ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Neurosurgical resection of multiple brain metastases: outcomes, complications, and survival rates in a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: This study investigates the outcomes of microsurgical resection of multiple brain metastasis (BMs). METHODS: This retrospective, monocentric analysis included clinical data from all consecutive BM patients, who underwent simultaneous resection of ≥ 2 BMs between January 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative neurological and functional outcomes, along with perioperative complications, as well as survival data were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients, with a median age of 61 years (IQR 48-69), underwent 73 craniotomies (median 2; range 1-3) for resection of 104 BMs. Among patients, 80.8% presented with symptomatic BMs, causing focal neurological deficits in 53% of cases. Gross total resection was achieved in 87.2% of BMs. Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores improved in 42.6% of patients, remained unchanged in 46.8%, and worsened in 10.6% after surgery. Perioperative complications were observed in 29.8% of cases, with transient complications occurring in 19.2% and permanent deficits in 10.6%. The 30-days mortality rate was 2.1%. Logistic regression identified eloquent localization (p = 0.036) and infratentorial craniotomy (p = 0.018) as significant predictors of postoperative complications. Concerning overall prognosis, patients with permanent neurological deficits post-surgery (HR 11.34, p = 0.007) or progressive extracranial disease (HR: 4.649; p = 0.006) exhibited inferior survival. CONCLUSION: Microsurgical resection of multiple BMs leads to clinical stabilization or functional improvement in most patients. Although transient complications do not affect overall survival, the presence of persistent neurological deficits (> 3 months post-surgery) and progressive extracranial disease negatively impact overall survival. This highlights the importance of careful patient selection for resection of multiple BMs.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer: final overall survival results from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure.

Depression and anxiety in women with malignant ovarian germ cell (MOGCT) and sex cord stromal tumors (SCST): an analysis of the AGO-CORSETT database.

INTRODUCTION: The intention of this study was to evaluate the level of anxiety and depression of malignant ovarian germ cell (MOGCT) and sex cord stromal tumors (SCST) survivors and to identify possible alterable cofactors. METHODS: CORSETT was an observational, multicenter, mixed retrospective/prospective cohort study of the AGO Studygroup. Women who had been diagnosed with MOGCTs and SCSTs between 2001 and 2011 were asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate distress. Predictors of distress (type of surgery, chemotherapy, time since diagnosis, recurrence, second tumor, pain) were investigated using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: 150 MOGCT and SCST patients with confirmed histological diagnosis completed the questionnaire median seven years after diagnosis. They had a HADS total score ≥ 13 indicating severe mental distress in 34% of cases. Patients after fertility-conserving surgery had lower probability of severe mental distress than those without fertility-conserving treatment (ß = - 3.1, p = 0.04). Pain was associated with the level of distress in uni- and multivariate analysis (coef 0.1, p < 0.01, coef. Beta 0.5). DISCUSSION: Severe mental distress was frequent in patients with MOGCT and SCST and the level of pain was associated with the level of distress. Fertility conserving therapy, however, was associated with less mental distress. Screening and treatment of pain and depression is required to improve mental well-being in survivors of MOGCT and SCST.

European experts consensus: BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency testing in first-line ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. DESIGN: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts' consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR deficiency testing for recently diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Early tumor regrowth is a contributor to impaired survival in patients with completely resected advanced ovarian cancer. An exploratory analysis of the Intergroup trial AGO-OVAR 12.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical assessment of residual tumor provides the strongest prognostic information in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), with the best outcome observed after complete resection. Postoperative radiological assessment before initiation of chemotherapy can supplement the information obtained by surgical assessment; however, it may also reveal conflicting findings. METHODS: Patients with AOC enrolled in the AGO-OVAR 12 trial underwent baseline imaging before the first chemotherapy cycle. The findings from surgical and radiologic assessment for disease extend were compared. Additionally, an integrated approach was assessed. RESULTS: Complete data from all 3 assessment methods were available for 1345 patients. Of 689 patients with complete resection, tumor was observed in 28% and 22% of patients undergoing radiologic and integrated assessment, respectively. Patients with surgical- radiological and surgical-integrated concordant findings showed a 5-year overall survival (5Y-OS) of 72% and 71%, whereas patients with surgical-radiological and surgical-integrated discordant results showed inferior 5Y-OS of 47% and 49%, respectively. Patients with surgically assessed residual disease had a 5-YOS of 37%. The interval between surgery and baseline assessment was independently associated with discordance between assessment methods, which might reflect early tumor regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline tumor assessment before chemotherapy provides information that stratifies patients with complete resection into different prognostic groups. Integrating the data from different assessment methods might lead to improved definitions of prognostic groups. Further investigation to determine if earlier initiation of chemotherapy after debulking surgery could increase survival of patients with early tumor regrowth is warranted.

