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. 1. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. janphilipp.ramspott@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany. janphilipp.ramspott@gmail.com. 3. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, ImmunOvar Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Gynecology, Campus Virchow Clinic, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Radiology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. 9. Department of Pathology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
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.
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 CRS1/2patients (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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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