Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials.

RESULTS

None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.

Factors Predicting Surgical Effort Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Advanced Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

(1) Background: Surgical cytoreduction for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a complex procedure. Encompassed within the performance skills to achieve surgical precision, intra-operative surgical decision-making remains a core feature. The use of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) could potentially interpret the influence of human factors on the surgical effort for the cytoreductive outcome in question; (2) Methods: The retrospective cohort study evaluated 560 consecutive EOC patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery between January 2014 and December 2019 in a single public institution. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Deep Neural Network (DNN) algorithms were employed to develop the predictive model, including patient- and operation-specific features, and novel features reflecting human factors in surgical heuristics. The precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC) were compared between both training algorithms. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework was used to provide global and local explainability for the predictive model; (3) Results: A surgical complexity score (SCS) cut-off value of five was calculated using a Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve, above which the probability of incomplete cytoreduction was more likely (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.644; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.598−0.69; sensitivity and specificity 34.1%, 86.5%, respectively; p = 0.000). The XGBoost outperformed the DNN assessment for the prediction of the above threshold surgical effort outcome (AUC = 0.77; 95% [CI] 0.69−0.85; p < 0.05 vs. AUC 0.739; 95% [CI] 0.655−0.823; p < 0.95). We identified “turning points” that demonstrated a clear preference towards above the given cut-off level of surgical effort; in consultant surgeons with <12 years of experience, age <53 years old, who, when attempting primary cytoreductive surgery, recorded the presence of ascites, an Intraoperative Mapping of Ovarian Cancer score >4, and a Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index >7, in a surgical environment with the optimization of infrastructural support. (4) Conclusions: Using XAI, we explain how intra-operative decisions may consider human factors during EOC cytoreduction alongside factual knowledge, to maximize the magnitude of the selected trade-off in effort. XAI techniques are critical for a better understanding of Artificial Intelligence frameworks, and to enhance their incorporation in medical applications.

The use of biomarkers to stratify surgical care in women with ovarian cancer: Scientific Impact Paper No. 69 March 2022: Scientific Impact Paper No. 69 May 2022

Biomarkers may offer unforeseen insights into clinical diagnosis, as well as the likely course and outcome of a condition. In this paper, the focus is on the use of biological molecules found in body fluids or tissues for diagnosis and prediction of outcome in ovarian cancer patients. In cancer care, biomarkers are being used to develop personalised treatment plans for patients based on the unique characteristics of their tumour. This tailoring of care can be used to pursue specific targets identified by biomarkers, or treat the patient according to specific tumour characteristics. Surgery is one of the core treatments for ovarian cancer, whether it is offered in primary surgery or following chemotherapy in delayed surgery. Biomarkers already exist to guide the treatment of tumours with chemotherapy, but very little research has determined the value of biomarkers in tailoring surgical care for ovarian cancer. Such research is required to identify new biomarkers and assess their effectiveness in a clinical setting as well as to help identify specific tumour types to guide surgery. Biomarkers could help to determine the success of removing the disease surgically, or help to identify tumour deposits that persist after chemotherapy. All of these aspects would improve current practice. This Scientific Impact Paper highlights research that may pave the way towards bespoke surgery according to the biological characteristics of a tumour and aid gynaecological oncologists to provide surgical treatment according to individual need, rather than a blanket approach for all.

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.

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.

Clinical significance of primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy-interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer

Primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard treatment of patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an alternative treatment regimen that can be considered in selected patients. Complete cytoreduction, both through primary debulking surgery and interval debulking surgery, has a major positive effect on survival and should be the goal, even if this requires extensive surgery. When thorough assessment of tumor spread and performance status of the patient indicates that complete primary cytoreduction is not feasible without unacceptable morbidity, then alternative therapeutic strategies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, must be considered. Such patients can be offered the option of interval debulking surgery after checking their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resolution of the initial obstacles for primary debulking surgery (i.e. complete response of irresectable disease and improvement of the performance status). Current evidence suggests that a selected group of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III-IV ovarian cancer will benefit from NAC-IDS. Research is ongoing to identify patients who might derive the greatest benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, instead of primary debulking surgery, on the basis of radiological, genetic, pathological, and immunological variables. In this review, we discuss current knowledge about the clinical significance of primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer and discuss unanswered questions in the field.

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.

Maximal-Effort Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer Patients with a High Tumor Burden: Variations in Practice and Impact on Outcome

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of two distinct patient populations treated within two neighboring UK cancer centers (A and B) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all new stages 3 and 4 EOC patients treated between January 2013 and December 2014 was performed. The Mayo Clinic surgical complexity score (SCS) was applied. Cox regression analysis identified the impact of treatment methods on survival.

RESULTS

The study identified 249 patients (127 at center A and 122 in centre B) without significant differences in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (FIGO 4, 29.7% at centers A and B), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG < 2, 89.9% at centers A and B), or histology (serous type in 84.1% at centers A and B). The patients at center A were more likely to undergo surgery (87% vs 59.8%; p < 0.001). The types of chemotherapy and the patients receiving palliative treatment alone were equivalent between the two centers (3.6%). The median SCS was significantly higher at center A (9 vs 2; p < 0.001) with greater tumor burden (9 vs 6 abdominal fields involved; p < 0.001), longer median operation times (285 vs 155 min; p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.001), but surgical morbidity and mortality were equivalent. The independent predictors of reduced overall survival (OS) were non-serous histology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.61), ECOG higher than 2 (HR, 1.9; 95% CI 1.15-3.13), and palliation alone (HR, 3.43; 95% CI 1.51-7.81). Cytoreduction, of any timing, had an independent protective impact on OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.31 for interval surgery and 0.39 for primary surgery), even after adjustment for other prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating surgery into the initial EOC management, even for those patients with a greater tumor burden and more disseminated disease, may require more complex procedures and more resources in terms of theater time and hospital stay, but seems to be associated with a significant prolongation of the patients overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone.

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer is mostly diagnosed at advanced stage. Better survival is achieved through complete debulking surgery and chemotherapy. Historically, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been introduced for unresectable disease to decrease tumor load and perform a unique complete surgery. Four randomized control trials have compared primary debulking surgery to NAC, but there is still controversy about the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and questions about its modalities. Areas covered: We made a review of knowledge on benefits of NAC compared to primary debulking chemotherapy, in terms of survival and morbidity, methods of administration, new drugs in early and late phase trials, the selection of patients. Similar survival was observed after NAC and interval debulking surgery or primary debulking surgery. Morbidity of surgery was decreased after interval debulking compared primary debulking surgery. Conventional drugs are carboplatin and paclitaxel. Safety of bevacizumab was evaluated in phase 2 trials associated with conventional drugs. Immunotherapy trials are enrolling patients in phase 1 study. Expert commentary: NAC followed by debulking surgery is the best treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.