First-line treatment of ovarian cancer FIGO stages IIb-IV with paclitaxel/epirubicin/carboplatin versus paclitaxel/carboplatin

Antibiotics: Conventional Therapy and Natural Compounds with Antibacterial Activity-A Pharmaco-Toxicological Screening

Antibiotics are considered as a cornerstone of modern medicine and their discovery offers the resolution to the infectious diseases problem. However, the excessive use of antibiotics worldwide has generated a critical public health issue and the bacterial resistance correlated with antibiotics inefficiency is still unsolved. Finding novel therapeutic approaches to overcome bacterial resistance is imperative, and natural compounds with antibacterial effects could be considered a promising option. The role played by antibiotics in tumorigenesis and their interrelation with the microbiota are still debatable and are far from being elucidated. Thus, the present manuscript offers a global perspective on antibiotics in terms of evolution from a historical perspective with an emphasis on the main classes of antibiotics and their adverse effects. It also highlights the connection between antibiotics and microbiota, focusing on the dual role played by antibiotics in tumorigenesis. In addition, using the natural compounds with antibacterial properties as potential alternatives for the classical antibiotic therapy is discussed.

A network meta-analysis of eight chemotherapy regimens for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer

This study compared the short-term efficacies of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) through pair-wise and network meta-analyses (NMA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in a comprehensive online literature search met our inclusion criteria. Direct and indirect evidence was combined to compare odds ratios (OR) and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) across the different treatment regimens. Twelve eligible RCTs were finally included, involving eight regimens (Paclitaxel + Carboplatin [PC], Gemcitabine + Carboplatin [GC], Carboplatin, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin + Carboplatin [PLD + Carboplatin], Paclitaxel, Paclitaxel + Carboplatin + Topotecan [PC + Topotecan], Paclitaxel + Carboplatin + Epirubicin [PC + Epirubicin] and Docetaxel + Carboplatin [DC]). The NMA results revealed that in terms of overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), PC (ORR: OR=2.59, 95%CI=1.20-6.22; DCR: OR=2.58, 95%CI=1.05-6.82) and GC (ORR: OR=2.08, 95%CI=1.08-4.37; DCR: OR=2.43, 95%CI=1.07-5.80) were more effective against AOC than Carboplatin alone. Similarly, PC (OR=0.21, 95%CI=0.05-0.69), GC (OR=0.31, 95%CI=0.09-0.90) and PLD + Carboplatin (OR=0.22, 95%CI=0.04-0.92) slowed disease progression better than Carboplatin alone. We also found that PC was more efficacious against AOC than Carboplatin or Paclitaxel single-agent chemotherapy. Combination chemotherapy is thus recommended for AOC, and should guide subsequent drug development and treatment strategies.

Effects of sequential paclitaxel-carboplatin followed by gemcitabine-based chemotherapy compared with paclitaxel-carboplatin therapy administered to patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A retrospective, STROBE-compliant study

We aimed to compare the efficacy of paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel-carboplatin for treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in this retrospective, STROBE-compliant study. Patients' tolerance to treatment was also assessed.We retrospectively analyzed the records of 178 women who underwent initial optimal debulking surgery between January 2003 and December 2011 to treat FIGO stage IIIc epithelial ovarian cancer. Patients in arm 1 (n = 88) received 4 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by 2 to 4 cycles of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy. Patients in arm 2 (n = 90) received 6 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin. The granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was administered prophylactically to all patients.The median follow-up for both arms was 62 months. Medianprogression-free survival (PFS) between arms 1 and 2 (28 and 19 months [P = 0.003]) as well as 5-year OS (34.1% and 18.9% [P = 0.021]) differed significantly. The neurotoxicity rate was significantly higher in arm 2 than in arm 1 (45.2% vs 27.1%, P = 0.026). There was no significant difference between study arms in hematological toxicity.The sequential regimen significantly improved PFS and 5-year OS with tolerable toxicity compared with the single regimen, and offers an alternative for treating patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors as reversal agents for ABC transporter mediated drug resistance

Tyrosine kinases (TKs) play an important role in pathways that regulate cancer cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastasis. Aberrant activity of TKs has been implicated in several types of cancers. In recent years, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been developed to interfere with the activity of deregulated kinases. These TKIs are remarkably effective in the treatment of various human cancers including head and neck, gastric, prostate and breast cancer and several types of leukemia. However, these TKIs are transported out of the cell by ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, resulting in development of a characteristic drug resistance phenotype in cancer patients. Interestingly, some of these TKIs also inhibit the ABC transporter mediated multi drug resistance (MDR) thereby; enhancing the efficacy of conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. This review discusses the clinically relevant TKIs and their interaction with ABC drug transporters in modulating MDR.

Immune modulation by chemotherapy or immunotherapy to enhance cancer vaccines

Chemotherapy has been a mainstay in cancer treatment for many years. Despite some success, the cure rate with chemotherapy remains unsatisfactory in some types of cancers, and severe side effects from these treatments are a concern. Recently, understanding of the dynamic interplay between the tumor and immune system has led to the development of novel immunotherapies, including cancer vaccines. Cancer vaccines have many advantageous features, but their use has been hampered by poor immunogenicity. Many developments have increased their potency in pre-clinical models, but cancer vaccines continue to have a poor clinical track record. In part, this could be due to an inability to effectively overcome tumor-induced immune suppression. It had been generally assumed that immune-stimulatory cancer vaccines could not be used in combination with immunosuppressive chemotherapies, but recent evidence has challenged this dogma. Chemotherapies could be used to condition the immune system and tumor to create an environment where cancer vaccines have a better chance of success. Other types of immunotherapies could also be used to modulate the immune system. This review will discuss how immune modulation by chemotherapy or immunotherapy could be used to bolster the effects of cancer vaccines and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these treatments.

Paclitaxel: cost-effectiveness in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer accounts for a significant burden of healthcare costs worldwide. Therapy of this disease consists of a combined surgical and chemotherapeutic approach. Remarkable advances in chemotherapy have been made with the introduction of new agents such as paclitaxel. Based on positive clinical data from randomized trials, numerous cost studies have been undertaken to analyze the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel. Reviewing all the available cost studies, the authors conclude that paclitaxel plus cisplatin treatment is cost effective. Paclitaxel demonstrated survival and utility gains in combination with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with Stage II-IV ovarian cancer compared with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. Incremental costs of USD 6600-22,000 per life year gained are within an accepted range for new treatments.

Ten-year follow-up of a phase 2 study of dose-intense paclitaxel with cisplatin and cyclophosphamide as initial therapy for poor-prognosis, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess activity and toxicity in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who were receiving dose-intense paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and filgrastim delivered with a flexible dosing schedule.

METHODS

Patients with stage III/IV EOC received cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), followed by a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 250 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 2. Filgrastim began on Day 3 at 10 microg/kg daily for 9 days. Patients received 6 cycles of all drugs. Those who achieved a pathologic complete response or had microscopic residual disease at the conclusion of 6 cycles of therapy received an additional 2 to 4 cycles of paclitaxel with cyclophosphamide. Patients who had an objective response continued on cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were enrolled. Thirty-two of 62 patients had stage IIIC disease, and 26 of 62 patients had stage IV disease. According to an intent-to-treat analysis, 55 patients (89%) experienced a clinical complete remission. At a median potential follow-up of 11.4 years, the median progression-free survival was 18.9 months, and the median survival was 5.4 years. The most serious toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenic fever (35%). Although all participants developed peripheral neuropathy, improvement in neuropathic symptoms began with the decrease or cessation of paclitaxel.

CONCLUSIONS

The studied regimen yielded a high response rate and encouraging overall survival. The current data and those reported by the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group suggest that further study is warranted of dose-dense or dose-intense paclitaxel regimens in women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage EOC.

Trials with impact on clinical management: first line

INTRODUCTION

Advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer is generally managed with cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Although initially responsive, most tumors recur and demonstrate progressive chemotherapy resistance. During the last 20 years, many thousands of women have participated in international front-line phase 3 trials that have contributed to our understanding of ovarian cancer biology and helped to define optimal treatment strategies. Emerging data from these trials need to be interpreted within an evolving paradigm of cancer biology, disease management, and availability of clinical resources.

METHODS

Survey of recent phase 3 trials and emerging principles of ovarian tumor biology.

RESULTS

There is no evidence that adding a third cytotoxic agent improves clinical outcomes. However, weekly dose-dense scheduling of paclitaxel appears superior to standard dosing.

CONCLUSION

Primary therapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel remains a well-tolerated standard regimen, including the option of weekly paclitaxel dosing. Data are awaited from completed trials incorporating bevacizumab. Emerging biological paradigms will contribute to individualized treatment options in the future.

Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup

PURPOSE

To determine if incorporation of an additional cytotoxic agent improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) and primary peritoneal carcinoma who receive carboplatin and paclitaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with stages III to IV disease were stratified by coordinating center, maximal diameter of residual tumor, and intent for interval cytoreduction and were then randomly assigned among five arms that incorporated gemcitabine, methoxypolyethylene glycosylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary end point was OS and was determined by pairwise comparison to the reference arm, with a 90% chance of detecting a true hazard ratio of 1.33 that limited type I error to 5% (two-tail) for the four comparisons.

RESULTS

Accrual exceeded 1,200 patients per year. An event-triggered interim analysis occurred after 272 events on the reference arm, and the study closed with 4,312 women enrolled. Arms were well balanced for demographic and prognostic factors, and 79% of patients completed eight cycles of therapy. There were no improvements in either PFS or OS associated with any experimental regimen. Survival analyses of groups defined by size of residual disease also failed to show experimental benefit in any subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard paclitaxel and carboplatin, addition of a third cytotoxic agent provided no benefit in PFS or OS after optimal or suboptimal cytoreduction. Dual-stage, multiarm, phase III trials can efficiently evaluate multiple experimental regimens against a single reference arm. The development of new interventions beyond surgery and conventional platinum-based chemotherapy is required to additionally improve outcomes for women with advanced EOC.

Current role and future aspects of topotecan in relapsed ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in women. It is associated with a poor prognosis, as the majority of patients present with advanced disease and relapse after radical surgery, and following chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

OBJECTIVE

To review the role of topotecan in the treatment of advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer, and the efficacy and safety of novel dosing regimens and formulations of topotecan. It will also discuss further options of combination of topotecan with other cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The authors searched for relevant references in the MEDLINE database and in congress abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

RESULTS

Topotecan is an established second-line therapy for advanced and relapsed ovarian cancer; a regimen of 1.5 mg/m(2)/day 1-5 has been approved in the USA and many other western countries. Topotecan is well tolerated; associated haematological toxicity is generally manageable, reversible and non-cumulative. A number of alternative dosing regimens and formulations have been investigated in an attempt to improve the toxicity profile of topotecan without compromising anti-tumour activity. A novel oral formulation of topotecan has shown clinical promise in patients with advanced and relapsed disease. Administration of i.v. topotecan on a weekly basis produced encouraging results in several phase II trials, with less haematological toxicity and similar response rates to the day 1-5 regimen. Also, recent early studies demonstrate that topotecan is effective in combination with several other therapeutic agents in the relapsed setting.

CONCLUSION

The peer-reviewed literature reports that topotecan is an effective, well tolerated treatment option for relapsed ovarian cancer.

First-line randomized trials: revisiting the Ptolemaic universe

Epithelial ovarian cancer is initially a chemosensitive neoplasm, with overall response rates to systemic platinum-based therapy exceeding 80% in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery. However, long-term survival remains poor due to eventual tumor recurrence and emergence of drug resistance. While platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) and taxanes remain at the core of primary treatment, there has been increased interest in the evaluation of doublet and triplet combinations with diverse cytotoxic agents, including docetaxel, topotecan, gemcitabine, and PEG-liposomal doxorubicin. This has been prompted by single-agent activity in the setting of recurrent platinum-resistant disease and encouraging data from nonrandomized phase I-II trials. As a result, beginning in 1998, the international cooperative groups collaborated on a series of phase III trials to improve long-term outcomes through the development of new platinum-based combinations. More than 10,000 women have been randomized on these trials, and preliminary data from several studies have been reported. Although final data are pending, there is not currently any evidence to recommend adopting a new two- or three-drug combination, and carboplatin with paclitaxel remains the standard regimen of choice. Rapid developments in molecular-targeted therapy are challenging our paradigm for future clinical trials, and our priorities need to be carefully considered.

A phase II randomised clinical trial comparing cisplatin, paclitaxel and ifosfamide with cisplatin, paclitaxel and epirubicin in newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: long-term survival analysis

To test the feasibility and efficacy of epirubicin and ifosfamide added to first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel in a phase II randomised clinical trial. Patients with histologically proven epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive first-line polychemotherapy with cisplatin/paclitaxel/epirubicin (CEP) or cisplatin/paclitaxel/ifosfamide (CIP) for six cycles every 21 days. Two hundred and eight patients were randomised between the two treatment arms and the median number of cycles per patient was six. Toxicity was predominantly haematological with both regimens; however, anaemia, leucopaenia, neutropaenic fever and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and transfusion were significantly more frequent in the CIP treatment arm. Response rates were 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77-93%) in the CIP arm and 90% (95% CI 84-96%) in the CEP arm; complete response rates were 48 and 52%. After a median follow-up of 82 months, median overall survival (OS) was 51 and 65 months; 5-year survival rates were respectively 43 and 50%. In this clinical trial, both regimens showed good efficacy, but toxicity was heavier with the CIP regimen. Considering that more than 50% of patients were suboptimally debulked after the first surgery, OS seems to be longer than is commonly reported. This unexpected finding might be a consequence of the close surgical surveillance and aggressive chemotherapeutic approach.

Ten years of “Optimal Therapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer. Update” Meeting

TheInternational Symposium on Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Optimal Therapywas founded by Dr. Andrés Poveda and Prof. Jan B. Vermorken, and each edition has been directed by them. The 6th edition was held on March 2, 2007. This symposium is organized every other year by GEICO (Grupo Español de Investigación de Cáncer de Ovario/Spanish Ovarian Cancer Research Group), under the auspices of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Educational Committee for its Medical Oncology Recertification Approval (ESMO/MORA) Program. One hundred and fifty people attended the symposium's 1st edition, held in 1996. Since then, the interest in this meeting has increased. Last year, almost three hundred people coming not only from Spain but also from Europe, North and Latin America, Asia, and Australia were present in the symposium. This is a great challenge for us. Some important international cooperative groups from Europe, America, and Australia collaborate with this symposium, such as GOG, NCIC, EORTC, AGO, Scottish Group, ICON, GINECO, NSGO, ANZGOG, and others.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma—a cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective is to assess the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of hospitalization due to febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) receiving taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy. A decision analysis model evaluated a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients receiving six cycles of taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy for EOC. Three strategies were analyzed for the prevention of hospitalization due to FN: 1) dose modifications and delays after a hospitalization for FN without the use of granulocyte–colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) (NO G-CSF); 2) all patients receive G-CSF with each chemotherapy cycle (1° PROPHYLAXIS); 3) patients receive G-CSF for all subsequent chemotherapy cycles after a hospitalization for FN (2° PROPHYLAXIS). The model was applied to two patient populations: 1) an average-risk population (FN hospitalization rate = 5%); 2) a high-risk population (FN hospitalization rate = 16%). Using baseline assumptions in an average-risk population, NO G-CSF was the least expensive strategy with a cost of $68 million and resulted in 2,860 hospitalizations for FN. 2° PROPHYLAXIS resulted in 141 fewer hospitalizations than NO G-CSF at a cost of $76,288 per hospitalization prevented. 1° PROPHYLAXIS was the most effective and resulted in 1,689 fewer hospitalizations for FN compared to NO G-CSF at a cost of $47,343 per hospitalization prevented. When this model is applied to a high-risk patient population, 1° PROPHYLAXIS is more effective and less expensive than both NO G-CSF and 2° PROPHYLAXIS. We conclude that in average-risk patients receiving chemotherapy for EOC the use of pegfilgrastim is effective at reducing hospitalizations due to FN, but at a significant cost. However, in high-risk patients, primary prophylaxis is the only cost-effective strategy and should be strongly considered.

