Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for Patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide updated guidance regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) among patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (epithelial ovarian cancer [EOC]).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and updated the systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies form the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with suspected stage III-IV EOC should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist, with cancer antigen 125, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and chest imaging included. All patients with EOC should be offered germline genetic and somatic testing at diagnosis. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC who are fit for surgery and have a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction, PCS is recommended. For patients fit for PCS but deemed unlikely to have complete cytoreduction, NACT is recommended. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC and a high perioperative risk profile should receive NACT. Before NACT, patients should have histologic confirmation of invasive ovarian cancer. For NACT, a platinum-taxane doublet is recommended. Interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) should be performed after ≤four cycles of NACT for patients with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. For patients with stage III disease, good performance status, and adequate renal function treated with NACT, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be offered during ICS. After ICS, chemotherapy should continue to complete a six-cycle treatment plan with the optional addition of bevacizumab. Patients with EOC should be offered US Food and Drug Administration-approved maintenance treatments. Patients with progressive disease on NACT should have diagnosis reconfirmed via tissue biopsy. Patients without previous comprehensive genetic or molecular profiling should be offered testing. Treatment options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or initiation of end-of-life care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.This guideline has been endorsed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy for initial treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

RATIONALE

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require a combination of surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of treating women with advanced EOC with chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows cytoreductive surgery (primary cytoreductive surgery (PCRS)).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 21 March 2024. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers for further studies. We contacted the principal investigators of relevant trials for further information.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.

OUTCOMES

We extracted data on overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events, surgically related mortality and morbidity, and quality of life outcomes.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias in RCTs.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models (due to heterogeneity between studies) to calculate hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We identified a further 1022 titles and abstracts through our searches in this update (958 unique records after further de-duplication), adding to the 2227 titles and abstracts identified in previous versions of this review. A total of five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. We identified no new completed studies in this update, but we did include additional data from existing studies. The studies assessed a total of 1774 women with stage III/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICRS) or PCRS followed by chemotherapy. We included data from four studies in the meta-analyses (1692 participants).

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Survival We found little or no difference between groups in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.08; P = 0.49; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; high-certainty evidence) and likely little or no difference between groups in PFS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events, surgical morbidity, and quality of life outcomes were variably and incompletely reported across studies. NACT reduces postoperative mortality (0.4% in the NACT group versus 3.3% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.52; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1542 women; high-certainty evidence). There are probably clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PCRS in overall surgically related adverse effects (grade 3+ (G3+)) (6% in the NACT group versus 29% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 435 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Organ resection NACT probably results in a large reduction in the need for stoma formation (5.8% in the NACT group versus 20.4% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; P = 0.009; I2 = 70%; 2 studies; 632 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces the risk of needing bowel resection at the time of surgery (13.0% in the NACT group versus 26.6% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81; P = 0.007; I2 = 84%; 4 studies; 1578 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life Global quality of life on the EORTC QLQ-C30 produced imprecise results in three studies, with high levels of heterogeneity (quality of life at six months: MD 6.62, 95% CI -2.89 to 16.13; P = 0.17; I2 = 92%; 3 studies; 559 women; low-certainty evidence). Overall, functional and symptom scores may be slightly improved for NACT at 6 months, but similar by 12 months, although the differences might not be clinically meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available high- to moderate-certainty evidence shows there is likely little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PCRS and NACT for those with advanced EOC who are suitable for either treatment option. NACT reduces the risk of postoperative mortality and likely reduces the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for stoma formation. These data should inform women and clinicians (involving specialist gynaecological multidisciplinary teams) and allow treatment to be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage, and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review update had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

Protocol (2005): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343 Original review (2007): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub2 Review update (2012): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub3 Review update (2019): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub4 Review update (2021): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub5 Review updated (2021a): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub6.

