Survival impact of histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to number of cycles in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Optimal number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles prior to interval debulking surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival

OBJECTIVE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) represents a treatment option in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) who are not good candidates for primary debulking surgery. Usually, 3 cycles of chemotherapy before surgery have been considered the best option for patient survival, although quite often some patients receive more than 3 cycles. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the optimal number of NACT cycles reporting better survival in AEOC patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for original articles that analyzed the relationship between the number of chemotherapy cycles and clinical outcomes in AEOC patients before interval debulking surgery (IDS). The main outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies comprising 7,005 patients diagnosed with AEOC were included in our analysis. In terms of survival, the reviewed studies dividing the patients in ≤3 NACT cycles vs. >3, showed a trend for a decrease in PFS and a significant reduction in OS with an increasing number of cycles, while a difference in both PFS and OS was revealed if early IDS included patients with 4 NACT cycles. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the complex characteristics of AEOC patients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our review and meta-analysis revealed that there is not enough evidence to determine the optimal number of NACT treatments before surgery. Further research in the form of well-designed randomized controlled trials is necessary to address this issue.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022334959.

Post-operative residual disease and number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The optimal number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles in patients with advanced ovarian cancer is still disputed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles and role of optimal cytoreduction on the prognosis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Clinical and pathological details were examined. Patients were evaluated combining the number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy-namely, 'interval debulking surgery' after up to four neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles, and 'delayed debulking surgery' after more than four cycles of therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients were included in the study. Complete cytoreduction with no residual peritoneal disease (CC0) was achieved in 74 (74%) patients with interval debulking surgery and 124 (66.7%) patients with delayed interval debulking. Of those with residual disease, there were 26/88 (29.5%) patients in the interval debulking surgery group and 62/88 (70.5%) patients in the delayed debulking surgery group. Comparison of patients with delayed debulking-CC0 and interval debulking-CC0 showed no difference in progression-free survival (p=0.3) or overall survival (p=0.4), while significantly worse outcomes were observed in patients with interval debulking-CC1 (p=0.02 and p=0.04, respectively). Specifically, patients with interval debulking-CC1 had an approximately 67% increased risk of disease progression (p=0.04; HR=2.01 (95% CI 1.04 to 4.18)) and a 69% higher risk of death than patients with delayed debulking-CC0 (p=0.03; HR=2.34 (95% CI 1.11 to 4.67)).

CONCLUSION

Increasing the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles does not worsen patient outcomes if complete resection is achieved. Nevertheless, additional prospective trials are necessary to establish the optimum number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles.

A retrospective analysis for investigating the relationship between FIGO stage IVA/IVB and cytoreductive surgery with prognosis in epithelial ovarian cancer

Objective

To investigate the effect of primary debulking surgery (PDS), NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (NACT-IDS), and chemotherapy alone on the prognosis of FIGO stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with different metastatic patterns.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 133 cases of FIGO stage IV EOC with pleural effusion (stage IVA), parenchymal metastases (stage IVB), or extra-abdominal lymph node metastases (stage IVB) at our Hospital between January 2014 and July 2021.

Results

Among 133 cases with stage IV disease, 16.5% (n=22) presented with pleural effusion, 46.6% (n=62) with parenchymal metastases, and 36.9% (n=49) with extra-abdominal lymph node metastases. Regardless of the metastatic patterns, the 90.2% (n=120) of cases who underwent PDS/NACT-IDS exhibited a significantly superior overall survival (OS) compared to the 9.8% cases (n=13) who received chemotherapy alone (32 vs 17 months, p=0.000). The cohort was further stratified into 58 cases (48.3%) with R0, 41 cases (34.2%) with R1, and 21 cases (17.5%) with R2. The median OS of cases with R0 was significantly better than that of cases with R1/R2 (74 vs 27 months, p=0.000). There was no significant difference in median OS between PDS and NACT-IDS (43 vs 31 months, p=0.676), as well as between FIGO IVA and IVB (35 vs 31 months, p=0.582). Additionally, the metastatic patterns and the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles (≤4 or >4) did not demonstrate any prognostic significance for median OS (p=0.820 and 33 vs 26 months, p=0.280, respectively).

Conclusion

Regardless of FIGO IVA and IVB stages or metastatic patterns, patients diagnosed with stage IV EOC may benefit from cytoreductive surgery with abdominal R0, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Optimal Interval Cytoreduction Surgery (LOICS) in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancers Having Low Burden Disease

Laparoscopy has been increasingly utilised for cytoreduction surgery in patients with early ovarian cancers. The present study tries to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic interval cytoreduction surgery (LOICS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) having low burden residual disease. A retrospective study of was done of AOC's who underwent LOICS between 2010 and 2014. Epithelial ovarian cancer patients who underwent interval cytoreduction surgery were included and analysed for short-term and long-term outcomes. In all, 36 patients with stage III ovarian cancers were included in the analysis. Twenty-two (61.1%) were grade 3 and 14 (38.8%) were grade 2, and no patient had grade 1 tumour. Stage wise majority were stage IIIC (94.4%) followed by 2 (5.5%) in stage IIIA. There was 1 postoperative complication (2.5%) and no intraoperative complications. Median time to discharge and to start chemotherapy was 5 days and 23 days respectively. After a median follow-up of 60 months, 3 patients (8.3%) were lost to follow-up and the remaining 33 patients were analysed for survival outcomes. The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 58.3% and 36.1% respectively. The median RFS and OS were 24 months and 51 months, respectively. Most recurrences involved the peritoneum (82.6%), and 5 patients (21.7%) had nodal recurrence alone. Laparoscopic optimal interval cytoreduction is feasible in patients with advanced ovarian cancers provided the disease burden permits optimal surgery, especially in centres with expertise in complex laparoscopic procedures.

Patient outcomes following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: protocol for a multicenter, international, cohort study (Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative)

BACKGROUND

The Global Gynecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (GO SOAR) has developed a network of gynecological oncology surgeons, surgical departments, and other interested parties that have the long-term ability to collaborate on outcome studies. Presented is the protocol for the GO SOAR2 study.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To compare survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery, between delayed cytoreductive surgery and no surgery (chemotherapy alone); and international variations in access to cytoreductive surgery for women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer.

STUDY HYPOTHESES

There is no difference in survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery; there is poorer survival with no surgery compared with delayed cytoreductive surgery; and there are international disparities in prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery in women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer.

TRIAL DESIGN

International, multicenter, mixed-methods cohort study. Participating centers, will review medical charts/electronic records of patients who had been consecutively diagnosed with stage III-IV ovarian cancer between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2021. Qualitative interviews will be conducted to identify factors determining international variations in prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria include women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer, undergoing interval (after 3-4 cycles of chemotherapy) or delayed (≥5 cycles of chemotherapy) cytoreductive surgeries or no cytoreductive surgery (≥5 cycles of chemotherapy alone).

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

Overall survival (defined from date of diagnosis to date of death); progression-free survival (defined from date of diagnosis to date of first recurrence); facilitator/barriers to prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery.

SAMPLE SIZE

In order to determine whether there is a difference in survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery and no surgery, data will be abstracted from 1000 patients.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

It is estimated that recruitment will be completed by 2023, and results published by 2024.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05523804.