Stage III and IV ovarian cancer in the South West of England: five-year outcome analysis for cases treated in 1998

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Quality of life of advanced ovarian cancer patients in the randomized phase III study comparing primary debulking surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The EORTC 55971 trial compared primary debulking surgery (PDS) versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). The impact of both treatment arms on quality of life (QOL) is reported.

METHODS

Patients with stages IIIc or IV ovarian cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before treatment, at the third and sixth cycle of chemotherapy, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Data of 404 patients (N=201 PDS arm; N=203 IDS arm) were included in the QOL analysis. Between treatment arms no statistically significant differences were found in any of the QOL functioning scales. Patients showed a clinically relevant improvement (>10 points) on the global health/QOL, role functioning, emotional functioning and social functioning scales during and after treatment independent of the type of treatment. Clinically relevant differences from baseline to the follow-up assessments were noted for fatigue, pain, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea indicating symptom control in both treatment arms. Institutions with good QOL compliance were associated with better outcomes. There was a statistical significant difference in the overall debulking status with 39.9% optimal debulking surgery in institutions with good QOL compliance compared to 19.9% in institutions with poor QOL compliance (p=0.0011). Overall survival (median 32.30 versus 23.29 months; p=0.0006) and progression free survival (median 12.35 versus 9.92 months; p=0.0002) were also significantly better.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival and QOL after NACT followed by surgery was similar to survival and QOL after PDS followed by chemotherapy. However, institutions with good QOL compliance had better survival outcomes.

Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer among women. In addition to diagnosis and staging, primary surgery is performed to achieve optimal cytoreduction (surgical efforts aimed at removing the bulk of the tumour) as the amount of residual tumour is one of the most important prognostic factors for survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. An optimal outcome of cytoreductive surgery remains a subject of controversy to many practising gynae-oncologists. The Gynaecologic Oncology group (GOG) currently defines 'optimal' as having residual tumour nodules each measuring 1 cm or less in maximum diameter, with complete cytoreduction (microscopic disease) being the ideal surgical outcome. Although the size of residual tumour masses after surgery has been shown to be an important prognostic factor for advanced ovarian cancer, it is unclear whether it is the surgical procedure that is directly responsible for the superior outcome that is associated with less residual disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of optimal primary cytoreductive surgery for women with surgically staged advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (stages III and IV).To assess the impact of various residual tumour sizes, over a range between zero and 2 cm, on overall survival.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to August 2010). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Retrospective data on residual disease from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective observational studies which included a multivariate analysis of 100 or more adult women with surgically staged advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. We only included studies that defined optimal cytoreduction as surgery leading to residual tumours with a maximum diameter of any threshold up to 2 cm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no RCTs or prospective non-RCTs identified that were designed to evaluate the effectiveness of surgery when performed as a primary procedure in advanced stage ovarian cancer.We found 11 retrospective studies that included a multivariate analysis that met our inclusion criteria. Analyses showed the prognostic importance of complete cytoreduction, where the residual disease was microscopic that is no visible disease, as overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly prolonged in these groups of women. PFS was not reported in all of the studies but was sufficiently documented to allow firm conclusions to be drawn.When we compared suboptimal (> 1 cm) versus optimal (< 1 cm) cytoreduction the survival estimates were attenuated but remained statistically significant in favour of the lower volume disease group There was no significant difference in OS and only a borderline difference in PFS when residual disease of > 2 cm and < 2 cm were compared (hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.31; and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61, P = 0.05 for OS and PFS respectively).There was a high risk of bias due to the retrospective nature of these studies where, despite statistical adjustment for important prognostic factors, selection bias was still likely to be of particular concern.Adverse events, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness were not reported by treatment arm or to a satisfactory level in any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

During primary surgery for advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer all attempts should be made to achieve complete cytoreduction. When this is not achievable, the surgical goal should be optimal (< 1 cm) residual disease. Due to the high risk of bias in the current evidence, randomised controlled trials should be performed to determine whether it is the surgical intervention or patient-related and disease-related factors that are associated with the improved survival in these groups of women. The findings of this review that women with residual disease < 1 cm still do better than women with residual disease > 1 cm should prompt the surgical community to retain this category and consider re-defining it as 'near optimal' cytoreduction, reserving the term 'suboptimal' cytoreduction to cases where the residual disease is > 1 cm (optimal/near optimal/suboptimal instead of complete/optimal/suboptimal).