Outcomes of patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma: a Dutch population-based cohort study comparing expansile and infiltrative subtypes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma based on subtype (expansile vs infiltrative). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all surgically treated patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma in the Netherlands (2015-2020), using data from national registries. Subtypes were determined, with any ambiguities resolved by a dedicated gynecologic pathologist. Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I were categorized into full staging, fertility-sparing, or partial stagings. Outcomes were overall survival and recurrence free survival, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Among 409 identified patients, 257 (63%) had expansile and 152 (37%) had infiltrative tumors. Patients with expansile tumors had FIGO stage I more frequently (n=243, 95% vs n=116, 76%, p<0.001). For FIGO stage I disease, patients with expansile and infiltrative tumors underwent similar proportions of partial (n=165, 68% vs n=78, 67%), full (n=32, 13% vs n=23, 20%), and fertility-sparing stagings (n=46, 19% vs n=15, 13%) (p=0.139). Patients with expansile FIGO stage I received less adjuvant chemotherapy (n=11, 5% vs n=24, 21%, p<0.001), exhibited better overall and recurrence free survival (p=0.006, p=0.012), and fewer recurrences (n=13, 5% vs n=16, 14%, p=0.011). Survival and recurrence rates were similar across the expansile extent of staging groups. Patients undergoing fertility-sparing staging for infiltrative tumors had more recurrences compared with full or partial stagings, while recurrence free survival was similar across these groups. Full staging correlated with better overall survival in infiltrative FIGO stage I (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: While most patients with FIGO stage I underwent partial staging, those with expansile had better outcomes than those with infiltrative tumors. Full staging was associated with improved overall survival in infiltrative, but not in expansile FIGO stage I. These results provide insight for tailored surgical approaches.

Demographic, clinical, and sociocognitive determinants related to physical activity and dietary intake in patients with ovarian cancer: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To study physical activity and dietary intake among patients with ovarian cancer and to examine which demographic, clinical, and sociocognitive determinants are associated with these behaviours. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 139 patients with ovarian cancer scheduled for (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Physical activity was measured with the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly questionnaire (PASE). Dietary intake was measured with a questionnaire assessing energy and protein intake and a questionnaire assessing adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) lifestyle recommendations. Demographic, clinical, and sociocognitive (e.g., self-efficacy) determinants of physical activity and dietary intake were examined using backward linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients reported a median PASE score of 50 (IQR 24-94), a mean ± SD dietary intake of 1831 ± 604 kcal/day and 76 ± 27 g protein/day. Patients adhered to 3 out of 5 WCRF lifestyle recommendations. The absence of comorbidities, lower physical outcome expectations, and higher cancer specific outcome expectations were independently associated with higher physical activity levels. Higher age, lower cancer specific outcome expectations, and higher diet-related self-efficacy were significantly associated with adhering to more WCRF lifestyle recommendations, whilst no variables associated with total caloric or protein intake were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ovarian cancer have low physical activity levels and a suboptimal diet, particularly low fruit and vegetable consumption and dietary fibre intake. Interventions aiming to improve physical activity and dietary intake could focus on increasing self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and should consider age and comorbidity as factors that may impact behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NTR6300.

Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest that the incidence of parametrial infiltration is low in patients with early-stage low-risk cervical cancer, which raises questions regarding the need for radical hysterectomy in these patients. However, data from large, randomized trials comparing outcomes of radical and simple hysterectomy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing radical hysterectomy with simple hysterectomy including lymph-node assessment in patients with low-risk cervical cancer (lesions of ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion). The primary outcome was cancer recurrence in the pelvic area (pelvic recurrence) at 3 years. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 4 percentage points. RESULTS: Among 700 patients who underwent randomization (350 in each group), the majority had tumors that were stage IB1 according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria (91.7%), that had squamous-cell histologic features (61.7%), and that were grade 1 or 2 (59.3%). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the incidence of pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group and 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group (an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, -1.62 to 2.32). Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis. The incidence of urinary incontinence was lower in the simple hysterectomy group than in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (2.4% vs. 5.5%; P = 0.048) and beyond 4 weeks (4.7% vs. 11.0%; P = 0.003). The incidence of urinary retention in the simple hysterectomy group was also lower than that in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (0.6% vs. 11.0%; P<0.001) and beyond 4 weeks (0.6% vs. 9.9%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the 3-year incidence of pelvic recurrence and was associated with a lower risk of urinary incontinence or retention. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01658930.).

