scholarly journals Study of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery for patients with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer, SGOG SUNNY (SOC-2) trial concept

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong Jiang ◽  
Jianqing Zhu ◽  
Jae-Weon Kim ◽  
Jihong Liu ◽  
Kazuyoshi Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery

scholarly journals Evaluating the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Gao ◽  
Yuan Li ◽  
Chunyu Zhang ◽  
Jinsong Han ◽  
Huamao Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Survival Curve ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery

Abstract Objective To compare the chemoresistance and survival in patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or primary debulking surgery (PDS). The clinical characteristics of patients who benefited from NACT were further evaluated. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 220 patients who underwent NACT followed by IDS or PDS from January 2002 to December 2016. Differences in clinicopathological features, chemoresistance and prognosis were analyzed. Results The incidence rate for optimal cytoreduction and chemoresistance in the NACT group was relatively higher than PDS group. No differences were observed in progression free survival or overall survival. Patients without macroscopic RD in NACT group (NACT-R0) had a similar prognosis compared to those in PDS group who had RD<1 cm, and a relatively better prognosis compared to the PDS group that had RD ≥ 1 cm. The survival curve showed that patients in NACT-R0 group that were chemosensitive seemed to have a better prognosis compared to patients in PDS group that had RD. Conclusion Patients without RD after PDS had the best prognosis, whereas patients with RD after NACT followed by IDS had the worst. However, even if patients achieved no RD, their prognosis varied depending on chemosensitivity. Survival was better in patients who were chemosensitive compared to thosewho underwent PDS but had RD. Hence evaluating the chemosensitivity and feasibility of complete cytoreduction in advance is crucial.

Therapeutic value of selective lymphadenectomy in interval debulking surgery for stage IIIc and IV epithelial ovarian cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Song ◽  
Yunong Gao
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Systematic Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Selective Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Cox Analysis

ObjectiveThe role of selective lymphadenectomy at the time of interval debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to evaluate the value of selective lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery in patients with radiologic evidence of lymph node metastasis at initial diagnosis that ultimately become negative on imaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsA retrospective analysis including patients with stage IIIC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer and suspicious pelvic or para-aortic lymph node metastasis by imaging at diagnosis that resolved after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study was conducted from January 1996 to June 2016 with R0 interval debulking surgery. The patients with disease progression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Suspicious metastatic lymph nodes at initial diagnosis by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were excised by selective lymphadenectomy. Survival curves were constructed by the Kaplan-Meier method, and a multivariate analysis was performed using Cox regression.ResultsThere were a total of 330 patients included in the analysis. Selective lymphadenectomy of suspicious nodes (Group 1) was performed in 145 patients. Systematic lymphadenectomy (Group 2) was performed in 118 patients. Sixty-seven patients did not undergo lymphadenectomy (Group 3). There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic features among the groups. Median progression-free survival was 28, 30.5, and 22 months in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (log-rank, p=0.049). No-lymphadenectomy was an independent factor affecting progression-free survival (Cox analysis, HR=1.729, 95% CI 1.213 to 2.464, p=0.002), with no difference between Groups 1 and 2 (Cox analysis, HR=1.097, 95% CI 0.815 to 1.478, p=0.541). Median overall survival was 50, 59, and 57 months in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Cox analysis, p=0.566). Patients who underwent selective lymphadenectomy had lower 1-year frequencies of lower extremity lymphedema and lymphocysts than those with systematic lymphadenectomy (6.2% vs 33.1%, p<0.001, and 6.2 % vs 27.1%, p<0.001, respectively).ConclusionsExtent of lymphadenectomy (systematic or selective) had no significant impact on progression-free survival or overall survival. In addition, the risks of lower extremity lymphedema and lymphocysts were lower in patients who underwent selective lymphadenectomy.

Efficacy and safety results from GEICO 1205, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1050-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolanda Garcia Garcia ◽  
Ana de Juan Ferré ◽  
Cesar Mendiola ◽  
Maria-Pilar Barretina-Ginesta ◽  
Lydia Gaba Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Macroscopic Response

BackgroundBevacizumab is an approved treatment after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. However, there is limited information on bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval debulking surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate neoadjuvant bevacizumab in a randomized phase II trial.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV high-grade serous/endometrioid ovarian cancer were randomized to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. After interval debulking surgery, all patients received post-operative chemotherapy (three cycles) and bevacizumab for 15 months. The primary end point was complete macroscopic response rate at interval debulking surgery.ResultsOf 68 patients randomized, 64 completed four neoadjuvant cycles; 22 of 33 (67%) in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 31 of 35 (89%) in the bevacizumab arm (p=0.029) underwent surgery. The complete macroscopic response rate did not differ between treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat population of 68 patients (6.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; p=0.25) or the 55 patients who underwent surgery (8.3% vs 6.5%; p=1.00). There was no difference in complete cytoreduction rate or progression-free survival between the treatment arms. During neoadjuvant therapy, grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy alone than with bevacizumab (61% vs 29%, respectively; p=0.008). Intestinal (sub)occlusion, fatigue/asthenia, abdominal infection, and thrombocytopenia were less frequent with bevacizumab. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 9% in the control arm versus 16% in the experimental arm in the month after surgery.ConclusionsAdding three to four pre-operative cycles of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable disease did not improve the complete macroscopic response rate or surgical outcome, but improved surgical operability without increasing toxicity. These results support the early integration of bevacizumab in carefully selected high-risk patients requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable ovarian cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer patients not candidates for optimal primary surgery: Safety and effectivenes.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5540-5540
Author(s):  
Vanessa Costa Miranda ◽  
Angelo Bezerra de Sousa Fede ◽  
Carlos Henrique Dos Anjos ◽  
Juliana Ribeiro da Silva ◽  
Fernando Barbosa Sanchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Primary Debulking Surgery

5540 Background: Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has been considered the standard of treatment in advanced ovarian cancer, while neoadjuvant chemotherapy, three cycles followed by interval debulking (ID) surgery, is a valid treatment alternative for patients with non-resectable disease. This study aimed to show the efficacy and safety of six cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (N-CT) followed by cytoreduction, a single institution experience. Methods: Aretrospective analysis was performed of all patients (pts) with advanced ovarian cancer treated with platinum based N-CT, between January/2004 and February/2012. Results: 97 pts underwent N-CT in our institution; 78.1% and 18.8% the patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at diagnosis, respectively. Median age 60 years (36 – 82). Histologic types: serous 84.5%, adenocarcinoma not specified 11.3%, endometrioide 1.0%. A median of six cycles of chemotherapy were performed. Patients did not received chemotherapy after debulking surgery. During the treatment 31.4% had grade 3/4 toxicity, the most commonly observed toxicities were hematologic toxicities and nausea, four (4.1%) patients died during chemotherapy due to disease progression. After N-CT 24.7% achieved clinical complete response, 57.7% partial response and 12.4% disease progression. From this cohort 63.1% underwent a complete resection of all macroscopic and microscopic disease (R0). Median length of hospital stay and postoperative ICU stay was 5 and 0.8 days respectively, surgical complications were not common however five (7.1%) patients needed second surgery due to operatory complications and 19 pts (27.1%) needed blood transfusion after debulking. With a median follow up of 21.8 months (0.5-139.7), median overall survival and chemotherapy-free interval were 57,7 and 9,5 months, respectively. Conclusions: Six cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel is safe, effective and does not increase perioperative and postoperative complications for patients with stage IIIC-IV not candidates for optimal/R0 PDS. The overall survival of this cohort is higher than those treated with interval debulking surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document