Paclitaxel, carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma: a phase I study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group

PURPOSE

Based on the activity and tolerability of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum- and paclitaxel-resistant ovarian carcinoma, we conducted a phase I trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel and carboplatin to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in chemotherapy naive ovarian, peritoneal and tubal carcinoma patients.

METHODS

Three schedules were studied: paclitaxel, carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin every 28 days; paclitaxel and carboplatin every 21 days with liposomal doxorubicin every 42 days; and weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin (AUC=5) every 21 days and liposomal doxorubicin every 42 days. The paclitaxel dose was 175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on an every 3-4 week schedule and 60 mg/m(2) when administered weekly. Based on the frequency of neutropenic sepsis, grade 4 thrombocytopenia and > or =grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity, the starting dose of liposomal doxorubicin of 20 mg/m(2) was escalated to determine the MTD.

RESULTS

A total of 210 (21-day) cycles were administered to 37 patients. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred when liposomal doxorubicin was administered at 40 mg/m(2). Because of treatment-related delays resulting in decreased paclitaxel/carboplatin dose intensity, administration was modified to be given every 21 days, with liposomal doxorubicin given every 42 days. Since neutropenia was the DLT of this schedule, the schema was further modified to administer paclitaxel weekly; however, weekly administration was inconsistent because of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), carboplatin (AUC=5) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2) are tolerable without supportive therapy. The usual dose intensity of paclitaxel/carboplatin was maintained by administering liposomal doxorubicin every other cycle.

Standard treatment in advanced ovarian cancer in 2005: the state of the art

What are standards? The oncology community expends considerable effort to review the results from definitive treatment studies and define recommendations for future studies, as well as standards of care for the community and patients who are not participating in clinical trials. This is a thoughtful and well-intentioned process but subject to considerable bias due to limitations in the data and/or their interpretation. While ovarian cancer is highly responsive to platinum-based therapy after initial cytoreductive surgery, there is a substantial risk of recurrence, which is accompanied by the emergence of drug-resistant disease. Better treatments with improved long-term outcomes are needed. From this perspective, standards can help to provide a baseline for assessing gaps in our current knowledge and defining priorities for future clinical trials. While not an exhaustive review, this study will focus on key clinical concepts that are guiding ovarian cancer research and treatment.

Combination chemotherapy with carboplatin, capecitabine and epirubicin (ECarboX) as second- or third-line treatment in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer: a phase I/II trial

Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has been proven to be superior to single-agent platinum in the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer after a treatment-free interval of more than 6 months. A response rate of 41% was previously reported by our group using a combination of epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU in patients who relapsed within 12 months, we therefore assessed a similar, but more convenient combination of epirubicin, carboplatin and capecitabine in this phase-I/II trial. In total, 18 patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma, who had not received more than two lines of chemotherapy and the treatment-free interval exceeded 6 months were treated with carboplatin AUC5, epirubicin 50 mg m(-2) and capecitabine at several dose levels on continuous 21 day cycles and 14 of 21 day cycles. Patients were assessed for toxicity and by CT and CA-125 for response. The overall response rate was 61.1%, with three complete and eight partial responses. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicity was seen in 10 out of 18 patients and caused dose reductions and treatment delays. The combination of epirubicin, carboplatin and capecitabine showed good activity but caused excessive toxicity. A phase-II trial using carboplatin and capecitabine is underway.

Role of chemotherapy in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

The management of ovarian cancer continues to provide major challenges and debates about optimal treatment. For first-line therapy there remain discussions about optimal chemotherapy for early disease, the use of taxanes as standard for advanced newly diagnosed patients, whether there is a definite role for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the question of maintenance treatment. For relapsed disease, the management hinges around the distinction between platinum-sensitive and -resistant cancer, and the recent AGO-2.5 and ICON-4 studies suggest that treating with carboplatin and paclitaxel or carboplatin and gemcitabine is recommended. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy remains an enigma with at least three studies showing survival advantage; however, there has been no move to incorporate it into standard management of those patients who achieve complete remission after first-line chemotherapy. Finally, neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to debulking surgery is the subject of several ongoing clinical trials and may turn out to be one of the most important developments since the concept of interval debulking surgery was established and proven in Europe.

