Survival benefit of adding Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) at the different time-points of treatment of ovarian cancer: review of evidence.

The standard treatment for advanced ovarian cancer consists in complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intravenous combination chemotherapy with a platinum compound and a taxane. Although response rates to initial therapy are high, many patients will recur and die of peritoneal carcinomatosis. The addition of Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) to the standard therapy aims at increasing survival by reducing peritoneal recurrence. This review describes the survival results of HIPEC at the different time-points of the treatment of ovarian cancer: at upfront CRS, at interval CRS, at consolidation CRS after complete response to initial therapy, at secondary CRS after incomplete response, at salvage CRS for recurrence and as palliative treatment without CRS for unresectable ovarian cancer with chemotherapy resistant ascites. The available evidence suggests that a potential survival benefit of adding HIPEC may be largest in the settings of secondary CRS for stage III ovarian cancer and salvage CRS for recurrent ovarian cancer, two time-points representing failure of initial standard therapy. There is much less evidence for a potential benefit of HIPEC for less advanced stages (I-II) and for earlier time-points in the treatment of ovarian cancer (upfront, interval and consolidation). Postoperative mortality is not higher after CRS and HIPEC (0.7%) than after CRS only (1.4%). Four randomised trials are ongoing and their results are eagerly awaited. Palliative HIPEC without CRS might be used more in patients with incapacitating ascites due to recurrent ovarian cancer which has become resistant to systemic chemotherapy.

Prospective randomized study comparing docetaxel, estramustine, and prednisone with docetaxel and prednisone in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the addition of estramustine to docetaxel (D) for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to D alone (35 mg/m(2) on days 2 and 9, every 3 weeks) or D in combination with estramustine (D/E; 280 mg orally three times a day on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12, every 3 weeks). All patients received prednisone (10 mg/d). The primary end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, which was defined as a decrease in PSA > or = 50% from baseline. The study was powered to test the hypothesis that D/E would improve the PSA response rate by 25%. RESULTS: The PSA response rate was not statistically different between the two groups. PSA of less than 4 ng/mL occurred in 29 (41%) of 71 patients receiving D/E and in 17 (25%) of 69 patients receiving D (P = .05). No significant differences were found for median time to PSA progression (D/E, 6.9 months; D, 7.3 months) or median overall survival time (D/E, 19.3 months; D, 21 months). More patients had at least one grade 3 or 4 toxicity with D/E (45%) compared with D (21%; P = .005), mainly as a result of grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity (P = .05). Serious adverse events were more frequent with D/E (n = 20) than with D (n = 9; P = .04). CONCLUSION: The addition of estramustine to weekly D does not provide any clinically relevant advantage. Both regimens are well tolerated, although the toxicity profile favors D without estramustine.