Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Treatment Modifications in Ovarian Carcinoma

The Impact on Surgical Outcome and Progression-free Survival

Salman, Lina, MD*,†; Ben-Haroush, Avi, MD*,†; Raban, Oded, MD*,†; Yeoshoua, Effi, MD*,†; Sabah, Gad, MD*,†; Jakobson-Setton, Ariella, MD*,†; Tsoref, Daliah, MD*,†; Eitan, Ram, MD*,†

American Journal of Clinical Oncology: January 2019 - Volume 42 - Issue 1 - p 17–20
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000469
Original Articles: Gynecologic

Objective: Little is known on the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) treatment modifications on surgical outcome and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to report the changes we made during NACT and to evaluate its impact on patient outcome.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all women with advanced stage ovarian carcinoma treated with NACT followed by interval cytoreduction in one university-affiliated medical center (January 2005 to June 2017). We excluded those who were treated with NACT without any surgical intervention. NACT modifications included delay in treatment, change in chemotherapy, and dose reduction. Demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcome, and PFS were compared between patients exposed to NACT treatment modifications and those who received standard treatment.

Results: Seventy-nine patients met inclusion criteria of whom, 59 patients received standard, nonmodified treatment and 20 patients modified NACT. There were no intergroup differences with respect to age at diagnosis (59.5±11.6 vs. 64.70±8.09, P=0.09) and stage of disease (P=0.13). Radiologic complete response rates (25.0% vs. 32.2%, P=0.545) and optimal cytoreduction rates (75.0% vs. 86.4%, P=0.23) were similar in both treatment groups. Mean PFS (in months) was comparable between patients receiving standard treatment and those who required NACT modifications (18.5 vs. 12.2, P=0.125).

Conclusions: NACT treatment modifications did not affect surgical outcome and PFS. We conclude that when clinically indicated, dose alteration and scheduling can be implemented without apparent detriment to outcome.

*Gynecologic Oncology Division, Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva

Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Reprints: Ram Eitan, MD, Gynecologic Oncology Division, Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva 49100, Israel. E-mail:

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.