Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer
Based on guidelines from SUO and ASCO.
Evaluation
Stage IIIC-IV
All women with suspected stage IIIC or IV (FIGO Staging) invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy to determine whether they are candidates for primary cytoreductive surgery.
A primary clinical evaluation should include a CT of the abdomen and pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast and chest imaging (CT preferred) to evaluate the extent of disease and the feasibility of surgical resection. The use of other tools to refine this assessment may include laparoscopic evaluation or additional radiographic imaging (e.g. FDG-PET scan or diffusion-weighted MRI).
Primary Cytoreductive Surgery Not Recommended
Women who have a high perioperative risk profile or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to <1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Neoadjuvant Therapy vs Primary Cytoreductive Surgery
For women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, with potentially resectable disease, either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery may be offered based on data from phase III RCTs that demonstrate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is noninferior to primary cytoreductive surgery with respect to progression-free and overall survival. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalizations, but primary cytoreductive surgery may offer superior survival in selected patients.
Evaluation
For women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery but are deemed unlikely to have cytoreduction to <1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) by a gynecologic oncologist, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended over primary cytoreductive surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalizations.
Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have histologic confirmation (core biopsy preferred) of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. In exceptional cases, when a biopsy cannot be performed, cytologic evaluation combined with a serum CA-125 to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ratio >25 is acceptable to confirm the primary diagnosis and exclude cancers that are not ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinomas.
Treatment
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Interval Cytoreductive Surgery
RCTs tested surgery following three or four cycles of chemotherapy in women who had a response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or stable disease. Interval cytoreductive surgery should be performed after ≤4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. Alternate timing of surgery has not been prospectively evaluated but may be considered based on patient-centered factors.
Progressive Disease
Patients with progressive disease on neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. Options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or discontinuation of active cancer therapy and initiation of end-of-life care. In general, there is little role for surgery and it is not typically advised, unless for palliation (e.g. relief of a bowel obstruction).
What do the icons mean?
How strong is the SGO and ASCO's recommendation?
Strong recommendation
High confidence that recommendation reflects best practice, based on (1) strong evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, with no or minor exceptions; (3) minor or no concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.Moderate recommendation
Moderate confidence that recommendation reflects best practice, based on (1) good evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, with minor and/or few exceptions; (3) minor and/or few concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.Weak recommendation
Some confidence that recommendation offers the best current guidance for practice, based on (1) limited evidence for true net effect (benefits > harms); (2) consistent results, but with important exceptions; (3) concerns about study quality; and/or (4) extent of panelists’ agreement.High quality evidence
High confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of net effect (i.e., balance of benefits vs harms) and that further research is very unlikely to change either magnitude or direction of this net effect.Intermediate quality evidence
Moderate confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of net effect. Further research is unlikely to alter the direction of the net effect; however, it might alter the magnitude of the net effect.Low quality evidence
Low confidence that available evidence reflects true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research may change either the magnitude and/or direction of this net effect.Insufficient evidence
Evidence is insufficient to discern true magnitude and direction of net effect. Further research may better inform the topic. The use of the consensus opinion of experts is reasonable to inform outcomes related to the topic.