Health state utility and health-related quality of life measures in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Purpose: Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in ovarian cancer patients is critical to understand the impact of disease and treatment. Preference-based HRQoL measures, called health state utilities, are used specifically in health economic evaluations. Real-world patient-reported data on HRQoL and health state utilities over the long-term course of ovarian cancer are limited. This study aims to determine HRQoL and health state utilities in different health states of ovarian cancer. Methods: This cross-sectional, multicenter study included patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer in six health states: at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, after cytoreductive surgery (CRS), after chemotherapy, in remission, and at first recurrence. HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and the ovarian cancer-specific module OV28. Health state utilities were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were performed for each health state. Results: Two hundred thirty-two patients participated, resulting in 319 questionnaires. Median age was 66 years. The lowest HRQoL was observed during chemotherapy and shortly after CRS. Physical and role functioning were most affected and the highest symptom prevalence was observed in the fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, attitude, and sexuality domains. Patients in remission had the best HRQoL. Mean utility values ranged from 0.709 (±0.253) at diagnosis to 0.804 (±0.185) after chemotherapy. Conclusions: This study provides clinicians with a valuable resource to aid in patient counseling and clinical decision-making. The utilities, in particular, are crucial for researchers conducting economic analyses to inform policy decisions.

Is routine admission to a critical care setting following hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is increasingly being used in patients with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). It is uncertain whether routine postoperative admission to a critical care setting after CRS-HIPEC is necessary. This study aims to estimate the incidence of patients requiring critical care, and to create a prediction model to identify patients who may forego admission to a critical care setting. METHODS: We analyzed 154 patients with primary ovarian cancer undergoing interval CRS-HIPEC at two Dutch centers between 2007 and 2021. Patients were routinely admitted to a critical care setting for 12-24 h. Patients that received critical support as defined by pre-specified definitions were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression analysis with backward selection was used to predict the need for critical care and the model was validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients received postoperative critical care, consisting mainly of hemodynamic interventions. Independent predictors of critical care were blood loss, norepinephrine dose during surgery, and age (bootstrapped AUC = 0.76). Using a probability cut-off of 20%, one-third of patients are defined as low-risk for requiring critical care, with a negative predictive value of 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients,primarily undergoing low to intermediate complexity surgeries, did not receive critical care interventions after CRS-HIPEC. Selective admission to a critical care setting may be warranted and its feasibility and safety needs to be evaluated prospectively. Our prediction model can help identify patients in whom admission to a critical care setting may be omitted. Hospital costs and burden on critical care units will benefit from patient selection.

Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OVHIPEC-1): final survival analysis of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The OVHIPEC-1 trial previously showed that the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in improved progression-free and overall survival compared with cytoreductive surgery alone at 4·7 years of follow-up in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer who were ineligible for primary cytoreduction. We report the final survival outcomes after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, patients with primary epithelial stage III ovarian cancer were recruited at eight HIPEC centres in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-76 years, had not progressed during at least three cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel, had a WHO performance status score of 0-2, normal blood counts, and adequate renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) or with HIPEC (100 mg/m2 cisplatin; surgery-plus-HIPEC group). Randomisation was done centrally by minimisation with a masked web-based allocation procedure at the time of surgery when residual disease smaller than 10 mm diameter was anticipated, and was stratified by institution, previous suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, and number of abdominal regions involved. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and a secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00426257, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2007, and April 30, 2016, 245 patients were enrolled and followed up for a median of 10·1 years (95% CI 8·4-12·9) in the surgery group (n=123) and 10·4 years (95% CI 9·5-13·3) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (n=122). Recurrence, progression, or death occurred in 114 (93%) patients in the surgery group (median progression-free survival 10·7 months [95% CI 9·6-12·0]) and 109 (89%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (14·3 months [12·0-18·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·48-0·83], stratified log-rank p=0·0008). Death occurred in 108 (88%) patients in the surgery group (median overall survival 33·3 months [95% CI 29·0-39·1]) and 100 (82%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (44·9 months [95% CI 38·6-55·1]; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], stratified log-rank p=0·011). INTERPRETATION: These updated survival results confirm the long-term survival benefit of HIPEC in patients with primary stage III epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding).

Exploring international differences in ovarian cancer care: a survey report on global patterns of care, current practices, and barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Although global disparities in survival rates for patients with ovarian cancer have been described, variation in care has not been assessed globally. This study aimed to evaluate global ovarian cancer care and barriers to care. METHODS: A survey was developed by international ovarian cancer specialists and was distributed through networks and organizational partners of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology. Respondents received questions about care organization. Outcomes were stratified by World Bank Income category and analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 1059 responses were received from 115 countries. Respondents were gynecological cancer surgeons (83%, n=887), obstetricians/gynecologists (8%, n=80), and other specialists (9%, n=92). Income category breakdown was as follows: high-income countries (46%), upper-middle-income countries (29%), and lower-middle/low-income countries (25%). Variation in care organization was observed across income categories. Respondents from lower-middle/low-income countries reported significantly less frequently that extensive resections were routinely performed during cytoreductive surgery. Furthermore, these countries had significantly fewer regional networks, cancer registries, quality registries, and patient advocacy groups. However, there is also scope for improvement in these components in upper-middle/high-income countries. The main barriers to optimal care for the entire group were patient co-morbidities, advanced presentation, and social factors (travel distance, support systems). High-income respondents stated that the main barriers were lack of surgical time/staff and patient preferences. Middle/low-income respondents additionally experienced treatment costs and lack of access to radiology/pathology/genetic services as main barriers. Lack of access to systemic agents was reported by one-third of lower-middle/low-income respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The current survey report highlights global disparities in the organization of ovarian cancer care. The main barriers to optimal care are experienced across all income categories, while additional barriers are specific to income levels. Taking action is crucial to improve global care and strive towards diminishing survival disparities and closing the care gap.

