Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Primary Surgery in Stage IIIC or IV Ovarian Cancer

Ignace Vergote(KU Leuven), Claes G. Tropé(Norwegian Cancer Society), Frédéric Amant, Gunnar B. Kristensen(Norwegian Cancer Society), Tom Ehlen(University of British Columbia), Nick Johnson(Royal United Hospital), René H.M. Verheijen(Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Maria E.L. van der Burg(Erasmus MC), Ángel J. Lacave(Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias), Pierluigi Benedetti Panici(Sapienza University of Rome), Gemma G. Kenter(Leiden University Medical Center), Antonio Casado, César Mendiola(Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre), Corneel Coens(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer), Leen Verleye(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer), Gavin Stuart(University of British Columbia), Sërgio Pecorelli(Brescia University), N.S. Reed(Gartnavel General Hospital)
New England Journal of Medicine
September 1, 2010
Cited by 2,510Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary debulking surgery before initiation of chemotherapy has been the standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian-tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma to primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy or to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery (so-called interval debulking surgery). RESULTS: Of the 670 patients randomly assigned to a study treatment, 632 (94.3%) were eligible and started the treatment. The majority of these patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at primary debulking surgery (metastatic lesions that were larger than 5 cm in diameter in 74.5% of patients and larger than 10 cm in 61.6%). The largest residual tumor was 1 cm or less in diameter in 41.6% of patients after primary debulking and in 80.6% of patients after interval debulking. Postoperative rates of adverse effects and mortality tended to be higher after primary debulking than after interval debulking. The hazard ratio for death (intention-to-treat analysis) in the group assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking, as compared with the group assigned to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, was 0.98 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.13; P=0.01 for noninferiority), and the hazard ratio for progressive disease was 1.01 (90% CI, 0.89 to 1.15). Complete resection of all macroscopic disease (at primary or interval surgery) was the strongest independent variable in predicting overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was not inferior to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma in this study. Complete resection of all macroscopic disease, whether performed as primary treatment or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, remains the objective whenever cytoreductive surgery is performed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003636.)


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis