Health-related quality of life in ovarian cancer patients and its impact on clinical management

Budget Impact Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab for Maintenance Therapy for Ovarian Cancer in Argentina

OBJECTIVES

To perform a budget impact analysis (BIA) of introducing olaparib as maintenance therapy in women who have BRCA mutations (BRCAm) with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) in combination with bevacizumab in Argentina.

METHODS

A BIA model was used to analyse over a 5-year time horizon the change in the health system's budget following the adoption of olaparib as maintenance therapy in BRCAm patients with PSROC. The BIA for each year was estimated by comparing the cost difference between the current scenario (treatment with bevacizumab) and the new scenario (the addition of olaparib) for a third-party payer. The BIA is estimated at the national health system level, and by healthcare sectors in Argentina (public sector, social security and private sector). International and national epidemiological data were used to determine the target patient population. Clinical efficacy, safety outcomes and duration of treatments were obtained from the pivotal clinical study report. Relevant direct medical costs were obtained from public data in Argentina and expert consultation. All the costs are reported in US dollars as of October 2022 ($1 = 152.59 Argentine pesos). A scenario analysis assessed the full coverage of the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test in Argentina. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

RESULTS

For a third-party payer with a cohort of 1,000,000 women covered, the estimated target population was 2 individuals in year 1 and 6 individuals in year 5. The incorporation of olaparib, with a wholesale price per pack of $3176.32, was associated with a weighted average of the budget impact per member per month (PMPM) of $0.062 for the national health system, being above the estimated health system budget impact threshold ($0.0153). By healthcare sector, the results of budget impact PMPM for year 5 ranged between $0.08 (public sector) and $0.114 (private sector). For all perspectives, the variables that most influenced the budget impact was the incidence of ovarian cancer, the drug acquisition cost and the treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of olaparib for the treatment of BRCAm women with PSROC has a high budget impact for all three health systems in Argentina.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

Impact of disease progression on health-related quality of life of advanced ovarian cancer patients - Pooled analysis from the PRIMA trial

OBJECTIVE

Progression-free survival (PFS) is an important early efficacy endpoint in ovarian cancer (OC) and its relevance to patients should be assessed. PRIMA, a phase III trial, assessed niraparib in patients with OC; this post hoc analysis examined the relationship between disease progression in OC and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

The PRIMA trial randomized patients with advanced OC responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to once daily maintenance oral niraparib or placebo. This post hoc analysis evaluated the impact of disease progression on HRQoL by comparing HRQoL at the last visit pre-progression to end of treatment (EoT), and after 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. Assessments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and EQ Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Ovarian Cancer module (EORTC-QLQ-OV28).

RESULTS

This post hoc analysis included 733 patients. Mean FOSI, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS scores deteriorated from last visit pre-progression to EoT and remained low up to 24-week follow-up. Least squares mean changes from last visit pre-progression to EoT were -2.1 (95% confidence interval -2.4, -1.7) for FOSI, -4.6 (-5.6, -3.5) for the EQ-5D-5L index, and -7.9 (-9.6, -6.3) for EQ-VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease progression negatively impacted HRQoL in patients with OC. PFS is clinically relevant, and prolonging PFS may preserve HRQoL.

Mental health disorders among ovarian cancer survivors in a population-based cohort

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common female cancer in the United States. There have been very few studies investigating mental health diagnoses among ovarian cancer survivors with long-term follow up. The aim of this study is to examine the incidence of mental illness among ovarian cancer survivors compared to a general population cohort. A secondary aim is to investigate risk factors for mental illnesses among ovarian cancer survivors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cohorts of 1689 ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2012 and 7038 women without cancer matched by age and birth state from the general population were identified. Mental health diagnoses were identified from electronic medical records and statewide healthcare facilities data. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Ovarian cancer survivors experienced increased risks of mental illnesses within the first 2 years after cancer diagnosis (HR = 3.55, 95% CI = 3.04-4.14). The risks of depression among ovarian cancer survivors were nearly 3-fold within the first 2 years of cancer diagnosis (HR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.94-3.47), and 1.69-fold at 2-5 years after cancer diagnosis (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.18-2.42). Ovarian cancer survivors experienced an 80% increased risk of death with a mental illness diagnosis (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.48-2.18) and a 94% increased risk of death with a depression diagnosis (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.56-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher risks of mental illnesses were observed among ovarian cancer survivors throughout the follow-up periods of 0-2 years and 2-5 years after cancer diagnosis. Multidisciplinary care is needed to monitor and treat mental illnesses among ovarian cancer survivors.