Overall survival results of AGO-OVAR16: A phase 3 study of maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in women who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The AGO-OVAR16 study was designed to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). METHODS: Nine hundred and forty patients with histologically confirmed AOC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II-IV, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg pazopanib once daily or placebo for up to 24 months, unless there was disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint (investigator-assessed progression-free survival [PFS]) was met and previously reported. The results of final analyses of overall survival (OS) are reported here. RESULTS: A third OS interim analysis showed futility and led to study closure and a final OS analysis after last patient last visit. At the time of the final OS analysis, 494 (89.7% of the planned 551) events had occurred. No difference was observed in OS between pazopanib and placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.805-1.145), and the median OS from randomization was 59.1 months in pazopanib and 64.0 months in placebo arms. For the East Asian patients, similar to the first three interim OS analyses, a numerical negative trend was observed favoring placebo (HR, 1.332; 95% CI: 0.863-2.054). Exploratory analyses showed a trend for a longer time to first subsequent anti-cancer therapy or death with pazopanib over placebo (HR, 0.829; 95% CI: 0.713-0.965), with a median estimate of 19.0 and 14.5 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Although pazopanib prolonged PFS, this was not associated with improvement in median OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866697.

Correction to: The use of PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) in gynecological oncology: a statement by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) Kommission Ovar, AGO Study Group, North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (NOGGO), AGO Austria and AGO Switzerland.

The title of the article has been published incorrectly. The correct title is given below.

The use of PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) in gynecological oncology: a statement by the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR)", the Swiss and Austrian AGO, and the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas primarily affect the peritoneal cavity, and they are typically diagnosed at an advanced tumor stage (Foley, Rauh-Hain, del Carmen in Oncology (Williston Park) 27:288-294, 2013). In the course of primary surgery, postoperative tumor residuals are, apart from the tumor stage, the strongest independent factors of prognosis (du Bois, Reuss, Pujade-Lauraine, Harter, Ray-Coquard, Pfisterer in Cancer 115:1234-1244, 2009). Due to improved surgical techniques, including the use of multi-visceral procedures, macroscopic tumor clearance can be achieved in oncological centers, in most cases (Harter, Muallem, Buhrmann et al in Gynecol Oncol 121:615-619, 2011). However, to date, it has not been shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is, per se, an independent factor of prognosis or that it excludes the achievement of tumor clearance. Several studies have shown that a preceding drug therapy in peritoneal carcinomatosis could positively influence the overall prognosis (Trimbos, Trimbos, Vergote et al in J Natl Cancer Inst 95:105-112, 2003). In relapses of ovarian carcinoma, studies have shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is a negative predictor of complete tumor resection; however, when it is possible to resect the tumor completely, peritoneal carcinomatosis does not play a role in the prognosis (Harter, Hahmann, Lueck et al in Ann Surg Oncol 16:1324-1330, 2009). RESULTS: PIPAC is a highly experimental method for treating patients with ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer. To date, only three studies have investigated a total of 184 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (Grass, Vuagniaux, Teixeira-Farinha, Lehmann, Demartines, Hubner in Br J Surg 104:669-678, 2017). Only some of those studies were phase I/II studies that included PIPAC for patients with different indications and different cancer entities. It is important to keep in mind that the PIPAC approach is associated with relatively high toxicity. To date, no systematic dose-finding studies have been reported. Moreover, no studies have reported improvements in progression-free or overall survival associated with PIPAC therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized phase III studies are required to evaluate the effect of this therapy compared to other standard treatments (sequential or simultaneous applications with systemic chemotherapy). In cases of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer, PIPAC should not be performed outside the framework of prospective, controlled studies.

Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer.

