Ronald D. Alvarez

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country’s fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined. RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.

PURPOSE: Progestins have definite activity against advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Both parenteral and oral progestins yield similar serum levels and response rates, which range from 18% to 34%. The one major study that used oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) noted a response rate at the lower end of the range (18%) and much poorer progression-free and overall survival times (4 and 10.5 months, respectively) than previously reported. The present study sought to confirm this earlier study of oral MPA, to assess the importance of prognostic factors such as histologic grade and receptor levels, and to determine whether a higher dose of MPA would yield a higher response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred ninety-nine eligible women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma were randomized to receive oral MPA either 200 mg/d or 1,000 mg/d until unacceptable toxicity intervened or their disease progressed. RESULTS: Among 145 patients receiving the low-dose regimen, there were 25 complete (17%) and 11 partial (8%) responses for an overall response rate of 25%. The 154 patients receiving the high-dose regimen experienced 14 (9%) complete and 10 (6%) partial responses for an overall response rate of 15%. Median durations of progression-free survival were 3.2 months and 2.5 months for the low-dose and high-dose regimens, respectively. Median survival durations were 11.1 months and 7.0 months, respectively. The adjusted relative odds of responding to the high-dose regimen compared with the low-dose regimen was 0.61 (90% confidence interval, 0.36 to 1.04). Prognostic factors having a significant impact on the probability of response included initial performance status, age, histologic grade, and progesterone receptor concentration. Compliance with oral therapy was documented with serum levels 1 month after starting therapy, when possible. MPA levels were commensurate with the assigned dose and schedule. CONCLUSION: Oral MPA is active against endometrial carcinoma. Response to progestin therapy is more frequent among patients with a well-differentiated histology and positive progesterone receptor status. This study provides no evidence to support the use of MPA 1,000 mg/d orally instead of MPA 200 mg/d orally. In fact, the trends suggest the opposite. The use of oral MPA 200 mg/d is a reasonable initial approach to the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly those lesions that are well-differentiated and/or progesterone receptor-positive (&gt; 50 fmol/mg cytosol protein). Patients with poorly differentiated and/or progesterone receptor levels less than 50 fmol/mg cytosol protein had only an 8% to 9% response rate.