Quality of life of ovarian cancer patients treated with combined platinum taxane chemotherapy: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy is the cornerstone of adjuvant therapy in ovarian cancer. Its impact on the quality of life (QoL) has been addressed in several studies; however, several misperceptions concerning this affect patient counseling and physicians' ability to overcome patient fears. In the present systematic review, we sought to accumulate current evidence in the field in order to help establish robust information that will help physicians answer patients' questions.

METHODS

The present systematic review is based on the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that evaluated patient QoL pre-, during, and post-chemotherapy with the use of the QLQC-30 were selected for inclusion. Their methodological quality was assessed with the before-after studies tool that is proposed by the National Institute of Health (NIH).

RESULTS

Ten studies that involved 5181 patients were included in the present systematic review. The risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies was of good and fair overall quality. Retrieved data suggest there is substantial evidence that points toward improved global QoL among ovarian cancer patients treated with taxanes-platinum combination therapy. Individual outcomes evaluated with the QLQ-C30 also provide positive results, although underreporting was noted.

CONCLUSION

Despite the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting, the findings of this study reveal the significant benefit of combined platinum taxane chemotherapy on the QoL of ovarian cancer patients and can be used for patients counseling in order to reduce refusals that arise from fear of adverse effects that may negatively affect QoL. Graphical abstract.

Assessment of quality of life among advanced ovarian cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital in India

PURPOSE

The study aims to record the quality of life (Qol) and its changes while ovarian cancer (OC) patients undergo debulking surgeries and chemotherapy in a tertiary care hospital of Eastern India.

METHODS

Patients with advanced epithelial OC (FIGO stages III-IV) were recruited. They underwent primary/interval debulking surgeries with classical chemotherapy (adjuvant/neoadjuvant) of intravenous tri-weekly doses of paclitaxel + carboplatin. QoL was assessed using Fact- O + FACIT-Sp-12 questionnaire with a set of 51 questions in different domains (spiritual, physical, social, emotional, and functional factors) and a special set for OC patients under the heading "Additional concerns." The responses from patients were recorded at baseline (diagnosis/study entry), 2, 4, and 6 months during the treatment visits. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan Meier curve.

RESULTS

A majority of patients were 49.15±10.8 years of age, school-educated (54%), unemployed/homemakers (73.5%), belonging from rural setup (64.6%) with a monthly income of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/-. There was no statistically significant (p>0.05) improvement found in Qol from the baseline till the end of the study, neither overall nor in subsets (responders (Rs)/partial responders (PRs)/non-responder (NRs) groups or the adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy groups). The common toxicities like anemia, constipation, and weight loss were significantly (p<0.05) correlated with the patients' physical, functional, emotional, and social well-being.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian cancer patients represent a poor functional, social, and disease-specific quality of life that needs to be addressed, identified, and improved by the growing nexus of healthcare providers and researchers.

Improving the quality of care for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Program components, implementation barriers, and recommendations

The high lethality of ovarian cancer in the United States and associated complexities of the patient journey across the cancer care continuum warrant an assessment of current practices and barriers to quality care in the United States. The objectives of this study were to identify and assess key components in the provision of high‐quality care delivery for patients with ovarian cancer, identify challenges in the implementation of best practices, and develop corresponding quality‐related recommendations to guide multidisciplinary ovarian cancer programs and practices. This multiphase ovarian cancer quality‐care initiative was guided by a multidisciplinary expert steering committee, including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, a genetic counselor, a nurse navigator, social workers, and cancer center administrators. Key partnerships were also established. A collaborative approach was adopted to develop comprehensive recommendations by identifying ideal quality‐of‐care program components in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer management. The core program components included: care coordination and patient education, prevention and screening, diagnosis and initial management, treatment planning, disease surveillance, equity in care, and quality of life. Quality‐directed recommendations were developed across 7 core program components, with a focus on ensuring high‐quality ovarian cancer care delivery for patients through improved patient education and engagement by addressing unmet medical and supportive care needs. Implementation challenges were described, and key recommendations to overcome barriers were provided. The recommendations emerging from this initiative can serve as a comprehensive resource guide for multidisciplinary cancer practices, providers, and other stakeholders working to provide quality‐directed cancer care for patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families.

