scholarly journals Analysis of the outcome of patients with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma mimicking ovarian cancer

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murad Al-Aker ◽  
Karen Sanday ◽  
James Nicklin
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Optimal Cytoreduction ◽  
Uterine Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Interval Cytoreduction

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo identify clinicopathological factors that might influence survival in patients with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma, and to compare survival outcomes in patients with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreduction (with or without adjuvant chemotherapy), primary cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of all patients with stage IV Uterine serous carcinoma treated between 2005 and 2015 within a regional cancer centre. Progression-free and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsOf 50 women with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma who met inclusion criteria, 37 underwent primary cytoreductive surgery, nine received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with planned interval cytoreductive surgery and four received palliative care only. A pre-treatment diagnosis of stage IV uterine serous carcinoma was made for only 45.9% of the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 56.6% of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with advanced ovarian cancer the most common preoperative misdiagnosis. Median follow up was 19 months. Median overall survival was 27 months for the primary cytoreductive surgery group, 20 months for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and two months for the palliative care group. Optimal cytoreduction was achieved in 67.6% of the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 87.5% of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group who underwent interval cytoreduction. Optimal cytoreduction was associated with improvement in overall survival, compared with suboptimal cytoreduction (36 versus 15 months; P=0.16). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher overall survival compared with no adjuvant chemotherapy (36 versus four months; P<0.05). Median overall survival was 16 months for those with pure uterine serous carcinoma (n=40), compared with 32 months for those with mixed histopathology (n=10).ConclusionStage IV uterine serous carcinoma can mimic advanced ovarian cancer. It carries a poor prognosis, which is worse for pure uterine serous carcinoma than for mixed-type endometrial adenocarcinoma. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be a safe option, with an increased rate of optimal cytoreduction and comparable overall survival, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improves survival in all groups.Primary objectiveTo analyse the clinicopathological factors that might influence the progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma treated at Queensland Centre for Gynecological cancer.Secondary objectiveTo compare the survival outcomes of patients with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction, with those treated with primary cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and patients who received palliative care only.PRECISOptimal cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy improved survival in stage IV uterine serous carcinoma. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible and safe. Patients with microscopic disease have similar poor prognosis.HIGHLIGHTSPure uterine serous carcinoma carries a worse prognosis compared to mixed uterine serous carcinomaOptimal cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy improve survival in Stage IV uterine serous carcinomaNeoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible and a safe option in the management of stage IV uterine serous carcinoma

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Primary Cytoreductive Surgery for Stage IV Uterine Serous Carcinoma

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Wilkinson-Ryan ◽  
Antonina I. Frolova ◽  
Jingxia Liu ◽  
L. Stewart Massad ◽  
Premal H. Thaker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Uterine Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Chemotherapy Patients

ObjectiveThis study compares surgical and survival outcomes of women with stage IV uterine serous carcinoma (USC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and interval cytoreduction to women treated with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsThis retrospective dual cohort study included women diagnosed with stage IV USC at a single academic institution. Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests were used to compare demographics and surgical outcomes. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Comparison between study groups was tested by log-rank statistics.ResultsTen women with stage IV USC who received NAC and 34 who underwent PCS met inclusion criteria. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients had a lower mean body mass index and were more often African American. Compared with PCS, the NAC cohort had shorter mean operative times (137 ± 66 vs 203 ± 80 minutes,P= 0.025) and were discharged from the hospital earlier (median length of stay, 3 vs 5 days;P= 0.002). Rates of debulking to no gross residual disease (70% NAC vs 32.3% PCS) or less than 1 cm of disease (30% NAC vs 50% PCS) did not differ (P= 0.10). Median follow-up time was 17.5 months. There was no difference in median PFS (10.4 vs 12 months,P= 0.29) or OS (17.3 vs 20.7 months,P= 0.23) for NAC and PCS cohorts.ConclusionsWomen receiving NAC for stage IV USC had shorter surgeries and hospital stays than did those receiving PCS. There was no difference in PFS or OS, although our sample size was small. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be an appropriate therapy for select patients with advanced-stage USC.

scholarly journals The FIGO Stage IVA Versus IVB of Ovarian Cancer: Prognostic Value and Predictive Value for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parvin Tajik ◽  
Roelien van de Vrie ◽  
Mohammad H. Zafarmand ◽  
Corneel Coens ◽  
Marrije R. Buist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Stage Ivb