The 2022 PSOGI International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We report the results of an international consensus on hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) regimens for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) performed with the following goals: To define the indications for HIPEC To identify the most suitable HIPEC regimens for each indication in EOC To identify areas of future research on HIPEC To provide recommendations for some aspects of perioperative care for HIPEC METHODS: The Delphi technique was used with two rounds of voting. There were three categories of questions: evidence-based recommendations [using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system with the patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) method], an opinion survey, and research recommendations. RESULTS: Seventy-three (67.5%) of 108 invited experts responded in round I, and 68 (62.9%) in round II. Consensus was achieved for 34/38 (94.7%) questions. However, a strong positive consensus that would lead to inclusion in routine care was reached for only 6/38 (15.7%) questions. HIPEC in addition to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) received a strong positive recommendation that merits inclusion in routine care. Single-agent cisplatin was the only drug recommended for routine care, and OVHIPEC-1 was the most preferred regimen. The panel recommended performing HIPEC for a minimum of 60 min with a recommended minimum intraabdominal temperature of 41°C. Nephroprotection with sodium thiosulfate should be used for cisplatin HIPEC. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this consensus should guide clinical decisions on indications of HIPEC and the choice and various parameters of HIPEC regimens and could fill current knowledge gaps. These outcomes should be the basis for designing future clinical trials on HIPEC in EOC.

Safety and feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy during interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, peritoneal cancer in an Australian context.

AIMS: To assess the safety and feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during cytoreduction surgery (CRS) in advanced high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer within an Australian context. METHODS: Data were collected from 25 consecutive patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC from December 2018 to July 2022 at the Peritoneal Malignancy Service at the Mater Hospital Brisbane, Australia. Data collected included demographics, clinical variables, surgical procedures and complications and intra-operative and post-operative indexes of morbidity. RESULTS: Twenty-five women who underwent CRS and HIPEC from December 2018 to July 2022 were included in analysis. Findings indicate that CRS with HIPEC is associated with low morbidity. CONCLUSION: While judicious patient selection is imperative, HIPEC during CRS was well tolerated by all patients and morbidity was comparable to results from the previously reported OVHIPEC-1 trial. HIPEC appears to be a safe and feasible addition to CRS for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in Australian practice.

Clinical development of WEE1 inhibitors in gynecological cancers: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The anti-tumor activity of WEE1 inhibitors (WEE1i) in gynecological malignancies has recently been demonstrated in clinical trials and its rationale is based on biological/molecular features of gynecological cancers. With this systematic review, we aim to outline the clinical development and current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these targeted agents in in this patient group. METHODS: Systematic literature review of trials including patients with gynecological cancers treated with a WEE1i. The primary objective was to summarize the efficacy of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies regarding objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included toxicity profile, Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions and exploratory objectives such as biomarkers for response. RESULTS: 26 records were included for data extraction. Almost all trials used the first-in-class WEE1i adavosertib; one conference abstract reported about Zn-c3. The majority of the trials included diverse solid tumors (n = 16). Six records reported efficacy results of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies (n = 6). Objective response rates of adavosertib monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy ranged between 23% and 43% in these trials. Median PFS ranged from 3.0 to 9.9 months. The most common adverse events were bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal toxicities and fatigue. Mainly alterations in cell cycle regulator genes TP53 and CCNE1 were potential predictors of response. CONCLUSION: This report summarizes encouraging clinical development of WEE1i in gynecological cancers and considers its application in future studies. Biomarker-driven patient selection might be essential to increase the response rates.

Evaluation of external validity of the OVHIPEC-1 trial in a real-world population.