Quality‐directed recommendations for ovarian cancer care delivery are developed across 7 core program components, with a focus on ensuring high‐quality care delivery by addressing unmet medical and supportive care needs. These recommendations can serve as a comprehensive resource guide for multidisciplinary cancer practices, providers, and other stakeholders working to provide quality‐directed cancer care for patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families.

Maintenance treatment with rucaparib for recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a randomized phase 3 trial: The effects of best response to last platinum-based regimen and disease at baseline on efficacy and safety

Background

The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease.

Methods

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population.

Results

Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups.

Conclusion

Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease.

Treatment Experience and Predictive Factors Associated with Response in Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study

Ovarian cancer (OC) represents the most common and lethal gynecologic malignancy, due to its increased incidence and mortality rate. It is usually diagnosed in advanced stages and, even though surgery and platinum-based treatments are initially efficient, recurrences emerge in over 70% of cases. Although there are multiple options of chemotherapy drugs from which to choose, little is known regarding the best strategy for prolonged survival. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effect that most frequently used chemotherapeutic regimens have upon time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) from the first line and beyond, considering clinical and biological factors which influence the treatment outcome of platinum-resistant recurrent OC. We retrospectively analyzed data from 78 patients diagnosed with platinum-resistant OC, who underwent chemotherapy-based treatment with or without anti-angiogenic therapy at OncoHelp Oncology Center, Romania (January 2016–February 2021). Our study identified positive predictive factors for TTF related to histology (serous carcinoma subtype), anthropometry (age over 60 for patients treated with topotecan with or without bevacizumab), renal function (creatinine levels between 0.65 and 1 mg/dL for patients treated with regimens containing bevacizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) and treatment choice (bevacizumab in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan used from the first line and beyond).

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3

INTRODUCTION

In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p<0.0001) for patients with progression-free interval 6 to ≤12 months, and 13.6 versus 5.6 months (n=224 vs n=113; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52, p<0.0001) for those with progression-free interval >12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

Physical and functional well-being and symptoms of ovarian cancer in women undergoing first-line of chemotherapy: a one-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Clinicopathological features and chemotherapy can influence the quality of life (QOL), women with ovarian cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the physical and functional well-being, and ovarian cancer-specific effects scores reported from QOL questionnaire among women with ovarian cancer at the time of in their initial diagnosis and access the scores trajectory of women receiving neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

This prospective study used cross-sectional analysis at baseline and longitudinal analysis from baseline to 12-month post-chemotherapy. QOL was evaluated at the baseline, at sixth cycle and 12-month post-chemotherapy using FACT-O questionnaire. Clinicopathological features and chemotherapy regime were evaluated and tested for associations with QOL measures.

RESULTS

Of the 38 women enrolled in this study, 27 (80.1%) completed the questionnaire for 12 months. The multivariate linear regression results suggest, at the baseline, women with advance stage and presence of post-surgery residual disease showed lower scores in physical and functional well-being, ovarian cancer-specific effects, and FACT-O TOI domains (p < 0.05). Longitudinal analysis spanning over 12 months showed an improvement in mean physical well-being, functional well-being, and ovarian cancer-specific effects scores, independent of chemotherapy received (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

At the baseline, the clinicopathological features such as stage, presence of post-surgery residual disease, and type of chemotherapy correlated with on QOL scores. At one-year follow-up, women who underwent chemotherapy showed improvement in QOL regardless of the type of chemotherapy they received. Future prospective study with a larger group is recommended.

Patient-centred outcomes and effect of disease progression on health status in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation receiving maintenance olaparib or placebo (SOLO1): a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 SOLO1 trial, maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit versus placebo in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analysed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-centred outcomes in SOLO1, and the effect of radiological disease progression on health status.

METHODS

SOLO1 is a randomised, double-blind, international trial done in 118 centres and 15 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1; had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer with a BRCA mutation; and were in clinical complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either 300 mg olaparib tablets or placebo twice per day using an interactive voice and web response system and were treated for up to 2 years. Treatment assignment was masked for patients and for clinicians giving the interventions, and those collecting and analysing the data. Randomisation was stratified by response to platinum-based chemotherapy (clinical complete or partial response). HRQOL was a secondary endpoint and the prespecified primary HRQOL endpoint was the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score for the first 24 months. TOI scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better HRQOL), with a clinically meaningful difference defined as a difference of at least 10 points. Prespecified exploratory endpoints were quality-adjusted progression-free survival and time without significant symptoms of toxicity (TWiST). HRQOL endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is ongoing but closed to new participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01844986.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 1084 patients were enrolled. 693 patients were ineligible, leaving 391 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=260) or placebo (n=131; one placebo patient withdrew before receiving any study treatment), with a median duration of follow-up of 40·7 months (IQR 34·9-42·9) for olaparib and 41·2 months (32·2-41·6) for placebo. There was no clinically meaningful change in TOI score at 24 months within or between the olaparib and placebo groups (adjusted mean change in score from baseline over 24 months was 0·30 points [95% CI -0·72 to 1·32] in the olaparib group vs 3·30 points [1·84 to 4·76] in the placebo group; between-group difference of -3·00, 95% CI -4·78 to -1·22; p=0·0010). Mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival (olaparib 29·75 months [95% CI 28·20-31·63] vs placebo 17·58 [15·05-20·18]; difference 12·17 months [95% CI 9·07-15·11], p<0·0001) and the mean duration of TWiST (olaparib 33·15 months [95% CI 30·82-35·49] vs placebo 20·24 months [17·36-23·11]; difference 12·92 months [95% CI 9·30-16·54]; p<0·0001) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo.

INTERPRETATION

The substantial progression-free survival benefit provided by maintenance olaparib in the newly diagnosed setting was achieved with no detrimental effect on patients' HRQOL and was supported by clinically meaningful quality-adjusted progression-free survival and TWiST benefits with maintenance olaparib versus placebo.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

The implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in ovarian malignancy surgery

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) refers to multimodal interventions to reduce the length of hospital stay and complications at various steps of perioperative care. It was first developed in colorectal surgery and later embraced by other surgical disciplines including gynecologic oncology. The ERAS Society recently published guidelines for gynecologic cancer surgeries to enhance patient recovery. However, limitations exist in the implementation of the guidelines in ovarian cancer patients due to the distinct characteristics of the disease. In the present review, we discuss the results that have been published in the literature to date regarding the ERAS protocols in ovarian cancer patients, and explain why more evidence needs to be specifically assessed in this type of malignancy among other gynecologic cancers.

Women Diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer: Patient and Carer Experiences and Perspectives

Purpose

By directly engaging with women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, this study aimed to explore and identify their view of the health symptoms and outcomes that matter most to them as they traverse their disease pathway.

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer have tended to focus on physical symptoms rather than the more complex psychosocial aspects of living with the disease. Using a "ground-up approach", this study sought to comprehensively understand the health concerns that matter most to women with ovarian cancer as a first step in generating items for development into an ovarian cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Patients and Methods

Following an extensive literature review, we sought to capture the "patient voice" through a qualitative descriptive approach including a community conversation with ovarian cancer patients, their carers and clinicians, and interviews and focus groups with women with ovarian cancer. Thirteen women were interviewed individually, and two focus groups were conducted. A template thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results

Key themes included challenges related to clinical diagnosis, treatment phase, altered relationships with family/friends, financial issues, relationships with health professionals and coping strategies. Within each key theme, several sub-themes emerged that were identified as various challenges experienced by participants. Diagnostic delay, chemotherapy and surgery-related challenges, negative impact of sexual well-being on partner relationship, communicational challenges with health professionals were among the few issues identified. In addition, self-empowerment was identified as a coping mechanism among participants.

Conclusion

By identifying priorities for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer we have highlighted the need for strategies to reduce diagnostic delays and improve quality of life for these women. Data will inform the development of an ovarian cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data.

RESULTS

The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib.

CONCLUSION

The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

The quality of life of long-term remission patients in the Vivrovaire study: The impact of ovarian cancer on patient trajectory

Objectives: In this study, we explored how ovarian cancer (OC) survivors give meaning to their cancer experience and how the latter has an impact on their quality of life (QOL).Participants: The sample comprised 16 OC patients participating in the French study Vivrovaire in Lyon who were in long-term remission.Methods: We employed a qualitative approach, based on semi-structured interviews. Using ATLAS.ti software, we performed a thematic analysis of the collected data.Findings: Three main OC-related themes emerged: body and physical issues; social life evolutions; participant retrospective perception of OC experience.Interpretation: Our results underline the need to take into account the various dimensions of patient identity when studying OC survivors' QOL and to consider intra-individual QOL evolutions from a temporal perspective.Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Helping patients acquire a sound understanding of their illness experience is an enormous challenge for OC healthcare.

Proactive use of PROMs in ovarian cancer survivors: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has increased during the past decade, and the focus on how to use them has resulted in a more proactive application. Studies have shown that proactive use of PROMs during treatment improves patient-clinician communication, leads to better symptom management and may prolong survival among advanced cancer patients. Ovarian cancer is a serious disease in which the majority of patients experience recurrence during the follow-up period and suffer from a number of severe symptoms from underlying disease. This systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence on the proactive use of PROMs as a dialogue tool during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients.

RESULTS

The following databases were searched for relevant literature; PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The search was conducted in April 2019 without any filters or limits. A total of 643 publications were identified, and 48 studies were found to be potentially eligible. Of the 48 papers, none met the final inclusion criterion of using PROMs proactively as a dialogue tool for ovarian cancer patients during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Studies have shown that PROMs can identify otherwise undetected symptoms. Using PROMs proactively during the consultation has been shown to improve symptom management for patients with some other types of cancer. However, we found no studies that had examined the proactive use of PROMs during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. Future studies should evaluate if the proactive use of PROMs could facilitate a more individualized and more effective follow-up program tailored to the ovarian cancer patient's needs and preferences.

Preoperative colonoscopy in patients with a supposed primary ovarian cancer

The final diagnosis of ovarian cancer is based on surgery and pathological verification. Therefore patients who are presented to surgery may be described only as supposed ovarian cancer. According to the literature the diagnosis of ovarian cancer is confirmed only in 2/3 of them. The rest are that which mimic ovarian cancer. One of them is colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is a gold standard in its diagnostics. On the other hand, ovarian cancer may disturb the bowel patency and makes the bowel resection or stoma necessary.The main aim was to find out the distribution of bowel patency disturbances in ovarian cancer patients during preoperative colonoscopy and to assess their predictive value with respect to the bowel resection or stoma and the additional aim to identify the pathologies which mimic the ovarian cancer.In a prospective study among 104 patients with supposed ovarian cancer, primary ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 68 patients. The rest of them suffered from colorectal cancer found at colonoscopy (N = 6), ovarian benign pathology (N = 8), ovarian borderline tumor (N = 5), and other nonandexal malignant diseases (N = 17). In ovarian cancer group dominated serous carcinoma and fedération international de gynécologie et d'obstétrique stage 3 (N = 33).During preoperative colonoscopy in ovarian cancer patients, the complete obstruction was found in 27.9%, and relative risk of bowel resection or stoma was in them 4.29 and 4.38, respectively. Another colonoscopic finding was limited patency caused by extrinsic compression (29%) which is connected with relative risk of bowel resection or stoma 3.16 and 3.21 accordingly. The last colonoscopy finding was described as moderate limited patency of unknown origin (20.6%) and the relative risk of bowel resection or stoma was 5.14 and 4.17, respectively.Colonoscopy enables the diagnoses of colorectal cancer one of the diseases which mimic ovarian cancer in patients supposed to have this diseases.Bowel patency disturbances found at colonoscopy are a potential risk factor to intestine resection or ostomy.Colonoscopy is not fully noninvasive procedure and its obligatory use in patients supposed to have ovarian cancer should be limited to the cases with specific symptoms, and tumor marker pattern. Preoperative computed tomography, dedicated to bowel examination, candidates as an alternative to colonoscopy, but not completely.

Relationships among Type-D personality, symptoms and quality of life in patients with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of Type-D personality and identify its relationships among the symptoms and quality of life in patients with ovarian cancer-receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 150 patients with ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy were recruited between December 2015 and August 2016. The subjects were assessed using the Type-D Personality Scale-14, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale - Short Form and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire completed through a face-to-face interview.

RESULTS

About 56% of patients were classified into the Type-D personality group. This personality group showed statistically significantly higher symptoms and lower quality of life than the non-Type-D personality group. According to stepwise multiple regression, the most significant factor influencing quality of life was symptoms, followed by Type-D personality, performance status and cancer stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of Type-D personality in patients with ovarian cancer was high, and Type-D personality was significantly associated with a high symptom score and lower quality of life. Health professionals should consider Type-D personality in the assessment and intervention of symptoms and quality of life, along with performance status and cancer stage.

