Management Of Advanced Ovarian Cancer Research Articles

Ovarian cancer management in an ESGO ovarian cancer center of excellence: a systematic case study of the interprofessional and interdisciplinary interaction

PurposeWith growing knowledge about ovarian cancer over the last decades, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of ovarian cancer patients have become highly specialized, and an individually adapted approach should be made in each woman by interdisciplinary cooperation. The present study aims to show the variety and extent of medical specialties involved at our institution according to the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ESGO) Quality indicators (QI).MethodsA woman, diagnosed with high-grade ovarian cancer, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) class IVb was selected for a single case observational study. The observation period (total = 22d) comprised preoperative diagnostic procedures, including imaging, the in-patient stay for cytoreductive surgery, and the postoperative course and case discussion at our interdisciplinary tumor board. Data were obtained by self-reporting and by patient file review.ResultsPatient tracking demonstrated an interdisciplinary cooperation of 12 medical specialties [62 physicians (63% male, 37% female)], 8 different types of nursing staff [n = 59 (22% male, 78% female)], and 9 different types of perioperative/administrative staff (n = 23; male 17,4%, female n = 19, 82,6%). Contact with the patient was direct (n = 199; 76%) or without face-to-face interaction (n = 63; 24%).ConclusionThe present study demonstrates the high diversity of physicians and the affiliated medical staff, as well as interdisciplinary intersections within teams of a specialized hospital. Matching the ESGO QIs, this report underlines the requirement of an adequate infrastructure for the complex management of advanced ovarian cancer patients.Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the specific procedures and actions to optimize the interprofessional and interdisciplinary workflows.

Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on the Management and Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer in the UK: Results From the KNOW-OC Survey

AimsNew treatment options for advanced ovarian cancer have the potential to significantly change the treatment pathway in the UK. Understanding the structures and responsibilities of multidisciplinary teams/tumour boards (MDT) and regional variations will enable services to adapt more effectively to these changes. Materials and methodsThe KNOW-OC survey was conducted in 2020 to understand the views of a selected group of 66 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in advanced ovarian cancer care in UK hospitals. ResultsThe results showed that MDT involvement in the management of advanced ovarian cancer varied depending on pathway stage and line of relapse, with 98.5% of HCPs responding that the MDT was involved in decisions at initial presentation, but only 40.9% for patients with multiple relapses. The MDT was mostly responsible for determining whether the patients would undergo primary or interval cytoreductive surgery according to 75.8% of respondents, and most HCPs (80.3%) stated that tumour dissemination patterns were the most important factor influencing this decision. The most commonly assessed biomarkers at the time of the survey were CA125, gBRCA and tBRCA. Homologous recombination deficiency was viewed as the second most important factor for determining prognosis, but few centres had access to testing at the time of survey completion. The use of active surveillance was expected to decrease in favour of first-line targeted therapies. Nearly all (98.5%) HCPs agreed there is a role for secondary cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of recurrence (for carefully selected patients). ConclusionsThe results highlighted UK-specific geographical variation in the views of HCPs on MDT involvement and specific practices, such as molecular biomarker testing, and the overall treatment approach. Together, these findings improve the understanding of reported clinical practice across the UK for ovarian cancer and provide insight into decision-making associated with updates to recommendations for best practice (e.g. European Society for Medical Oncology/European Society of Gynaecological Oncology consensus statements) and the introduction of new treatment options.

Efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy plus cytoreductive surgery for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the safety and efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in the treatment of advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer. An electronic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Medline, and Web of Science, was performed to collect controlled studies on HIPEC combined with CRS administered for advanced ovarian cancer. Meta-analysis was conducted based on the outcome indicators extracted from the included studies, including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). Twelve pieces of literature were included, involving 1,622 participants, with 694 participants in the control group and 928 in the study group. In terms of DFS, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.84), with an HR of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.93) in the treatment-naïve subgroup and an HR of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.74) in the secondary cytoreduction subgroup. In terms of OS, the pooled HR was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.77), with an HR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.83) in the treatment-naïve subgroup and an HR of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.77) in the secondary cytoreduction subgroup. With regard to AEs, the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.92). The benefits of CRS plus HIPEC for the management of advanced ovarian cancer are significant but also associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Thus, clinical use of this co-administration requires caution.

Evolutions in the management of advanced ovarian cancer

Evolutions in the management of advanced ovarian cancer

Can EPIC Be a Low-Cost Alternative to HIPEC in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Resource-Constraint Settings? Experience from Tertiary Care Oncology Center.

Management of advanced ovarian cancer underwent a paradigm shift with advent of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy requires complex machinery and costly disposables, and increased operative time. Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy is a relatively less resource-intensive alternative way of intraperitoneal drug delivery. We started our HIPEC programme in 2013. In select cases, we offer EPIC. This study is an audit of outcomes to look into the feasibility of EPIC as alternative to HIPEC. We performed analysis of prospectively maintained database in the Department of Surgical oncology from January 2019 to June 2022. We had 15 patients who underwent CRS + EPIC and 84 CRS+ HIPEC. We did a propensity-matched analysis for demographics, baseline data and PCI and compared 15 CRS + EPIC with 15 CRS + HIPEC patients. We compared the perioperative outcomes-morbidity, mortality, length of ICU and hospital stay. Procedure time was significantly higher in the HIPEC compared to EPIC as HIPEC is an intraoperative procedure. Patients were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after surgery for a longer mean duration in HIPEC arm (1.4 + 0.7 days) compared to EPIC arm (1.2 + 0.41 days). Patients in HIPEC arm had a significantly shorter hospital stay (mean 7.93 vs. 9.93 days. Four patients in EPIC arm had Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 morbidity compared to 1 patient in HIPEC arm. Hematological toxicity was more common in EPIC group. CRS with EPIC can be explored as an alternative to HIPEC in centres lacking facilities and expertise for HIPEC.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: A nonselected consecutive series of robotic-assisted cases

The gold standard for advanced-stage ovarian cancer surgery entails exploration via a midline vertical laparotomy. Studies have shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be a safe and effective method for the surgical management of early ovarian cancer. In some cases, MIS can also be selectively used for cytoreductive surgery in cases with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. The robotic platform has the potential to provide similar outcomes to the laparotomy-based standard of care in advanced complex surgery while accelerating recovery, minimizing morbidity, and reducing perioperative complications. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate surgical and perioperative outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma who underwent robotic-assisted cytoreduction. A chart review of a nonselected consecutive series of all patients undergoing surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer between 7/1/2017 and 12/31/2021 was conducted. All patients that were diagnosed with Stage III to IV ovarian cancer between the timeframe underwent robotic-assisted cytoreductive surgery at two urban community teaching hospitals in Los Angeles. Twenty-five patients were identified and included in this study. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Optimal or complete CRS was achieved in 96% of the patients (24 of 25 cases). Seven (28%) underwent primary cytoreduction (PCRS) and 18 (72%) underwent interval cytoreduction (ICRS). The estimated median blood loss was 100 mL (25-500 mL), the median operative time was 5.9 hours (3.1-10.5 hours), and the conversion rate to open laparotomy was 0%. There were no intraoperative complications and the readmission rate within 30 days was 4% (1 patient) for ileus, which was managed conservatively. Currently, 64% of the patients in the case series remain alive. The median survival has not been reached. The median follow-up is 4.08 years. Results presented from this nonselected, consecutive case series illustrate how a minimally invasive robotic approach can be safely used in place of the standard exploratory laparotomy for ovarian cytoreduction.

Consensus on the management of platinum-sensitive high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer in Lebanon

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer. The high grade serous epithelial (HGSE) subtype is the most aggressive and it often presents at advanced stages, while screening programs have not proven beneficial. Management of the advanced stages (FIGO III and IV), which constitute the majority of diagnoses, usually consists of platinum-based chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval) followed by maintenance therapy. Currently, the standard-of-care for advanced newly diagnosed HGSE ovarian cancer, as per international medical societies, starts with upfront cytoreductive surgery, followed by platinum-based chemotherapy (mostly carboplatin and paclitaxel) and/or anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab, then maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor with/without/or bevacizumab (continued). PARP inhibitor use depends on the patient’s genetic signature, mainly the breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation and the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Therefore, genetic testing is recommended at diagnosis to inform treatment and prognosis.In line with the evolving standard-of-care for ovarian cancer, a panel of experts in treating advanced ovarian cancer convened to lay down practical recommendations on the management of advanced ovarian cancer in Lebanon; since the currently applicable guidelines by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health for cancer treatment have not been updated yet to reflect the treatment paradigm shift brought upon by the development and approval of PARP inhibitors. The current work reviews the leading clinical trials on PARP inhibitors (as maintenance for newly diagnosed advanced and platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer), presents international recommendations, and proposes treatment algorithms for optimal local practice.

Frontline Management of Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Statement by the Africa Middle East Cancer Inter-group [AMCI

Abstract: Worldwide, ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women. Despite the recent progress in the treatment of advanced OC, oncologists in many parts of the world still face several difficulties and constraints in their daily management of their patients. In addition to the shortage of resources and expertise, non-adherence to the up to date international guidelines has been identified as a major obstacle towards the improvement of treatment outcomes in the majority of developing countries, including the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries. A multidisciplinary gynecological oncology panel from the MENA region met virtually in December 2020 to discuss the challenges and hurdles faced by the community oncologists in the management of advanced OC. This manuscript reviews the key molecular and clinical studies that shaped the current international guidelines and suggests several modifications to make them more adaptable to the health status of developing countries of this region

Controversies in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in the PARP inhibitors era: a Delphi consensus.

Our aim was to reach a consensus on the management of the most controversial issues of advanced ovarian cancer. Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4. Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement. Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.

Management of advanced ovarian cancer in Leicester: The benefits of a paradigm shift in surgical approach.

Surgery for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) has evolved over the past decade to ingeminate the need to offer maximum effort surgery (MES). The aim of this study is to analyze the implementation of a paradigm shift in the surgical management of women with AOC at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) in 2015, until 2020, compared to 2011-2014. Retrospective cohort study of women with AOC who underwent cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in the UHL. The two groups were: 153 women from January 2011 to December 2014 (group 1), 136 women from January 2015 to January 2020 (group 2). In group 1, the 1, 3, and 5 years overall survival rates (OS) were, 90.4%, 33.7%, and 19.3%, compared to 90.2%, 55.4%, and 29.7%, respectively, in group 2 (p=0.012). Significantly more women had CRS in group 2: 45-Primary debulking surgery (PDS) and 57-interval debulking surgery (IDS) versus 17-PDS & 67-IDS in group 1 (p < 0.001). Surgical complexity score (modified Aletti score) was higher in group 2 compared to group 1 (p=<0.001). No significant difference was noted in the postoperative complications, in group 2, in women who underwent PDS versus IDS, yet PDS was associated with higher OS. MES/CRS in women with AOC significantly improves OS. Our data highlights the importance of a dedicated team to implement this change in cancer centers. Where possible, suitable women with AOC likely to have complete cytoreduction based on preoperative assessment, should be offered PDS.

586P BRCA1, BRCA2 and RAD51C somatic RNAseq study in ovarian cancer: A description of physiological and pathogenic splicing patterns

Genomic molecular profiling is becoming a key step in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Currently, the main indication for tumor analysis is on DNA (BRCA1/2 mutations and HRD status); there is no indication for RNA tumor analysis. The aims of this work were to describe physiological splicing profiles of BRCA1, BRCA2 and RAD51C in ovarian tissue and then search for pathogenic splicing of these genes in patients with high-grade serous papillary adenocarcinomas stage III of FIGO classification with good response to neoadjuvant cisplatin. RNAseq (Agilent SureSelect XT HS/capture-based target enrichment and NextSeq 550 Illumina Sequencer) was performed on RNA extracted from ovarian cell lines OVCAR4 and COV318 and five pre-cisplatin frozen ovarian tumors with wild-type BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic DNA screening. We obtained the Genomic Instability Score with Myriad approach and performed RNAseq on post-cisplatin FFPE ovarian block. We also checked BRCA1 methylation status by digital PCR before their inclusion to describe physiological splicing patterns, in addition to OVCAR4 and COV318. A pathogenic skip of BRCA1 exon 3 was found in one tumor at a high level, comparing to the normal transcript. The loss of exon 3 caused a truncation of BRCA1 protein at codon 27; no variant was identified on DNA. This splicing event explained the high GIS at 66 and the good clinical response to cisplatin. Exon 3 skipping was tumoral as it was absent on the post-cisplatin residual ovarian block. Another tumor was BRCA1 methylated. There were neither enrichment of alternative nor novel splicing event of BRCA1, BRCA2 and RAD51C, specific of ovarian tissue. Physiological splicing profiles were qualitatively and quantitatively close to those reported in lymphoblastoid cell lines. Unlike BRCA2 and RAD51C, five known reported transcripts of BRCA1 were missing in the ovarian tissue. We provided a complete description of physiological splicing profiles of BRCA1, BRCA2 and RAD51C in the ovarian tissue. We also showed that somatic RNAseq analysis in ovarian cancer may modify the therapeutic prognosis by allowing access to targeted therapies.

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the Management of Ovarian Cancer-National Results from Croatia.

Today, in the era of precision medicine, the determination of genomic instability or other potentially targetable mutations, along with BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, is a crucial component of the diagnosis and treatment management of advanced ovarian cancer. Advanced technologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) have enabled comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) analysis to become more feasible for routine use in daily clinical work. Here, we present the results for the first two years of an analysis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer on a national level. The aim was to establish the position of CGP in the daily clinical practice of treating ovarian cancer. We performed a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis on the total population of Croatian patients who were newly diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic ovarian cancer or whose initial disease had progressed from 1 January 2020 to 1 December 2021, and whose tumors underwent CGP analysis. All 86 patients (100%) analyzed with CGP had at least one genomic alteration (GA). The median LOH was 14.6 (IQR 6.8–21.7), with 35 patients (41%) having an LOH ≥ 16. We found BRCA-positive status in 22 patients (26%). Conventional testing, which detects only BRCA mutations, would have opted for therapy with PARP inhibitors in 22 (26%) of our patients. However, CGP revealed the need for PARP inhibitors in 35 patients (41%). The results identified a significantly higher number of women who would achieve a possible benefit from targeted therapy. Hence, we believe that CGP should be a backbone diagnostic tool in the management of ovarian cancer.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer. A Literature Review

The rationale behind the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery is the association between pharmacological activity of chemotherapy delivered to the peritoneal cavity with the enhanced cytotoxic effect of hyperthermia. Data on the efficacy of HIPEC in the primary debulking surgery (PDS) setting are still controversial and limited by the small sample size of most of the studies, the inclusion of different treatment settings and chemotherapy regimens. Among the ongoing prospective trials, only the OVHIPEC-2 trial is investigating exclusively patients submitted to PDS ± HIPEC with cisplatin 100 mg/m22 and results are expected by 2026. On the interval debulking surgery (IDS) setting high quality data are coming from the result of the OVHIPEC-1 trial, which demonstrated a survival advantage of nearly 4 months in median progression-free survival (PFS) (14.2 months vs. 10.7 months; p = 0.003) and almost 12 months in median overall survival (OS) (45.7 months vs. 33.9 months; p = 0.02) for HIPEC treated patients (cisplatin 100 mg/m22) compared to no-HIPEC group, with comparable morbidity. However, due to some criticisms raised to the results of OVHIPEC-1 trial, the ESMO-ESGO guidelines recommended not to consider HIPEC as standard therapy until results from ongoing randomized control trials (RCTs) are provided. On the contrary, for the National Comprehensive cancer network (NCCN) guidelines HIPEC can be considered at the time of IDS. Similarly, data supporting the role of HIPEC in association with surgery in case of recurrent disease appear to be controversial in terms of patients and selection and intraperitoneal chemotherapy regimen. Indeed, despite the positive results coming from a prospective randomized trial, they appear to be biased by the inclusion of both platinum sensitive and resistant disease and the lack of information on PFS. Those results are in contrast with data coming from another prospective trial, which failed to demonstrate a survival gain of recurrent ovarian cancer patients treated with secondary cytoreductive surgery + HIPEC with carboplatin (800 mg/m22 for 90 min) compared to women submitted to cytoreduction only. Again, in this subgroup of patients data of ongoing RCTs are awaited to assess the impact on survival of HIPEC administration in case of recurrent disease.

Laparoscopic management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a phase II prospective multicenter non-randomized trial (the CILOVE study)

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic approach after neoadjuvant chemotherapy among selected chemosensitive patients with advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsThe CILOVE study was...

Management of advanced ovarian cancer in Spain: an expert Delphi consensus

BackgroundTo determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors.MethodsThe questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale.ResultsIn the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented.ConclusionsThis survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.

