Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence)

Adjuvant (post-surgery) chemotherapy for early stage epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer to determine whether chemotherapy following surgery offers a survival advantage over the policy of observation following surgery (with chemotherapy reserved for treatment of disease recurrence); and to determine if clinical subgroups of women with differing prognoses, based on histological subtype or completeness of surgical staging, have more or less to gain from adjuvant chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search using the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1948 to March week 5, 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to week 14, 2015). We developed the search strategy using free-text and medical subject headings (MeSH). We also searched registers of clinical trials and citation lists of included studies for potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of women with early stage (I/IIa) epithelial ovarian cancer staged at laparotomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality of included RCTs. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We used random-effects methods for all meta-analyses, including subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: The original version of this Cochrane review included five RCTs involving 1277 women. In this 2015 update, no new studies met the inclusion criteria but we included an additional paper with mature data (10-year follow-up) relating to a previously included study (ICON1).We included four studies in the meta-analyses and considered them to be at a low risk of bias. Most study participants (> 95%) had stage I ovarian cancer. Meta-analysis of five-year data from three studies indicated that women who received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy had better overall survival (OS) than those who did not (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.93; 1008 women; 3 studies; I² statistic = 0%; high quality evidence). Likewise, meta-analysis of five-year data from four studies indicated that women who received adjuvant chemotherapy had better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who did not (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84; 1170 women, 4 studies; I² statistic = 0%; high quality evidence). These findings were robust over time, with 10-year HR estimates of 0.72 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.92; 925 women, 2 studies) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; 925 women, 2 studies) for OS and PFS, respectively (high quality evidence). The risk of death at 10 years follow-up favoured the adjuvant chemotherapy arm (0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; 923 women, 2 studies; I² statistic = 0%), as did the findings for risk of progression at 10 years (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 925 women, 2 studies; I² statistic = 0%). Low quality evidence suggested that women with high-risk disease may have the most to gain from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, subgroup analyses could neither confirm nor exclude survival benefits in lower risk disease or in optimally staged disease. We found insufficient data to compare adverse events and long term risks between chemotherapy and observation groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence indicates that adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is effective in prolonging survival in women with early stage (FIGO stage I/IIa) epithelial ovarian cancer. It remains uncertain whether women with low- and intermediate-risk early stage disease will benefit as much from adjuvant chemotherapy as women with high-risk disease. Decisions to use adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in these women should be mindful of this uncertainty, and the uncertainty regarding adverse events. Treatment of women with lower risk disease should be individualised to take into account individual factors. BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the review first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2009, Issue 1. Epithelial ovarian cancer is diagnosed in over 200,000 women worldwide each year. Ten to 20% of women are diagnosed early, when there is still a good possibility of cure. The treatment of early-stage (stage I and IIa) disease involves surgery to remove the disease, often followed by chemotherapy (adjuvant chemotherapy). The largest clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy show an overall survival (OS) advantage with platinum-based chemotherapy; however the precise role and type of this treatment in subgroups of women with differing prognoses needs to be defined