Surgery in Advanced Ovary Cancer: Primary versus Interval Cytoreduction

Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has remained the only treatment of ovarian cancer with survival advantage since its development in the 1970s. However, survival advantage is only observed in patients who are optimally resected. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has emerged as an alternative for patients in whom optimal resection is unlikely and/or patients with comorbidities at high risk for perioperative complications. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence to date for PDS and NACT in the treatment of stage III/IV ovarian carcinoma. We systematically searched the PubMed database for relevant articles. Prior to 2010, NACT was reserved for non-surgical candidates. After publication of EORTC 55971, the first randomized trial demonstrating non-inferiority of NACT followed by interval debulking surgery, NACT was considered in a wider breadth of patients. Since EORTC 55971, 3 randomized trials-CHORUS, JCOG0602, and SCORPION-have studied NACT versus PDS. While CHORUS supported EORTC 55971, JCOG0602 failed to demonstrate non-inferiority and SCORPION failed to demonstrate superiority of NACT. Despite conflicting data, a subset of patients would benefit from NACT while preserving survival including poor surgical candidates and inoperable disease. Further randomized trials are needed to assess the role of NACT.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require a combination of surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before debulking surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows debulking surgery (primary debulking surgery (PDS)).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 9 October 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE (Silver Platter/Ovid), PDQ and MetaRegister. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers that were identified to search for further studies. The main investigators of relevant trials were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each included trial. We extracted data of overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events, surgically-related mortality and morbidity and quality of life outcomes.  We used GRADE methods to determine the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2227 titles and abstracts through our searches, of which five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed a total of 1774 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or PDS followed by chemotherapy. We pooled results of the four studies where data were available and found little or no difference with regard to overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.08; participants = 1692; studies = 4; high-certainty evidence) or progression-free survival in four trials where we were able to pool data (Hazard Ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; participants = 1692; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, surgical morbidity and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were variably and incompletely reported across studies. There are probably clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PDS with regard to overall postoperative serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3+): 6% in NACT group, versus 29% in PDS group, (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38; participants = 435; studies = 2; heterogeneity index (I2) = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). NACT probably results in a large reduction in the need for stoma formation: 5.9% in NACT group, versus 20.4% in PDS group, (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; participants = 632; studies = 2; I2 = 70%; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of needing bowel resection at the time of surgery: 13.0% in NACT group versus 26.6% in PDS group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79; participants = 1565; studies = 4; I2 = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence). NACT reduces postoperative mortality: 0.6% in NACT group, versus 3.6% in PDS group, (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.46; participants = 1623; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence). QoL on the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) scale produced inconsistent and imprecise results in three studies (MD -0.29, 95% CI -2.77 to 2.20; participants = 524; studies = 3; I2 = 81%; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain and should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available high to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PDS and NACT. NACT probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and reduces the risk of postoperative mortality and the need for stoma formation. These data will inform women and clinicians (involving specialist gynaecological multidisciplinary teams) and allow treatment to be tailored to the person, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited.

The role of the microbiome in ovarian cancer: mechanistic insights into oncobiosis and to bacterial metabolite signaling

Ovarian cancer is characterized by dysbiosis, referred to as oncobiosis in neoplastic diseases. In ovarian cancer, oncobiosis was identified in numerous compartments, including the tumor tissue itself, the upper and lower female genital tract, serum, peritoneum, and the intestines. Colonization was linked to Gram-negative bacteria with high inflammatory potential. Local inflammation probably participates in the initiation and continuation of carcinogenesis. Furthermore, local bacterial colonies in the peritoneum may facilitate metastasis formation in ovarian cancer. Vaginal infections (e.g. Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis) increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Bacterial metabolites, produced by the healthy eubiome or the oncobiome, may exert autocrine, paracrine, and hormone-like effects, as was evidenced in breast cancer or pancreas adenocarcinoma. We discuss the possible involvement of lipopolysaccharides, lysophosphatides and tryptophan metabolites, as well as, short-chain fatty acids, secondary bile acids and polyamines in the carcinogenesis of ovarian cancer. We discuss the applicability of nutrients, antibiotics, and probiotics to harness the microbiome and support ovarian cancer therapy. The oncobiome and the most likely bacterial metabolites play vital roles in mediating the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Finally, we discuss the potential of oncobiotic changes as biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and microbial metabolites as possible adjuvant agents in therapy.

Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before debulking surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows debulking surgery (primary debulking surgery (PDS)).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 11 February 2019: CENTRAL, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE (Silver Platter/Ovid), PDQ and MetaRegister. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers that were identified to search for further studies. The main investigators of relevant trials were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each included trial.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 1952 potential titles, with a most recent search date of February 2019, of which five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed a total of 1713 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or PDS followed by chemotherapy. We pooled results of the three studies where data were available and found little or no difference with regard to overall survival (OS) (1521 women; Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression-free survival in four trials where we were able to pool data (1631 women; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, surgical morbidity and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. There may be clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PDS with regard to serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3+). These data suggest that NACT may reduce the risk of need for blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; four studies,1085 women; low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.90; four studies, 1490 women; low-certainty evidence), infection (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.56; four studies, 1490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to PDS. NACT probably reduces the need for stoma formation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72; two studies, 581 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bowel resection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.92; three studies, 1213 women; moderate-certainty evidence), as well as reducing postoperative mortality (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.54:five studies, 1571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). QoL on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale produced inconsistent and imprecise results in two studies (MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.32; participants = 307; very low-certainty evidence) and use of the QLQC-30 and QLQC-Ov28 in another study (MD 7.60, 95% CI 1.89 to 13.31; participants = 217; very low-certainty evidence) meant that little could be inferred.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PDS and NACT. NACT may reduce the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for bowel resection and stoma formation. These data will inform women and clinicians and allow treatment to be tailored to the person, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited.

Comparing Laparotomy with Robot-assisted Interval Debulking Surgery for Patients with Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Compare survival of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS) with either robot-assisted (R-IDS) or open (O-IDS) approach. Second, we assessed the impact of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) cycles as independent variables associated with survival in this patient population.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Total of 93 patients diagnosed with advanced EOC who underwent NACT before primary debulking surgery after consultation with a gynecologic oncologist.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent IDS after completion of NACT with either R-IDS or O-IDS between 2011 and 2018 at a single tertiary care center. Exclusion criteria included receiving fewer than 3 or more than 6 cycles of NACT or having concurrent diagnoses of other malignancies during the treatment period.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were identified (n = 43 R-IDS; n = 50 O-IDS). Median age (63.0 vs 66.2 years) did not differ between the 2 groups (p = .1). Of the total patients, 91% were optimally cytoreduced (57% R0 and 34% R1), and R0 rate was not influenced by surgical modality (52% O-IDS vs 63% R-IDS, p = .4). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) did not differ between patients undergoing O-IDS and those undergoing R-IDS (PFS 15.4 vs 16.7 months, p = .7; OS 38.2 vs 35.6 months, p = .7). Cytoreduction to R0 improved both PFS and OS independent of surgical approach. Subgroup analysis showed that, specifically in patients undergoing R-IDS, receiving >6 total cycles of chemotherapy was independently associated with both decreased PFS (hazard ratio 3.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-9.73) and OS (hazard ratio 3.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-14.59). When analyzed separately, neither NACT nor adjuvant cycle numbers had any effect on survival.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study of patients with advanced EOC undergoing IDS after NACT, the use of robot-assisted surgery did not affect debulking success or oncologic survival indices. Receiving >6 total cycles of chemotherapy before IDS was associated with a decrease in both PFS and OS in patients undergoing R-IDS in this cohort and warrants further investigation.

A multivariate analysis of the prognostic impact of tumor burden, surgical timing and complexity after complete cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the survival benefit of primary debulking surgery (PDS) compared to interval debulking surgery (IDS) after complete cytoreduction (CC-0) or cytoreduction to minimal residual disease (CC-1) in advanced ovarian cancer. Secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of tumor load and surgical complexity on patients' survival.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentric study was designed, including patients with IIIC-IV FIGO stage ovarian cancer who underwent PDS or IDS with CC-0 or CC-1 from January 2008 to December 2015 in four high-volume institutions. Patients were classified in three groups: PDS, IDS after 3-4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), and IDS after 6 cycles. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We included 549 patients, 175 (31.9%) underwent PDS, 224 (40.8%) had IDS after 3-4 cycles of NACT, and 150 (27.3%) underwent IDS after 6 cycles. Median DFS in PDS, IDS at 3-4 cycles and IDS at 6 cycles were 23.0 months (95%CI = [20.0-29.3]), 18.0 months (95%CI = [15.9-20.0]) and 17.1 months (95%CI = [15.0-20.9]), respectively; p < .001. Median OS were 84.0 months (95%CI = [68.3-111.0]), 50.7 months (95%CI = [44.6-59.5]) and 47.5 months (95%CI = [39.3-52.9]), respectively; p < .001. In multivariable analysis, high peritoneal cancer index score and NACT were negatively associated to DFS and OS. Surgical complexity and CC-1 were negatively associated to DFS.

CONCLUSION

PDS offered a survival gain of almost three years compared to IDS in patients with minimal or no residual disease after surgery. PDS should remain the standard of care for advanced ovarian cancer.

Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before debulking surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows debulking surgery (primary debulking surgery (PDS)).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 11 February 2019: CENTRAL, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE (Silver Platter/Ovid), PDQ and MetaRegister. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers that were identified to search for further studies. The main investigators of relevant trials were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each included trial.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 1952 potential titles, with a most recent search date of February 2019, of which five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed a total of 1713 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or PDS followed by chemotherapy. We pooled results of the three studies where data were available and found little or no difference with regard to overall survival (OS) (1521 women; hazard ratio (HR) 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.19, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression-free survival in four trials where we were able to pool data (1631 women; HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, surgical morbidity and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. There may be clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PDS with regard to serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3+). These data suggest that NACT may reduce the risk of need for blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; four studies,1085 women; low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.90; four studies, 1490 women; low-certainty evidence), infection (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.56; four studies, 1490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to PDS. NACT probably reduces the need for stoma formation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72; two studies, 581 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bowel resection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.92; three studies, 1213 women; moderate-certainty evidence), as well as reducing postoperative mortality (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.54:five studies, 1571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). QoL on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale produced inconsistent and imprecise results in two studies (MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.32; participants = 307; very low-certainty evidence) and use of the QLQC-30 and QLQC-Ov28 in another study (MD 7.60, 95% CI 1.89 to 13.31; participants = 217; very low-certainty evidence) meant that little could be inferred.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PDS and NACT. NACT may reduce the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for bowel resection and stoma formation. These data will inform women and clinicians and allow treatment to be tailored to the person, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has remained controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of NACT versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with EOC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were queried to assess the therapeutic value of NACT versus PDS in EOC. Electronic databases were queried by using the keywords "ovarian cancer/neoplasms", "primary debulking surgery", and "neoadjuvant chemotherapy".

RESULTS

The available trials were pooled, and hazard ratios (HRs), relative risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were determined. Sixteen trials involving 57,450 participants with EOC (NACT, 9,475; PDS, 47,975) were evaluated. We found that NACT resulted in markedly decreased overall survival than PDS in patients with EOC (HR=1.30; 95% CI=1.13-1.49; heterogeneity: p<0.001, I²=82.7%). Furthermore, our results demonstrated that the NACT group displayed increased completeness of debulking removal (RR=1.69, 95% CI=1.32-2.17; heterogeneity: p<0.001, I²=81.9%), and reduced risk of postsurgical death (RR=0.18, 95% CI=0.06-0.51; heterogeneity: p=0.698, I²=0%) and major infection (RR=0.29, 95% CI=0.17-0.51; heterogeneity: p=0.777, I²=0%) compared with patients administered PDS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that NACT results in increased completeness of debulking removal, and reduced risk of postsurgical death and major infection compared with PDS, while PDS is associated with improved survival in comparison with NACT in EOC patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42019120625.

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to performed a meta-analysis and systematic review on the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (NACT-IDS) in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles. All statistical analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.3.5.

RESULTS

In two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.81-1.06) or progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.86-1.09). Few adverse events (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72) and a high optimal debulking surgery rate (HR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.50-1.91) were observed with NACT. In 22 observational studies, primary debulking surgery (PDS) yielded better OS (HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.19-1.60) but not progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86-1.23). An increased optimal cytoreduction rate (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12-1.22) was observed with NACT. Irrespective of the degree of residual disease, OS was longer in the PDS group than that in the NACT group. Patients with FIGO stage III (HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.05-1.95) and IV (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06-1.23) disease had better survival with PDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with NACT-IDS improves perioperative outcomes and optimal cytoreduction rates, but it may not improve OS. NACT-IDS is not inferior to PDS-CT in terms of survival outcomes in selected AOC patients. Future studies should focus on candidate selection for NACT.