Impact on survival of surgical therapeutic strategy in the initial management of advanced ovarian cancer: A study from the Cote d’Or gynaecological cancer registry from 1998 to 2015.

e17537 Background: The management of ovarian cancer is based on a combination of surgery and chemotherapy. The aim of surgery is to achieve zero residual tumour at the end of the procedure. In advanced stage ovarian cancer, two therapeutic approaches are possible: primary debulking surgery, or primary chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery. The primary objective of this study was to describe overall survival (OS) in FIGO stage III and IV ovarian cancers according to the therapeutic sequence (i.e. primary surgery or interval surgery). Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational study using data from the gynecological cancer registry of the Cote d’Or, for patients diagnosed with FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer between 1998 and 2015. We recorded FIGO stage, histological type, treatment and completeness of cytoreduction. Results: In total, 460 patients were included. OS at 5 years was 47% in patients with primary surgery, versus 38% in patients with interval surgery (p = 0.06). Five-year OS was 45% in patients with complete cytoreduction, versus 30% in those with incomplete cytoreduction (p &lt; 0.001). The rate of complete cytoreduction was 43% in patients with primary surgery, versus 55% in those with interval surgery. Conclusions: OS appears to be slightly better in patients receiving primary surgery, and when cytoreduction is complete. Every effort should be made during surgery to achieve complete cytoreduction, by an experienced team. Primary surgery should be preferred in these patients.

Prediction of optimal debulking surgery in ovarian cancer.

The mainstay management of advanced ovarian cancer is maximal cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS) are alternative treatments for patients with comorbidity, poor performance status, and predicted for suboptimal debulking surgery. It is the invariable principle in any situation that no residual disease after the completion of surgery is useful for patients with ovarian cancer. Therefore, the prediction of optimal debulking before the treatment of ovarian cancer is of utmost importance. Many studies have reported on the use of serum biomarkers, such as cancer antigen 125 (CA125) or human epididymis 4 (HE4), and imaging studies, such as computed tomography (CT), diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, to identify adequate surgical candidates for primary debulking surgery (PDS). Laparoscopy has also been studied as a reliable tool for the prediction of optimal debulking. Here, we summarize a review of the related literature.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Quality of advanced ovarian cancer surgery: A French assessment of ESGO quality indicators

ObjectivesIn 2016, the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO) published indicators defining the quality of surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the study was to assess the quality of ovarian cancer patient management in regional centers authorized for gynecological cancer, based on the ESGO list of quality indicators. MethodsA multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1 to June 30, 2016. The following quality indicators 1 “rate of complete surgical resection”, 4 “center participating in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology”, 5 “treatment planned and reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting”, 6 “required preoperative workup”, 8 “minimum required elements in operative reports” and 9 “minimum required elements in pathology reports” were selected. Results91 patients were evaluated in 16 centers. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 25% of cases. Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 24%. An evaluation score of peritoneal involvement was included in 40% of the operative reports and the quality of surgical resection was reported in 72%. Primary surgery was most often performed in a peripheral hospital (48%), interval surgery in a private center (37%), and closure surgery in a regional cancer center (43%). No institution respected the six quality indicators evaluated. One regional cancer center respected five items and two private centers did not respect any. ConclusionWhilst the ESGO quality indicators provide objective, validated and evaluable support which centers can use to improve quality of care, we observed heterogeneous practices amongst the centers evaluated.

Long-term survival outcomes of intravenous versus intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

6046 Background: The role of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy in the management of advanced ovarian cancer has been questioned given emerging evidence showing lack of survival benefits. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term survival associated with IP chemotherapy at a tertiary cancer center. Methods: We reviewed the long-term survival records of 271 women with stage IIIC or IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) followed by IP or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy between 2001-2015 with a minimum follow-up of 4 years. 5-year progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and covariates were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Women who received IP chemotherapy after PCS (n = 91) were more likely to have undergone aggressive surgery (p &lt; 0.001), longer surgery (p &lt; 0.001), and had no residual disease (p &lt; 0.001) compared to the IV arm (n = 180). Median follow-up was 51.6 months. Five-year PFS was 19% vs. 18% (p = 0.63) and OS was 73% vs. 44% (p = 0.00016) in the IP vs. IV arms, respectively. After controlling for covariates in a multivariable model, the use of IP was no longer a significant predictor of OS in the entire cohort (p = 0.12). In patients with 0mm residual disease, PFS was 28% vs. 26% (p = 0.67) and OS was 81% vs. 60% (p = 0.059) in IP (n = 61) vs. IV (n = 69), respectively. In patients with residual of 1-9mm, PFS was 30% vs. 48% (p = 0.076) and OS was 60% vs. 43% (p = 0.74) in IP (n = 29) vs. IV (n = 31), respectively. Conclusions: IP chemotherapy showed a trend towards improved survival over conventional IV chemotherapy, especially in patients with no residual disease. Given the retrospective nature and small numbers in this study, prospective non-randomized cohort studies are warranted to evaluate the role of IP chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.