Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of Apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate safety, efficacy, and feasibility of apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study included patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent open surgery between 3/2021 and 3/2023 and received 28-day postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Patients on therapeutic anticoagulation preoperatively were excluded. Predictors of 90- and 30-day VTE and 30-day bleeding events were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for known confounders. RESULTS: 452 patients were included in the cohort: 348 received apixaban and 104 received enoxaparin. Those who received enoxaparin were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV (compared to I/II) (p = 0.033), current or former smokers (p = 0.012) and have a higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.005), and age (p = 0.046). 30-day VTE rate was significantly lower in the apixaban group (0.6%) compared to the enoxaparin group (6.2%) (adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.56; p = 0.006). 90-day VTE rate was 2.7% and 6.2% in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38-1.92; p = 0.704). Major bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and minor bleeding complications (0.9% vs. 3.0%) were similar in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively, on multivariate analyses. The median patient out of pocket cost was $10 (IQR 0.0-40.0) for apixaban and $20 (IQR 3.7-67.7) for enoxaparin (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings along with previously published data suggest that apixaban should be considered the standard of care for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing open surgery for gynecologic malignancies.

Outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease, despite maximal surgical cytoreduction and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In observational studies, secondary cytoreductive surgery has been associated with improved survival; however its use is controversial, because there are concerns that the improved outcomes may reflect selection bias rather than the superiority of secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall survival of women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers who receive secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included women from 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar women who received secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. Additional analyses examined how these findings may be influenced by the prevalence of unobserved confounders at the time of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 626 women, 146 (23%) received secondary surgery and 480 (77%) received chemotherapy. In adjusted analyses, patients who received secondary surgery were younger (P = 0.001), had earlier-stage disease at diagnosis (P = 0.002), and had longer disease-free intervals (P < 0.001) compared with those receiving chemotherapy. In the propensity score-matched groups (n = 244 patients), the median overall survival was 54 months in patients who received secondary surgery and 33 months in those treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Among patients who received secondary surgery, 102 (70%) achieved optimal secondary cytoreduction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. In sensitivity analyses, the survival advantage associated with secondary surgery could be explained by the presence of more multifocal recurrences (if 4.3 times more common), ascites (if 2.7 times more common), or carcinomatosis (if 2.1 times more common) among patients who received chemotherapy instead of secondary surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who received secondary surgery had favorable surgical characteristics and were likely to have minimal residual disease following secondary surgery. These patients had a superior median overall survival compared with patients who received chemotherapy, although unmeasured confounders may explain this observed difference.

Use and Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: A 2006 randomized trial demonstrated a 16-month survival benefit with intraperitoneal and intravenous (IP/IV) chemotherapy administered to patients who had ovarian cancer, compared with IV chemotherapy alone, but more treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to examine the use and effectiveness of IP/IV chemotherapy in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 823 women with stage III, optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer diagnosed at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. We examined IP/IV chemotherapy use in all patients diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 (N = 823), and overall survival and treatment-related toxicities with Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively, in a propensity score-matched sample (n = 402) of patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2012, excluding trial participants, to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased from 0% to 33% between 2003 and 2006, increased to 50% from 2007 to 2008, and plateaued thereafter. Between 2006 and 2012, adoption of IP/IV chemotherapy varied by institution from 4% to 67% (P < .001) and 43% of patients received modified IP/IV regimens at treatment initiation. In the propensity score-matched sample, IP/IV chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival (3-year overall survival, 81% v 71%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.99), compared with IV chemotherapy, but also more frequent alterations in chemotherapy delivery route (adjusted rates discontinuation or change, 20.4% v 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.47 to 5.47). CONCLUSION: Although the use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased significantly at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers between 2003 and 2012, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received it. Increasing IP/IV chemotherapy use in clinical practice may be an important and underused strategy to improve ovarian cancer outcomes.

Evaluating women with ovarian cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: missed opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of genetic counseling referral for ovarian cancer patients who are at substantial risk for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: An analysis was performed of new ovarian cancer patients who were seen at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2007. Patients at substantial (more than 20-25%) risk for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were identified and records reviewed for referral to genetic counseling. Time to referral was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 3,765 epithelial ovarian cancer patients were seen during the 9-year period. On average, 23.8% of patients met substantial-risk criteria for BRCA mutations. In 1999, only 12% of patients at substantial-risk were referred. Referral improved over time with 48% referred in 2007 (P<.001). Newly diagnosed patients were more often referred for genetic counseling than new patients with recurrent disease or those seen as second opinions. African-American women meeting substantial-risk criteria were less likely to be referred than were white or Hispanic women (P=.009). CONCLUSION: Although dictated family history was accurate, interpretation of risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and subsequent referral to genetic counseling was poor. Although there was significant improvement over time, 50% of substantial-risk patients still were missed. Systematic efforts to identify those ovarian cancer patients at substantial risk for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 are necessary.