Nutritional status, cachexia, and anorexia in women with peritoneal metastasis and intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a longitudinal analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nutritional status of women with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from recurrent ovarian, fallopian, or peritoneal cancer and to assess longitudinal variations of the cachexia-anorexia syndrome (CAS) during palliative pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

Nutritional assessment included body mass index (BMI), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and blood chemistry. CAS presence/absence was recorded before and during repeated cycles (1-11) of PIPAC.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients with peritoneal cancer (n=5) or PM from recurrent ovarian (n=77) or fallopian tube (n=2) cancer were included. At baseline, resting metabolism (RM) (1,432±172 kcal/day), visceral fat level (7.5±3.2), skeletal muscle mass (27.2%±4.6%), upper arm circumference (27.9±4.6 cm), lower leg circumference (35.1±3.9 cm), serum parameters (albumin [3.5±0.7 g/dL], total protein [6.3±0.9 g/dL], and transferrin [202±60 mg/dL]) were below normal limits. C-reactive protein (CRP) (4.3±6.8 mg/dL), caliper body fat (35.7%±6.3%), and total body fat mass (35.6%±8.5%) were above normal limits. Nineteen/84 (23%) patients had CAS at baseline. Deterioration or stabilization/improvement of CAS was observed in 9/55 (16.4%) and 46/55 (83.6%) patients with follow-up data, respectively. Baseline body fat mass, visceral fat level, skeletal muscle mass, caliper body fat, BMI, ascites, Karnofsky index, RM, and CRP, as well as tumor response were not predictive of CAS deterioration.

CONCLUSION

Nutritional decline and onset or deterioration of CAS are difficult to predict. Careful measuring and monitoring of nutritional parameters and CAS in all patients seems to be necessary in order to identify those patients in need of enteral/parenteral nutrition support.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis of peri-operative outcome

Objective

To assess whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is superior to primary debulking surgery (PDS) with regard to optimal cytoreduction, peri-operative morbidity, mortality, and quality of life (QOL) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Registers of Clinical Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NACT to PDS in women with Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ EOC. RevMan 5.3 software was utilized for statistical analysis.

Results

Four RCTs involving 1,607 women with advanced EOC were included. Compared with PDS, NACT provided a higher rate of complete cytoreduction (risk ratio [RR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 2.87), optimal cytoreduction (RR: 1.61 [95%CI: 1.05 to 2.47]), but there was no significant difference in residual disease 0–1 cm (p = 0.49). NACT was associated with lower peri-operative morbidity with respect to infection (RR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.56]), gastrointestinal fistula (RR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.95]), any grade 3 or 4 adverse event (RR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.11 to 0.78]), and less post-surgical death within 28 days (RR: 0.14 [95% CI: 0.04 to 0.49]). NACT provided better QOL in terms of fatigue (weight mean difference [WMD], -3.28; [95% CI: -3.99 to -2.57]), role functioning (WMD: 5.29 [95% CI: 4.44 to 6.14]), emotional functioning (WMD: 6.19 [95% CI: 5.57 to 6.82]), and cognitive functioning (WMD: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.43 to 1.61]) at 6-month follow-up compared with PDS.

Conclusions

NACT is associated with superior optimal cytoreduction, lower peri-operative morbidity as well as post-surgical mortality, and better QOL compared to initial surgery in patients with advanced EOC. Future research should focus on improving the efficacy of NACT.

Surgery for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: which patient, when and extent?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cytoreduction to no residual disease is the mainstay of primary treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AdvEOC). This review addresses recent insights on optimal patient selection, timing, and extent of surgery, intended to optimize cytoreduction in patients with AdvEOC.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical guidelines recommend primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) for AdvEOC patients with a high likelihood of achieving complete cytoreduction with acceptable morbidity. In line with this, preoperative prediction markers such as cancer antigen-125, histologic and genomic factors, innovative imaging modalities, and the performance of a diagnostic laparoscopy have been suggested to improve clinical decision-making with regard to optimal timing of cytoreductive surgery. To determine whether these strategies should be incorporated into clinical practice validation in randomized clinical trials is essential.

SUMMARY

The past decade has seen a paradigm shift in the number of AvdEOC patients that are being treated with upfront neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead of PCS. However, although neoadjuvant chemotherapy may reduce morbidity at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery, no favorable impact on survival has been demonstrated and it may induce resistance to chemotherapy. Therefore, optimizing patient selection for PCS is crucial. Furthermore, surgical innovations in patients diagnosed with AvdEOC should focus on improving survival outcomes.