ObjectiveThe revised version of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system (2014) for epithelial ovarian cancer includes a number of changes. One of these is the division of stage IV into 2 subgroups. Data on the prognostic and predictive significance of this classification are scarce. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) in relation to the subclassification of FIGO stage IV is also unknown.MethodsWe used data of the EORTC 55971 trial, in which 670 patients with previous stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to PDS or NACT; 160 patients had previous stage IV. Information on previous FIGO staging and presence of pleural effusion with positive cytology were used to classify tumors as either stage IVA or IVB. We tested the association between stage IVA/IVB and survival to evaluate the prognostic value and interactions between stage, treatment, and survival to evaluate the predictive performance.ResultsAmong the 160 participants with previous stage IV disease, 103 (64%) were categorized as stage IVA and 57 (36%) as stage IVB tumors. Median overall survival was 24 months in FIGO stage IVA and 31 months in stage IVB patients (P = 0.044). Stage IVB patients treated with NACT had 9 months longer median overall survival compared with IVB patients undergoing PDS (P = 0.025), whereas in IVA patients, no significant difference was observed (24 vs 26 months, P = 0.48).ConclusionsThe reclassification of FIGO stage IV into stage IVA or IVB was not prognostic as expected. Compared with stage IVA patients, stage IVB patients have a better overall survival and may benefit more from NACT.

TRUST: Trial of Radical Upfront Surgical Therapy in advanced ovarian cancer (ENGOT ov33/AGO‐OVAR OP7)

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1327-1331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Reuss ◽  
Andreas du Bois ◽  
Philipp Harter ◽  
Christina Fotopoulou ◽  
Jalid Sehouli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
Peritoneal Carcinoma ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

BackgroundPrimary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard management for patients with advanced ovarian cancer over decades. An alternative approach of interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was subsequently reported by two randomized phase III trials (EORTC‐GCG, CHORUS), which were criticized owing to important limitations, especially regarding the rate of complete resection.Primary ObjectiveTo clarify the optimal timing of surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer.Study HypothesisPrimary cytoreductive surgery is superior to interval cytoreductive surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Trial DesignTRUST is an international open, randomized, controlled multi-center trial investigating overall survival after primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with FIGO stage IIIB–IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To guarantee adequate surgical quality, participating centers need to fulfill specific quality assurance criteria (eg, ≥50% complete resection rate in upfront surgery for FIGO IIIB–IVB patients, ≥36 debulking-surgeries/year) and agree to independent audits by TRUST quality committee delegates. Patients in the primary cytoreductive surgery arm undergo surgery followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas patients in the interval cytoreductive surgery arm undergo 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after histologic confirmation of the disease, followed by interval cytoreductive surgery and subsequently, 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. The intention of surgery for both groups is complete tumor resection according to guideline recommendations.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaMajor inclusion criteria are suspected or histologically confirmed, newly diagnosed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma FIGO stage IIIB–IVB (IV only if resectable metastasis). Major exclusion criteria are non-epithelial ovarian malignancies and borderline tumors; prior chemotherapy for ovarian cancer; or abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy.Primary EndpointOverall survival.Sample Size772 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsAccrual completion approximately mid-2019, results are expected after 5 years' follow-up in 2024.Trial RegistrationNCT02828618.

scholarly journals Adjuvant treatment for patients with FIGO stage I uterine serous carcinoma confined to the endometrium

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1089-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Nasioudis ◽  
Allison Grace Roy ◽  
Emily M Ko ◽  
Lori Cory ◽  
Robert L Giuntoli II ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Myometrial Invasion ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Survival Difference ◽  
Uterine Serous Carcinoma ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesThe role of adjuvant treatment for early-stage uterine serous carcinoma is not defined. The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of adjuvant treatment on survival of patients with tumors confined to the endometrium.MethodsPatients diagnosed with stage I uterine serous carcinoma with no myometrial invasion between January 2004 and December 2015 who underwent hysterectomy with at least 10 lymph nodes removed were identified from the National Cancer Database. Adjuvant treatment patterns defined as receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy within 6 months from surgery were investigated and overall survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves, and compared with the log-rank test for patients with at least one month of follow-up. A Cox analysis was performed to control for confounders.ResultsA total of 1709 patients were identified; 833 (48.7%) did not receive adjuvant treatment, 348 (20.4%) received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 353 (20.7%) received chemotherapy only, and 175 (10.2%) received radiotherapy only. Five-year overall survival rates for patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (n=736) was 81.9%, compared with 91.3% for those who had chemoradiation (n=293), 85.1% for those who received radiotherapy only (n=143), and 91.0% for those who received chemotherapy only (n=298) (p<0.001). After controlling for age, insurance status, type of treatment facility, tumor size, co-morbidities, and history of another tumor, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42, 0.96), or chemoradiation (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0.88) had better survival compared with those who did not receive any adjuvant treatment, while there was no benefit from radiotherapy alone (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53, 1.37). There was no survival difference between chemoradiation and chemotherapy only (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65, 2.01).ConclusionAdjuvant chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) is associated with a survival benefit for uterine serous carcinoma confined to the endometrium.

