Year:  2021        PMID: 33661392     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06020-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  15 in total

1.  Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Sean Kehoe; Jane Hook; Matthew Nankivell; Gordon C Jayson; Henry Kitchener; Tito Lopes; David Luesley; Timothy Perren; Selina Bannoo; Monica Mascarenhas; Stephen Dobbs; Sharadah Essapen; Jeremy Twigg; Jonathan Herod; Glenn McCluggage; Mahesh Parmar; Ann-Marie Swart
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG).

Authors:  Gordon John Sampson Rustin; Ignace Vergote; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Michael Quinn; Tate Thigpen; Andreas du Bois; Gunnar Kristensen; Anders Jakobsen; Satoru Sagae; Kathryn Greven; Mahesh Parmar; Michael Friedlander; Andres Cervantes; Jan Vermorken
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Secondary surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Peter G Rose; Stacy Nerenstone; Mark F Brady; Daniel Clarke-Pearson; George Olt; Stephen C Rubin; David H Moore; James M Small
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-09       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H M Verheijen; Maria E L van der Burg; Angel J Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; Leen Verleye; Gavin C E Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick S Reed
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Chemotherapy Response Score: Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma.

Authors:  Steffen Böhm; Asma Faruqi; Ian Said; Michelle Lockley; Elly Brockbank; Arjun Jeyarajah; Amanda Fitzpatrick; Darren Ennis; Thomas Dowe; Jennifer L Santos; Linda S Cook; Anna V Tinker; Nhu D Le; C Blake Gilks; Naveena Singh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

Authors:  W Glenn McCluggage; Meagan J Judge; Blaise A Clarke; Ben Davidson; C Blake Gilks; Harry Hollema; Jonathan A Ledermann; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Yoshiki Mikami; Colin J R Stewart; Russell Vang; Lynn Hirschowitz
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO).

Authors:  Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Prognostic significance of PD-1 and PD-L1 positive tumor-infiltrating immune cells in ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Daniela Westerwick; Thomas Hager; Paul Buderath; Fabian Mairinger; Elena Mairinger; Katharina Böhm; Pawel Mach; Kurt Werner Schmid; Rainer Kimmig; Sabine Kasimir-Bauer; Agnes Bankfalvi
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 10.  Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Andreas du Bois; Thaïs Baert; Ignace Vergote
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  1 in total

1.  The importance of the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) to predict surgical outcome after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Friederike Luise Rawert; Veronica Luengas-Würzinger; Sabrina Claßen-Gräfin von Spee; Saher Baransi; Esther Schuler; Katharina Carrizo; Anca Dizdar; Peter Mallmann; Björn Lampe
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 2.493

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.