OBJECTIVE: The OVHIPEC-1 trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial for stage III ovarian carcinoma randomising between interval cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) showed improved survival when interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) was combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The authors compared the control arm of the trial with a real-world population treated in the Netherlands during the same period to explore generalizability of the trial results. METHODS: For this nationwide comparative cohort study, all patients with EOC undergoing interval CRS between 2007 and 2016 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria of OVHIPEC-1 (n = 1376). Patient and treatment characteristics, and overall survival (OS) were compared between trial and real-world populations. RESULTS: Age, comorbidity, BRCA status, histologic subtype, and residual disease were similar in trial and real-world patients. Trial patients had a better performance status, higher socioeconomic status, and underwent bowel surgery more often. In a real-world setting, patients more often received more than six cycles. The difference in OS between the trial and the real-world populations was not statistically significant (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.37]; P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in patient characteristics, OS of patients treated in the control arm of OVHIPEC-1 was similar to patients treated outside the trial. The trial population accurately represents real-world patients with stage III EOC undergoing interval CRS in terms of outcome.

Guideline adherence in ovarian cancer for surgical staging in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown low adherence to surgical staging guidelines in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian carcinoma. The aim of this study was to identify guideline adherence for surgical staging and to show the distribution of each surgical item within the study population. In addition, we examined whether regional variation in the Netherlands exists for complete surgical staging. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer and surgical staging registered in the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 in the Netherlands were included. Complete surgical staging was defined according to the Dutch evidence-based guideline. Surgical items were ranked and illustrated. Variation in complete surgical staging for eight regional cancer networks was shown in funnel plots. Manual validation of registered data was performed in three gynecological oncology centers. RESULTS: 604 patients underwent surgical staging, 365 (60%) underwent an incomplete staging procedure, 295 (81%) were registered with early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-IIA) and, of these patients, 115 (39%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with incomplete surgical staging were operated more often with minimal invasive techniques (laparoscopy or robot) compared with patients in the complete staging group (p<0.001). Sampling of cytology/ascites was the most frequently lacking factor (29%). Manual validation of data in three gynecological oncology centers identified reasons for incomplete staging, the most common being 'perioperative findings' such as dense adhesions between tumor and peritoneum, consistent with advanced stage disease (≥IIA). Regional variation for complete surgical staging showed two regions performing outside the confidence intervals (12.5% and 25.5%, mean 40%). CONCLUSION: Guideline adherence for staging was lower than expected and validation of data gave additional insights into the reasons that were contributing to incomplete surgical staging. Moreover, this analysis showed that regional variation for surgical staging exists, which forms a starting point to improve and harmonize staging procedures for these patients nationwide.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) at the time of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is controversial and its use remains experimental in most national and international guidelines. We wished to systematically evaluate all available evidence. METHODS: A comprehensive review of data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from the first report on HIPEC in EOC till April 3, 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the HIPEC and control groups. This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265810). RESULTS: Fifteen studies (10 case-control studies and 5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) were included in the present meta-analysis. Based on the time interval between the last systemic chemotherapy exposure and timing of CRS +/- HIPEC, all studies and patients' cohorts we classified into recent (<6 months; n = 9 studies/patients cohorts) and non-recent (≥6 months, n = 8 studies/patients cohorts) chemotherapy exposure groups. In the recent chemotherapy exposure group, HIPEC was associated with improvement of both PFS (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.422-0.811) and OS (HR, 0.519; 95% CI, 0.346-0.777). On the contrary, in the non-recent chemotherapy exposure group, HIPEC failed to significantly affect PFS (HR, 1.037; 95% CI, 0.684-1.571) or OS (HR, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.607-1.430). Consistent results were observed in subsequent sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our present meta-analysis demonstrates that the value of HIPEC at CRS for EOC appears to depend on the timing of the last systemic chemotherapy exposure. Future trials are awaited to define the role of HIPEC in EOC.

Progression-free survival and overall survival after BRCA1/2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer: A matched cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Germline BRCA1/2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer has been associated with better progression-free survival and overall survival than sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer, but conclusive data are lacking. METHODS: We matched 389 BRCA1-associated and 123 BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer patients 1:1 to sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer patients on year of birth, year of diagnosis, and FIGO stage (< = IIA/> = IIB). Germline DNA test was performed before or after epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis. All patients received chemotherapy. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between mutation status (BRCA1 or BRCA2 versus sporadic) and progression-free survival and overall survival. To investigate whether DNA testing after epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis resulted in survival bias, we performed additional analyses limited to BRCA1/2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer patients with a DNA test result before cancer diagnosis (n = 73 BRCA1; n = 9 BRCA2) and their matched sporadic controls. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 4.4 years (range 0.1-30.1). During the first three years after epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis, progression-free survival was better for BRCA1 (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.04) and BRCA2 (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.81) patients than for sporadic patients. Overall survival was better during the first six years after epithelial ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58-0.84) and BRCA2 (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.29-0.59) patients. After surviving these years, survival benefits disappeared or were in favor of the sporadic patients. CONCLUSION: For epithelial ovarian cancer patients who received chemotherapy, we confirmed survival benefit for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carriers. This may indicate higher sensitivity to chemotherapy, both in first line treatment and in the recurrent setting. The observed benefit appears to be limited to a relatively short period after epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis.