Objective
To compare
the survival impact of diagnosing recurrent disease by routine
surveillance testing versus clinical symptomatology in patients with
recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who have achieved a complete
response following primary therapy.
Methods
We
identified all patients who underwent primary surgery for EOC at two
institutions between 1/1997 and 12/2004 and were diagnosed with
recurrent disease following a complete clinical response to primary
chemotherapy. Survival and post-recurrence management were compared
between asymptomatic patients in which recurrent disease was diagnosed
at a scheduled visit by routine surveillance testing and symptomatic
patients in which recurrent disease was diagnosed based on clinical
symptomatology at an unscheduled office visit or hospitalization.
Results
Of the 121 patients that met inclusion
criteria, 22 (18.2%) were diagnosed with a symptomatic recurrence.
Median primary PFS was similar for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients
(24.8 versus 22.6 months,
P = 0.36); however, post-recurrence
survival was significantly greater in asymptomatic patients (45.0 versus
29.4 months,
P = 0.006). Secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCRS)
was attempted equally in both groups (41% versus 32%,
P = NS);
however, optimal residual disease (≤5mm) was more often achieved in
asymptomatic patients (90% versus 57%,
P = 0.053). On
multivariate analysis, detection of asymptomatic recurrence was a
significant and independent predictor of improved overall survival (
P
= 0.001). Median OS was significantly greater for asymptomatic patients
(71.9 versus 50.7 months,
P = 0.004).
Conclusions
In
patients with platinum-sensitive EOC, detection of asymptomatic
recurrences by routine surveillance testing was associated with a high
likelihood of optimal SCRS in operative candidates and extended overall
survival.
what does this mean, asymptomatic? no symptoms?
ReplyDeleteYes - asymptomatic = lack of 'standardized' symptoms, symptomatic= symptoms
ReplyDeleteDoes this oppose the findings in the European study which found that starting treatment as a result of CA-125 increase is premature and was not beneficial over starting treatment only when symptoms appeared?
ReplyDeleteMy views. This study's finding is not necessarily at odds with other studies which show early treatment does not improve ultimate survival. However, abstracts, while helpful, are often poor at trying to determine any differences in the patient populations studied. Comparing the studies is the only way aside from meta-analysis which have been done in the past. To determine the differences in the studies and yes, survival, would depend on the studies which would need to be compared eg. stage, age of patients, past history of ovarian cancer surgeries and treatments, cell type, grade, QOL, other health issues, chemoresistant vs chemosensitive - the list is long. Studies and their conclusions often do not compare the same types (scenario) of patients. In this study the factors which improve ultimate survival are known - chemosensitive, asymptomatic (less burden of disease/better surgical outcomes) and it was trying to ascertain the differences in patients and who have better outcomes/survivals.
ReplyDeleteThe management and followup of ovarian cancer women has been under much study for decades. We are not there yet and therefore the ongoing research.
We all hope that by determining which exact patients do better and how to followup these patients improvements in ultimate survival rates will improve. There is no one simple answer to this as ovarian cancer is comprised of different diseases with different factors - generalizing conclusions is not helpful to individual women's circumstances.
I just re-posted the article: (Review Article)
ReplyDelete"When Should Surgical Cytoreduction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Take Place?"
which may help provide further information to many of the outstanding questions. Best wishes and thanks.