Gemcitabine-carboplatin-paclitaxel combination as first-line therapy in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a single institution phase II study in 24 patients

Single-agent gemcitabine demonstrated response rates of 11-60% in platinum/paclitaxel-resistant ovarian cancer. Twenty-four patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1, and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 h on day 1 every 3 weeks for six cycles. Median age was 54 years, and FIGO stage distribution was IIC, 1 patient, III, 18, and IV, 5. A total of 22 (92%) patients completed all the six planned courses of chemotherapy. Doses were reduced in 8 out of 24 (33%) patients. Of the 17 patients with measurable disease, 15 underwent an interval debulking surgery. Prior to interval debulking surgery, all 15 patients had a partial response according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria. Overall in the 17 patients with measurable disease, the response rate at the end of the first-line chemotherapy (including interval debulking) was 94% (14 [82%] complete response and 2 [12%], partial response). One patient (6%) received only one cycle due to early progression. Using the CA125 criteria as defined by the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup, all patients had at least a partial response prior to interval debulking, and the overall response rate of the whole first-line chemotherapy and interval debulking (n= 15) was observed in 21 out of 23 patients (91%). The dose-limiting toxicity was bone marrow toxicity. Median overall survival was 28 months, and the 2-year actuarial survival was 73%. The gemcitabine, carboplatin, paclitaxel triplet has an acceptable toxicity with high response rates as first-line therapy in advanced ovarian cancer.

Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Review of Current Management

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecological cancer among women worldwide, with 6000 new cases diagnosed in the UK each year. Most women present with advanced disease, but, despite a good initial response to treatment, most relapse. The overall 5-year survival rate is 46%, although this drops to about 13% in women with advanced disease. Transvaginal ultrasound and the tumour marker CA125 are being investigated for screening in ongoing randomised trials. Treatment of ovarian cancer is dependent on clinical stage, and should always be managed within a multidisciplinary team. Most cases will require a pelvic clearance and adjuvant chemotherapy. Current guidelines by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that first-line chemotherapy should include a platinum-based regimen with or without paclitaxel. Relapsed ovarian cancer is incurable; however, chemotherapy can improve quality of life and survival. Gene therapy, immunotherapy and signal transduction inhibitors are all potential future therapies, and are being investigated in ongoing clinical research. In this paper we review the literature on the epidemiology, pathology, clinical features and the current treatment options in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Remaining controversies in the upfront management of advanced ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in women. In the last decades, a lot of energy and resources have been put into a number of clinical trials, with some success. Nevertheless, the prognosis of patients diagnosed with advanced disease remains extremely poor. As research moved forward, some crucial questions with regard to the optimal upfront management of patients with advanced OC (AOC) have remained unanswered. In this article, we review the rationale behind these controversial issues, and provide the levels of evidence supporting the current recommendations for AOC management.

Ovarian cancer treatment: what is new

Ovarian cancer is still the fourth cause of death by cancer among women and the most fatal among gynecological tumors. The purpose of this symposium is, year after year, to report and discuss the new developments in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer, the majority of whom still present with advanced disease. It also tries to make it clear to the participants what is evidence-based and what is not. Mature data of both classic studies like GOG-111, OV-10, and more recent studies like GOG-158, AGO-OVAR-3, and the intergroup paclitaxel/epirubicin/carboplatin (TEC) versus paclitaxel/carboplatin (TC) study have been presented. Other current controversial issues included in this edition were sequential single-agent versus simultaneous administration of combination chemotherapy, the role of combination chemotherapy in second-line treatment, the role of consolidation therapy, the role of anthracyclines in the treatment, and cost-effectiviness studies in ovarian cancer. Although the main topic of the symposium is advanced disease, this edition included the results of two parallel randomized studies (ACTION and ICON1) on the treatment of early disease. In addition, new trends in early detection of ovarian cancer have been updated. The pace of new agent development has increased, and it would be helpful to have more efficient preclinical models and early phase-clinical trials to guide the selection of active agents for phase III evaluation. Reaching international consensus is a challenge but offers the opportunity to test multiple regimens more efficiently against a single-control population, rather than conducting multiple smaller studies with redundant internal controls. If indeed answers to the relevant questions are to be obtained more quickly, then, a network of current national or international groups could potentially facilitate this.