Despite optimal surgery and appropriate first-line chemotherapy, ∼70%-80% of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer will develop disease relapse. The same modalities as used primarily are available for treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). The rationale for repetitive surgery in ROC was based on a stable body of retrospective data; however, prospective data were missing. Now, preliminary data from the prospective AGO-DESKTOP III give evidence that surgery for ROC seems to be of benefit for selected patients with platinum-sensitive relapse undergoing complete resection. With respect to systemic therapy, tumor histology, BRCA status, the platinum-free interval (PFI) and previous treatment with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) are considered the most important features that influence treatment choice in ROC. In patients with resistant or refractory relapse (PFI < 6 months), monotherapy with a non-platinum drug or participation in clinical trials is indicated. The association of non-platinum monotherapy with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance has been approved in this setting in some European countries due to PFS benefit. In patients with partially sensitive relapse (PFI between 6 and 12 months), two options are available: platinum doublets or non-platinum therapy (single agent or combination). The pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/trabectedin combination represents a viable alternative in patients that cannot receive platinum. In platinum-sensitive patients, treatment with platinum-based combinations is associated with PFS advantage compared with single agents or non-platinum combinations. The presence of germline or somatic BRCA mutations allows platinum-responsive patients to optimize chemotherapy efficacy and prolonging PFS by the use of olaparib (PARP inhibitor) given as maintenance therapy until progression. In patients not pretreated with bevacizumab in first line, the carboplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab combination, followed by maintenance is a viable alternative in platinum-sensitive patients (PFI> 6 months). The integration of surgery, with a 'personalized' approach by the use of antiangiogenic agent and of PARP inhibitors is affecting survival of patients with recurrent disease and will help epithelial ovarian cancer to become a chronic disease.

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference: individualized therapy and patient factors.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding the design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), following deliberation at the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), held in Tokyo in November 2015. Three important questions were identified for discussion prior to the meeting and achieved consensus during the meeting: (i) What are the most important factors to be evaluated prior to initial therapy? (ii) What are the most important factors to be evaluated specifically in recurrent disease? (iii) Are there specific considerations for special patient subpopulations? In addition, we report a list of important unmet needs compiled during the consensus process, which is intended to guide future research initiatives.

Management of borderline ovarian tumors.

BACKGROUND: Borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are epithelial tumors of the ovaries with both malignant and non-malignant aspects. On the one hand, they are characterized by cellular proliferation and nuclear atypia but, on the other hand, they usually do not show infiltrative growth pattern. Balancing radicality between oncologic safety and treatment burden has already led to remarkable changes in the management pattern over the last decades and is still a challenging task. DESIGN: This review is based on both a systematic review published by the authors and added with evidence gained from actually published literature. RESULTS: As they frequently affect younger patients, the clinical management of BOT is complicated by aspects as preserving fertility and reducing postoperative morbidity. Over the past decades, the surgical therapy shifted from a radical approach to more conservative treatment. Today, fertility-sparing surgery is first-choice treatment in younger patients. In addition, minimal-invasive surgery has become the preferred surgical approach in these patients. Even recurrences are curable in most patients because only a minority of relapses transform to invasive cancer. CONCLUSION: More studies on BOT are needed and longer follow-up and better characterization of high-risk subtypes are crucial to better understand long-term risk of BOT and avoid the rare but the fatal outcome in those few patients being undertreated by the current management strategies.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer revisited.

Despite the recent publication of two randomized controlled phase III trials addressing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer, the optimal timing of multimodal management in primary therapy is still under debate. As both studies met their primary end point by demonstrating non-inferiority, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery has been proposed to be an alternative standard for primary ovarian cancer treatment. Nevertheless, significant questions remain unanswered in both trials. Especially, the radicality of surgical therapy was below expectation with the median operating times of <3 h and complete gross resection in <20% of the patients. Consecutively, survival rates of patients undergoing primary debulking surgery were low. Since the primarily surgical question of 'primary versus interval-surgery' can only be answered if the key criteria 'complete gross resection' are present in a considerable percentage of patients, additional studies are needed and neoadjuvant chemotherapy should not be used to reduce surgical radicality for ovarian cancer treatment.

Topotecan plus carboplatin versus standard therapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) or gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus carboplatin (PLDC): a randomized phase III trial of the NOGGO-AGO-Study Group-AGO Austria and GEICO-ENGOT-GCIG intergroup study (HECTOR).

BACKGROUND: Randomized, phase III trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of topotecan and carboplatin (TC) compared with standard platinum-based combinations in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental TC arm (topotecan 0.75 mg/m2/ days 1-3 and carboplatin AUC 5 on day 3 every 3 weeks) or to one of the standard regimes [(PC) paclitaxel plus carboplatin; (GC) gemcitabine plus carboplatin; (PLDC) pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin] which could be chosen by individual preference but before randomization. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after 12 months. Overall survival (OS), response rate, toxicity, quality of life and treatment preference regarding standard treatment were defined as secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 550 patients were recruited. The PFS rate after 12 months was 37.0% for TC compared with 40.2% in the standard combinations (P = 0.470). The overall response rate was 73.1% for TC versus 75.1% for standard combinations (P = 0.149). After a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.4-10.6] and did not differ between both arms (P = 0.414). The median OS was 25 months in the TC arm versus 31 months in the standard arm (95% CI: 22.4-27.6 resp. 26.0-36.0; P = 0.163). Severe hematologic toxicities (grade 3/4) were rare in the experimental arm (P < 0.001), with 17.4% leucopenia, 27.8% neutropenia and 15.9% thrombopenia. CONCLUSION: The combination of carboplatin and topotecan was well tolerated with significant lower rates of severe hematological toxicities but did not improve PFS or OS in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer compared with established standard regimens.