Bevacizumab treatment and quality of life in advanced ovarian cancer

Despite improvements in surgery and chemotherapy treatments, the 5-year survival of ovarian cancer patients is far below 50%. As angiogenesis contributes to tumor growth and metastasis, bevacizumab, an antiangiogenetic monoclonal antibody, was studied in many solid cancers for which evidence of efficacy has been shown in several trials. The ICON7 randomized Phase III trial was designed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. The ICON7 study demonstrated for patients receiving bevacizumab: a progression-free survival advantage of 2.4 months; an overall survival benefit of 8 months in patients with high risk of progression; and a less than 10-point difference in quality of life (QoL) between the two groups. A detailed assessment of ICON7 QoL confirmed that bevacizumab continuation treatment seems to be associated with a small but clinically significant decrement in QoL. As development of existing and new antiangiogenesis drugs is mainly based on continuation schedules, studies taking into account the evolving interpretation of QoL data are needed.

Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer: quality-of-life outcomes from the International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms (ICON7) phase 3 randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 (ICON7) trial, bevacizumab improved progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer when used in combination with first-line chemotherapy and as a single-drug continuation treatment for 18 cycles. In a preliminary analysis of a high-risk subset of patients, there was also an improvement in overall survival. This study aims to describe the health-related quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes from ICON7.

METHODS

ICON7 is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, after a surgical procedure aiming to debulk the disease, women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) high-risk stage I-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) by computer program and block randomisation to receive either six cycles of standard chemotherapy (total 18 weeks) with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 or 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg) given intravenously with chemotherapy and continued as a single drug thereafter (total 54 weeks). The primary QoL endpoint was global QoL from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-core 30 at week 54, analysed by ANOVA and adjusted for baseline score. Analyses were by intention to treat. The ICON7 trial has completed recruitment and remains in follow-up. This study is registered, number ISRCTN91273375.

FINDINGS

764 women were randomly assigned to the standard chemotherapy group and 764 to the bevacizumab group. At baseline, 684 (90%) of women in the standard chemotherapy group and 691 (90%) of those in the bevacizumab group had completed QoL questionnaires. At week 54, 502 (66%) women in the bevacizumab group and 388 (51%) women in the standard chemotherapy group provided QoL data. Overall, the mean global QoL score improved during chemotherapy by 7·2 points (SD 24·4) when analysed for all women with data at baseline and week 18. The mean global QoL score at 54 weeks was higher in the standard chemotherapy group than in the bevacizumab group (76·1 [SD 18·2] vs 69·7 [19·1] points; difference 6·4 points, 95% CI 3·7-9·0, p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Bevacizumab continuation treatment seems to be associated with a small but clinically significant decrement in QoL compared with standard treatment for women with ovarian cancer. The trade-off between the prolongation of progression-free survival and the quality of that period of time needs to be considered in clinical practice when making treatment decisions.

FUNDING

Roche and the National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network.

State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Quality of Life Research: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become an increasingly important focus of outcomes in cancer care with the movement toward more patient-oriented research. Quality-of-life outcomes are important in ovarian cancer, which has not yet benefitted from improved survival outcomes as have other diseases. This study was designed to systematically assess and summarize HRQOL in ovarian cancer.

Methods

A systematic search strategy was initiated to identify published literature measuring HRQOL of women with a diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC). Data were synthesized to evaluate HRQOL and patient-reported outcome data at various time points: before, during, and after chemotherapy. Data were pooled and summary statistics compared across published studies. Comparisons of means were conducted using analysis of variance.

Results

There were 170 publications meeting all eligibility criteria, representing 139 unique studies of patients with ovarian cancer, where QOL data were collected. Within this literature, more than 90 different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments were administered. The most common HRQOL instruments included the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Few studies alone demonstrated significant differences in QOL between the experimental and comparison arm or throughout the treatment period. Pooled data, however, show that baseline QOL may significantly improve, particularly after completion of chemotherapy treatment.

Discussion

Despite the increase in assessment and reporting of QOL in ovarian cancer research studies during the past 15 years, there remains little consistency in the types and format of data collected. There is a need to enhance the standardized collection and reporting of HRQOL data from research involving women with ovarian cancer so that research can build on the cumulative knowledge base to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Quality-of-life results used to endorse changes in standard of care for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

Most women with ovarian cancer will suffer a recurrence. Unfortunately, although initial treatment can lead to undetectable disease, recurrent disease is often more challenging to control. As curative intent is less common after relapse, patients and doctors argue for improving quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes when therapies are selected. The article reviewed here discusses the QoL results of a trial in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer where over 900 patients were randomized to the standard treatment (carboplatin and paclitaxel) versus carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. In the paper under evaluation, the standard of care is challenged based on a favorable clinical outcome in addition to QoL results in the experimental arm.