Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancers: pooled analysis of individual patient data from the EORTC 55971 and CHORUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient data from two randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with upfront debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer were analysed to examine long-term outcomes for patients and to identify any preferable therapeutic approaches for subgroup populations. METHODS: We did a per-protocol pooled analysis of individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 55971 trial (NCT00003636) and the Medical Research Council Chemotherapy Or Upfront Surgery (CHORUS) trial (ISRCTN74802813). In the EORTC trial, eligible women had biopsy-proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian carcinoma. In the CHORUS trial, inclusion criteria were similar to those of the EORTC trial, and women with apparent FIGO stage IIIA and IIIB disease were also eligible. The main aim of the pooled analysis was to show non-inferiority in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery, using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Tests for heterogeneity were based on Cochran's Q heterogeneity statistic. FINDINGS: Data for 1220 women were included in the pooled analysis, 670 from the EORTC trial and 550 from the CHORUS trial. 612 women were randomly allocated to receive upfront debulking surgery and 608 to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·0-9·6; EORTC, 9·2 years [IQR 7·3-10·4]; CHORUS, 5·9 years [IQR 4·3-7·4]). Median age was 63 years (IQR 56-71) and median size of the largest metastatic tumour at diagnosis was 8 cm (IQR 4·8-13·0). 55 (5%) women had FIGO stage II-IIIB disease, 831 (68%) had stage IIIC disease, and 230 (19%) had stage IV disease, with staging data missing for 104 (9%) women. In the entire population, no difference in median overall survival was noted between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery (27·6 months [IQR 14·1-51·3] and 26·9 months [12·7-50·1], respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·86-1·09; p=0·586). Median overall survival for EORTC and CHORUS patients was significantly different at 30·2 months (IQR 15·7-53·7) and 23·6 months (10·5-46·9), respectively (HR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·36; p=0·004), but was not heterogeneous (Cochran's Q, p=0·17). Women with stage IV disease had significantly better outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery (median overall survival 24·3 months [IQR 14·1-47·6] and 21·2 months [10·0-36·4], respectively; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58-1·00; p=0·048; median progression-free survival 10·6 months [7·9-15·0] and 9·7 months [5·2-13·2], respectively; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Long-term follow-up data substantiate previous results showing that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery result in similar overall survival in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer, with better survival in women with stage IV disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This pooled analysis, with long-term follow-up, shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with stage IIIC-IV tubo-ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with a high tumour burden at presentation or poor performance status. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Vlaamse Liga tegen kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

Lymphovascular Space Invasion as a Risk Factor in Early Endometrial Cancer.

Management of early endometrial cancer is contentious these days with little agreement between oncologists as well as across MDTs or tumour boards and indeed across countries. This is because of the state of knowledge with regards to risk factors in early endometrial cancer; although we recognise risk factors affect outcome, we haven't yet been able to demonstrate that our treatments make a significant difference. We have reviewed available literature on LVSI and are able to demonstrate that it is an independent risk factor for nodal metastasis as well as distant recurrence. We need a randomised trial integrating grade and LVSI and testing therapeutic options of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, it is unlikely to see the light of day. Therefore, we are left with this knowledge of prognostic factors and it is our duty to integrate this into our decision-making during our multidisciplinary team meetings and make decisions tailored to individual patient circumstances.

Malignant struma ovarii: the west of Scotland experience and review of literature with focus on postoperative management.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant struma ovarii is an extremely rare ovarian tumour containing malignant thyroid carcinoma within differentiated thyroid tissue, as the predominant tissue type. Surgery for suspected ovarian tumour and incidental pathological diagnosis is the most common presentation. Evidence supporting any particular approach to the clinical management of this condition is limited, mainly consisting of case reports, small series or pathological case series. There is no randomised evidence for postoperative management in view of the rarity of this condition. The opinion is divided between conservative management versus total thyroidectomy and radio-iodine ablation. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective review of our series with focus on postoperative management of this rare condition. A review of existing literature was also carried out. RESULTS: Six patients with a median age of 52 years presented with various symptoms of abdominal pain, pressure or menstrual problems. After the initial gynaecological resection and specialised pathology review, they were subsequently treated with total thyroidectomy and administration of radioactive iodine. All of these six patients are in remission at a median follow up of 60 months. CONCLUSION: We favour aggressive postoperative management with total thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine, and long-term follow up of these patients.

Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer.

Advanced ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis. De-bulking surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy are the cornerstones of the treatment. Primary debulking surgery has been the standard of care in advanced ovarian cancer. Recently a new strategy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery has been developed. In a recently published randomised trial of the EORTC-NCIC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - National Cancer Institute Canada) in patients with extensive stage IIIc and IV ovarian cancer it was shown that the survival was similar for patients randomised to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking compared to primary debulking surgery, followed by chemotherapy. The post-operative complications and mortality rates were lower after interval debulking than after primary debulking surgery. The most important independent prognostic factor for overall survival was no residual tumour after primary or interval debulking surgery. In some patients obtaining the goal of no residual tumour at interval debulking is difficult due to chemotherapy-induced fibrosis. On the other hand the patients randomised had very extensive stage IIIc and IV disease and in patients with metastases smaller than 5 cm the survival tended to be better after primary debulking surgery. Hence, selection of the correct patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer for primary debulking or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is important. Besides imaging with CT, diffusion MRI and/or PET-CT, also laparoscopy can play an important role in the selection of patients. It should be emphasised that the group of patients included in this study had extensive stage IIIc or IV disease. Surgical skills, especially in the upper abdomen, remain pivotal in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. However, very aggressive surgery should be tailored according to the general condition and extent of the disease of the patients. Otherwise, this type of aggressive surgery will result in unnecessary postoperative morbidity and mortality without improving survival. Hence, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should not be an easy way out, but is in some patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer a better alternative treatment option than primary debulking. According to the current treatment algorithm at the University Hospitals Leuven about 50% of the patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer are selected for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy for small cell ovarian cancer: 2 cases and review of literature.

Small cell carcinomas of the ovary (SCCO) are rare and aggressive malignant neoplasms carrying a poor prognosis. Although multi-modality treatment including chemotherapy leads to a high initial response rate, the majority of these patients relapse quickly and die within 2 years of diagnosis. Because these tumours are rare, there is no consensus to support any particular approach to management. We present 2 cases and review the relevant literature to make a number of recommendations. The treatment of these unusual cases should to be individually discussed in a multi-disciplinary team and multi-modality treatment including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy should be considered for patients with limited disease. Conservative, fertility-preserving surgery may be considered in younger women with early-stage disease. Induction chemotherapy with weekly dose-dense and dose-intense carboplatin and taxane is useful. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) may be considered in patients in remission after primary treatment with chemotherapy or surgery.

Quality of pathology reports for advanced ovarian cancer: are we missing essential information? An audit of 479 pathology reports from the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 neoadjuvant trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. METHODS: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. RESULTS: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3% of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9% of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5% of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4% of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10% of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8% of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. CONCLUSION: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Primary debulking surgery before initiation of chemotherapy has been the standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian-tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma to primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy or to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery (so-called interval debulking surgery). RESULTS: Of the 670 patients randomly assigned to a study treatment, 632 (94.3%) were eligible and started the treatment. The majority of these patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at primary debulking surgery (metastatic lesions that were larger than 5 cm in diameter in 74.5% of patients and larger than 10 cm in 61.6%). The largest residual tumor was 1 cm or less in diameter in 41.6% of patients after primary debulking and in 80.6% of patients after interval debulking. Postoperative rates of adverse effects and mortality tended to be higher after primary debulking than after interval debulking. The hazard ratio for death (intention-to-treat analysis) in the group assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking, as compared with the group assigned to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, was 0.98 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.13; P=0.01 for noninferiority), and the hazard ratio for progressive disease was 1.01 (90% CI, 0.89 to 1.15). Complete resection of all macroscopic disease (at primary or interval surgery) was the strongest independent variable in predicting overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was not inferior to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma in this study. Complete resection of all macroscopic disease, whether performed as primary treatment or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, remains the objective whenever cytoreductive surgery is performed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003636.)