Germline BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer: Current state and opportunities for new directions.

PURPOSE: Given the implications for clinical care and prevention in identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation, the objective of this study was to determine current BRCA1/2 testing practices in ovarian cancer and to identify future directions. METHODS: Two parallel complementary web-based surveys were sent by email to representatives of Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) and to referral centers in countries with and without GCIG membership. Questions posed addressed indications of BRCA1/2 testing for ovarian cancer; the implication of genetic counseling; and prevention strategies employed. RESULTS: Among the GCIG, 22 collaborative groups from 19 countries answered the survey. For the complementary survey, 22 referral centers replied. Findings show criteria to offer germline BRCA1/2 testing are mixed; 55% of GCIG members based testing decisions on histology and, among all respondents the main testing criterion remains family history. Typically, genetic counseling is scheduled prior to the genetic testing; however, if negative, results may not be communicated by the genetic counselor. Time between testing and communicating results varies widely between the groups. Lastly, recommendations to relatives regarding risk reduction surgery are inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for collaborative efforts to devise international guidelines around BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer to ensure consistent BRCA1/2 screening practices are adopted. Clinical practice is evolving rapidly and as BRCA1/2 testing is expected to become more widespread, new approaches are required. Coordinating BRCA1/2 testing practices is crucial in terms of care for the patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer but also towards cancer prevention for affected family members.

Obesity and survival among women with ovarian cancer: results from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported a modest association between obesity and risk of ovarian cancer; however, whether it is also associated with survival and whether this association varies for the different histologic subtypes are not clear. We undertook an international collaborative analysis to assess the association between body mass index (BMI), assessed shortly before diagnosis, progression-free survival (PFS), ovarian cancer-specific survival and overall survival (OS) among women with invasive ovarian cancer. METHODS: We used original data from 21 studies, which included 12 390 women with ovarian carcinoma. We combined study-specific adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models to estimate pooled HRs (pHR). We further explored associations by histologic subtype. RESULTS: Overall, 6715 (54%) deaths occurred during follow-up. A significant OS disadvantage was observed for women who were obese (BMI: 30-34.9, pHR: 1.10 (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.99-1.23); BMI: ⩾35, pHR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01-1.25)). Results were similar for PFS and ovarian cancer-specific survival. In analyses stratified by histologic subtype, associations were strongest for women with low-grade serous (pHR: 1.12 per 5 kg m(-2)) and endometrioid subtypes (pHR: 1.08 per 5 kg m(-2)), and more modest for the high-grade serous (pHR: 1.04 per 5 kg m(-2)) subtype, but only the association with high-grade serous cancers was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI is associated with adverse survival among the majority of women with ovarian cancer.

Additional prognostic value of lymph node ratio over pN staging in different breast cancer subtypes based on the results of 1,656 patients.

PURPOSE: Although the impact of lymph node ratio (LNR: ratio of metastatic to resected LNs) in breast cancer (BC) has been investigated, its prognostic value in molecular subtypes remains unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of LNR compared to pN-stage in BC subtypes. PATIENTS/METHODS: We analyzed the impact of LNR and pN-stage on disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in 1,656 patients with primary BC who underwent primary axillary surgery (removal of ≥10 LNs) between 1998 and 2011. The cut-off points for LNR were previously published. Using immunohistochemical parameters tumors were grouped in luminalA, luminalB/HER2-, luminalB/HER2+, HER2+ and triple negative (TNBC). RESULTS: For the entire cohort 5/10-year DFS and OS rates were 88/77% and 88/75%, respectively. LNR and pN-stage were independent prognostic parameters for DFS/OS in multivariate analysis in the entire cohort and each molecular subgroup (p < 0.001). However, increasing LNR seemed to discriminated 10-year DFS slightly better than pN-stage in luminalA (intermediate/high LNR 65/44% versus pN2/pN3 71/53%), luminalB/HER2- (intermediate/high LNR 48/24% versus pN2/pN3 41/42%), and TNBC patients (intermediate/high LNR 49/24% versus pN2/pN3 56/33%). CONCLUSIONS: LNR is an important prognostic parameter for DFS/OS and might provide potentially more information than pN-stage in different molecular subtypes.