Conventional therapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer—ie, aggressive cytoreductive surgery followed by aggressive chemotherapy—was established more than 3 decades ago [Editor’s note: See Dr. Schwartz’s article, “Cytoreductive Surgery in the Management of Ovarian Cancer,” in last month’s issue of ONCOLOGY]. Since that time, no prospective randomized trials have been reported to confirm the efficacy of this treatment strategy. Recent large retrospective studies have demonstrated that the greatest survival benefit is accrued to those who have no gross disease left after the initial surgical cytoreduction. This represents only 23% of stage III patients and 8% of stage IV patients.[1,2] Alternative strategies for patients who do not appear to be surgically cytoreducible to no macroscopic residual disease need to be identified.
One such strategy—chemotherapy administered prior to aggressive surgical cytoreduction, ie, neoadjuvant chemotherapy—is now being evaluated in three prospective randomized trials. Retrospective reports utilizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy suggest that a major benefit to this approach is a significantly higher rate of surgical cytoreduction to no visible disease. Additional benefits include a patient in a better nutritional state preoperatively than with conventional treatment. Surgery performed following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is routinely shorter in time, associated with less blood loss, shorter intensive care unit stays and shorter hospitalizations.
Survival data suggest no difference in the progression-free or overall survival for stage III disease patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or conventional therapy. Some reports suggest improved survival with stage IV patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with conventional therapy.
This article will review the current status of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the management of women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.
History of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy as used in this article refers to the administration of chemotherapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer prior to attempted surgical cytoreduction. This approach was first used at Yale University in 1979. The diagnosis of ovarian cancer was based on a computed tomography (CT) scan consistent with advanced-stage ovarian cancer and cytology consistent with a nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer.
The initial approach used at Yale University was to reserve neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women who were medically impaired such that their performance status would not allow them to undergo aggressive cytoreductive surgery. A decade after its use in that regard, it was recognized that there were ovarian cancer patients who, by CT criteria, were unlikely to be optimally surgically cytoreduced. Those patients were then offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the initial step in the management of their disease.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is insufficient for the initial treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer—it is only one event in the treatment course. Aggressive cytoreductive surgery is the necessary next step. Surgeons who are unprepared for aggressive cytoreductive surgery should not be performing the surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Such surgery should be done by a gynecologic oncologist prepared to do radical surgery necessary to remove all gross disease present following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Today, it is believed that the major value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is in preparing patients for aggressive cytoreductive surgery so that those patients can be optimally cytoreduced.
Patient Selection for Cytoreductive Surgery
Many attempts have been made to identify the patients unlikely to be optimally surgically cytoreduced. Diagnostic imaging has been employed. In 1993, Nelson et al published the Yale criteria for when patients are unlikely to be optimally cytoreduced. These criteria included a preoperative CT scan revealing the presence of an omental cake extending to the spleen, the diaphragm coated by cancer that extends to the liver serosa, greater than 2-cm lesions in the suprarenal para-aortic lymph nodes and in the portahepatis, parenchymal liver disease, pulmonary metastases, and enlarged pericardial lymph nodes. Since that time, numerous studies have been reported, some of which support the “Nelson criteria” and others that fail to support these criteria.[8-12]
A presurgical serum CA-125 level had been proposed as a means of identifying which patients could not be optimally surgically cytoreduced.[13-16] In the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience prior to the year 2000, patients whose serum CA-125 values were less than 500 U/mL could be optimally cytoreduced in 75% of cases, whereas those who had CA-125 values over 500 U/mL could not be optimally cytoreduced in 78% of cases. Since the year 2000, the gynecologic oncologists at that institution have employed a more radical approach to the surgical management of ovarian cancer. In their most recently reported experience, the serum CA-125 level no longer reflects their ability to optimally cytoreduce the patient. A similar observation had been made by the Yale investigators.
Because of the failure of either diagnostic imaging or serum CA-125 levels to consistently reflect the likelihood of suboptimally cytoreducing patients, laparoscopy has been utilized, to attempt to identify which patients can be optimally cytoreduced.[19-21] Currently, cytoreduction scores are being evaluated by physicians who are performing laparoscopy on their patients to identify those likely to be optimally cytoreduced. An attempt to use microarray techniques to identify advanced-stage ovarian cancer patients who might be optimally cytoreduced had a predictive accuracy of 72.7%, supporting the hypothesis that optimal surgical cytoreduction is due, at least in part, to biologic characteristics of the cancer. At present, there is no absolute way to identify which patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer will or will not be able to be optimally cytoreduced at the time of their initial operation.
What the Literature Suggests About Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Gynecologic oncologists have broadly accepted the concept that all patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer must initially be aggressively operated on to optimally surgically cytoreduce the cancer and then receive platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Any change to this approach should only be done under dire circumstances, such as extremely advanced disease in a patient with a very poor performance status or in a situation where change in treatment would significantly improve survival.
The currently available published data suggests that for most series, patients with stage IIIC disease do as well with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive cytoreductive surgery as they do with conventional treatment. However, it is routine in these retrospective, nonrandomized series that patients with the most advanced disease and the least likelihood to be optimally cytoreduced received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, whereas those with the least advanced disease and best chances to be optimally surgically cytoreduced underwent surgery first. For stage IV disease, there is retrospective evidence that patients do better with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
1. Winter WE 3rd, Maxell GL, Tian C, et al: Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 25:3621-3627, 2007.
2. Winter WE 3rd, Maxell GL, Tian C, et al: Tumor residual after surgical cytoreduction in prediction of clinical outcome in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 26:83-89, 2008.
3. Chambers JT, Chambers SK, Voynick IM, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage X ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 37:327-331, 1990.
4. Schwartz PE, Zheng W: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: The role of cytology in pretreatment diagnosis. Gynecol Oncol 90:644-650, 2003.
5. Schwartz PE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the management of ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 16:585-596, 2002.
6. Pecorelli S, Odicino F, Favalli G: Interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 16:573-583, 2002.
7. Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE: Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 11:166-172, 1993.
8. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al: Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 96:301-306, 2005.
9. Byrom J, Widjaja E, Redman CWE, et al: Can preoperative computed tomography predict respectability of ovarian carcinoma at primary laparotomy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 109:369-375, 2002.
10. Bristow RE, Duska L, Lambrou N, et al: A model for predicting surgical outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer 89:1532-1540, 2000.
11. Dowdy S, Mullany S, Brandt K, et al: The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 101:346-352, 2004.
12. Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE, et al: Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:384-389, 2007.
13. Chi DS, Venktraman ES, Masson V, et al: The ability of preoperative serum CA125 to predict optimal primary tumor cytoreduction in stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 77:227-231, 2000.
14. Obeidat B, Latimer J, Crawford R: Can optimal primary cytoreduction be predicted in advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer? Role of preoperative serum CA125 level. Gynecol Obstet Invest 57:153-156, 2004.
15. Memarzadeh S, Lee SB, Berek JS, et al: CA125 levels are a weak predictor of optimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 13:120-124, 2003.
16. Gemer O, Lurain M, Gdalevich M, et al: A multicenter study of CA125 as a predictor of non-optimal primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:1006-1010, 2005.
17. Chi DS, Franklin CC, Levine DA, et al: Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal cancer: A change in surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol 94:650-654, 2004.
18. Hou JY, Kelly MG, Yu H, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy lessens surgical morbidity in advanced ovarian cancer and leads to improved survival in stage IV disease. Gynecol Oncol 105:211-217, 2007.
19. Angioli R, Palaia I, Zullo MA, et al: Diagnostic open laparoscopy in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 100:455-461, 2006.
20. Deffieux C, Castaigne D, Pomel C: Role of laparoscopy to evaluated candidates for complete cytoreduction in advanced stages of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:35-40, 2006.
21. Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Fanfani F, et al: A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: A pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol 13:1156-1161, 2006.
22. Berchuck A, Iversen ES, Lancaster JM, et al: Prediction of optimal versus suboptimal cytoreduction of advanced-stage serous ovarian cancer with the use of microarrays. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:910-925, 2004.
23. Bristow RE, Eisenhauer EL, Santillan A, et al: Delaying the primary surgical effort for advanced ovarian cancer: A systematic review of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction. Gynecol Oncol 104:480-490, 2007.
24. Bristow RE, Chi DS: Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 103:1070-1076, 2006.
25. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al: Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 334:1-6, 1996.
26. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, et al: Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 354:34-43, 2006.
27. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Friedman RL, et al: Relative influence of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 90:390-396, 2003.
28. Vergote I, deWever I, Tjalma W, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of 285 patients. Gynecol Oncol 71:431-436, 1998.
29. Rafii A, Deval B, Geay J-F, et al: Treatment of FIGO stage IV ovarian carcinoma: Results of primary surgery or interval surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A retrospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:777-783, 2007.
30. Eitan R, Levine DA, Abu-Rustum N, et al: The clinical significance of malignant pleural effusions in patients with optimally debulked ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 103:1397-1401, 2005.
31. Juretzka MM, Abu-Rustum N, Sonoda Y, et al: The impact of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in patients with suspected advanced ovarian malignancies and pleural effusions. Gynecol Oncol 104:670-674, 2007.
32. Schmeler KM, Sun CC, Bodurka DC, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol 108:510-514, 2008.
33. Gershenson DM, Sun CC, Lu KH, et al: Clinical behavior of stage II-IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. Obstet Gynecol 108:361-368, 2006.
34. Chan YM, Ng TY, Ngan H, et al: Quality of life in women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: A prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Oncol 88:9-16, 2003.
35. Crawford SC, Vasey PA, Paul J, et al: Does aggressive surgery only benefit patients with less advanced ovarian cancer? Results from and international comparison within the SCOTROC-1 trial. J Clin Oncol 23:8802-8811, 2005.
36. Onda T, Matsumoto K, Shibata T, et al: Phase III trial of upfront debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study. JCO 0602. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38:74-77, 2008.
37. Le T, Faught W, Hopkins L, et al: Primary chemotherapy and adjuvant tumor debulking in the management of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:770-775, 2005.
38. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC, et al: Analysis of factors impacting operability in stage IV ovarian cancer. Rationale use of a triage system. Gynecol Oncol 105:84-89, 2007.
39. Tiersten A, Liu P, Smith H, et al: Phase II evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy in women with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group study (abstract 3). Presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, Tampa, Fla, March 9, 2008. Gynecol Oncol 108:S3, 2008.
40. Griffiths CT: Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Mongr 421:101-104, 1975.
41. Rossi DJ, Jamieson CHM, Weissman IL: Stem cells and the pathways to aging and cancer. Cell 132:681-696, 2008.