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (28) ◽  
pp. 3460-3473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexi A. Wright ◽  
Kari Bohlke ◽  
Deborah K. Armstrong ◽  
Michael A. Bookman ◽  
William A. Cliby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
American Society ◽  
Interval Cytoreduction

Purpose To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction among women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results Four phase III clinical trials form the primary evidence base for the recommendations. The published studies suggest that for selected women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction are noninferior to primary cytoreduction and adjuvant chemotherapy with respect to overall and progression-free survival and are associated with less perioperative morbidity and mortality. Recommendations All women with suspected stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy. The primary clinical evaluation should include a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging (CT preferred). Women with a high perioperative risk profile or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to < 1 cm of residual disease (ideally to no visible disease) should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, and with potentially resectable disease, may receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery. However, primary cytoreductive surgery is preferred if there is a high likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to < 1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) with acceptable morbidity. Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have confirmation of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/NACT-ovarian-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Histopathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a prognostic biomarker in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: updated Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS) results

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffen Böhm ◽  
Nhu Le ◽  
Michelle Lockley ◽  
Elly Brockbank ◽  
Asma Faruqi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
European Society ◽  
Prognostic Biomarker ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Cancer Management

ObjectiveThe Chemotherapy Response Scoring (CRS) system was developed to enable reproducible reporting of histologic tumor response in interval debulking specimens following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced stage tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. This prognostic biomarker has been included in ovarian cancer pathology reporting guidelines (International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting, College of American Pathologists) and in the upcoming European Society for Medical Oncology-European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESMO-ESGO) guidelines for ovarian cancer management. We present follow-up data on the CRS validation initiatives and suggest research with novel therapeutic agents incorporating this biomarker.MethodsThe cohort on whom CRS was originally developed was analyzed after an extended follow-up of an additional 36 months. The CRS histopathologic scoring system was applied to omental sections obtained at interval surgery from all 80 patients. Progression-free and overall survival were re-calculated.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 4.3 years the CRS score predicted progression-free survival with an HR of 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.70), p = 0.002 adjusted for age, stage, and debulking status (median 1.08 vs 2.27 years for CRS1/2 vs CRS3). CRS was also predictive of overall survival with an HR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.44), p = 0.0002 adjusted for age, stage, and debulking status (median 2.55 vs 5.47 years for CRS1/2 vs CRS3).ConclusionCRS3 is a reproducible prognostic biomarker for improved progression-free and overall survival in stage 3C or 4 tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The score, obtained at interval debulking surgery, can help facilitate research and biomarker driven first-line treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer patients receiving three versus more cycles of chemotherapy after neoadjuvant treatment and interval cytoreductive surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1156-1163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine S Kim ◽  
Margaret I Liang ◽  
Emily N Prendergast ◽  
Jill Alldredge ◽  
Avisek Datta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cytotoxic Treatment

ObjectivesTo compare clinical outcomes for stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery followed by up to three versus more cycles of post-operative chemotherapy.MethodsWe conducted a multi-institution retrospective cohort study of patients treated from January 2005 to February 2016 with neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy followed by interval surgery and post-operative chemotherapy. The following were exclusion criteria: more than four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bevacizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-platinum therapy, prior chemotherapy, and elevated CA125 values after three post-operative chemotherapy cycles. Progression-free and overall survival and toxicity profiles were compared between groups receiving up to three cycles versus more that three cycles post-operatively.ResultsA total of 100 patients met inclusion criteria: 41 received up to three cycles and 59 received more than three cycles. The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, performance status, tumor histology, optimal cytoreduction rates, and median number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Median progression-free survival was 14 vs 16.6 months in those receiving up to three cycles versus more than three cycles, respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68, p=0.97). Similarly, median overall survival was not different at 47.1 vs 69.4 months, respectively (HR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42, p=0.10). There were no differences in grade 2 or higher chemotherapy-related toxicities.ConclusionsExtending post-operative chemotherapy beyond three cycles in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery with normalization of CA125 levels was not associated with improved survival or greater toxicity. Future study in a larger cohort is warranted to define optimal length of cytotoxic treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document