Potential survival benefits from optimized chemotherapy implementation in advanced ovarian cancer: Projections from a microsimulation model
Autoři:
Anna P. Lietz aff001; Davis T. Weaver aff001; Alexander Melamed aff002; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain aff003; Jason D. Wright aff004; Alexi A. Wright aff005; Amy B. Knudsen aff001; Pari V. Pandharipande aff001
Působiště autorů:
Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
aff001; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
aff002; Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine Department, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX, United States of America
aff003; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, United States of America
aff004; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States of America
aff005; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
aff006
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222828
Souhrn
Background
Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed in advanced stages, when survival is poor. Treatment advances have been made, but are inconsistently implemented. Our purpose was to project the maximum life expectancy gains that could be achieved in women with stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer if the implementation of available chemotherapy regimens could be optimized.
Methods
We used a microsimulation model to estimate life expectancy benefits associated with “optimized” implementation of four post-operative chemotherapy options: standard intravenous chemotherapy; intraperitoneal + intravenous chemotherapy; bevacizumab + intravenous chemotherapy; and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy + intravenous chemotherapy. Optimized implementation was defined as follows. Patients triaged to primary cytoreductive surgery received intraperitoneal + intravenous chemotherapy if optimally or completely cytoreduced, and bevacizumab + intravenous chemotherapy if suboptimally cytoreduced. Patients triaged to neoadjuvant chemotherapy received hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at interval cytoreductive surgery if optimally or completely cytoreduced, and standard IV chemotherapy if suboptimally cytoreduced. Life expectancy associated with optimized implementation was compared with that of current utilization practices, estimated using published literature and the National Cancer Database. Effects of model uncertainty were evaluated in sensitivity analyses.
Results
Life expectancy associated with optimized implementation vs. current practice was 76.7 vs. 64.5 months (life expectancy gain = 12.2 months). Providing intraperitoneal + intravenous chemotherapy to all eligible patients was the largest driver of life expectancy gains, due to both the potential benefit conferred by intraperitoneal + intravenous chemotherapy and the proportion of eligible women who do not receive intraperitoneal + intravenous chemotherapy in current practice.
Conclusion
Population-level life expectancy in stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer could be substantially improved through greater uptake of available chemotherapy regimens.
Klíčová slova:
Medicine and health sciences – Pharmaceutics – Drug therapy – Chemotherapy – Public and occupational health – Life expectancy – Oncology – Cancer treatment – Cancer chemotherapy – Clinical oncology – Cancers and neoplasms – Gynecological tumors – Ovarian cancer – Clinical medicine – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Pharmacology – Routes of administration – Intravenous injections – Biology and life sciences – Population biology – Population metrics – Research and analysis methods – Mathematical and statistical techniques – Statistical methods – Metaanalysis – Physical sciences – Mathematics – Statistics
Zdroje
1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures. Atlanta, GA, 2019.
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. Epub 2018/01/10. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442 29313949.
3. American Cancer Society. Ovarian cancer stages 2018 [cited 2018 December]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/staging.html.
4. American Cancer Society. Survival Rates for Ovarian Cancer by Stage 2018 [cited 2018 December]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html.
5. Coleman RL, Monk BJ, Sood AK, Herzog TJ. Latest research and treatment of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(4):211–24. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.5 23381004; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3786558.
6. Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, Bookman MA, Cliby WA, Coleman RL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(1):3–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.022 27650684; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5413203.
7. Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV, O'Toole R, Williams SD, Young JA, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(26):1950–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612263352603 8960474.
8. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(1):34–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052985 16394300.
9. Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J, Ledermann JA, Pujade-Lauraine E, Kristensen G, et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):2484–96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103799 22204725.
10. Wu YS, Shui L, Shen D, Chen X. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncotarget. 2017;8(6):10703–13. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12926 27793044; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5354693.
11. Oza AM, Cook AD, Pfisterer J, Embleton A, Ledermann JA, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):928–36. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00086-8 26115797; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4648090.
12. van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sikorska K, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Schreuder HWR, Hermans RHM, et al. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(3):230–40. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708618 29342393.
13. Schlappe BA, Mueller JJ, Zivanovic O, Gardner GJ, Long Roche K, Sonoda Y, et al. Cited rationale for variance in the use of primary intraperitoneal chemotherapy following optimal cytoreduction for stage III ovarian carcinoma at a high intraperitoneal chemotherapy utilization center. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142(1):13–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.015 27189456; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4917455.
14. Wright JD, Hou JY, Burke WM, Tergas AI, Chen L, Hu JC, et al. Utilization and Toxicity of Alternative Delivery Methods of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):985–91. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001436 27159764; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4879086.
15. Melamed A, Hinchcliff EM, Clemmer JT, Bregar AJ, Uppal S, Bostock I, et al. Trends in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer in the United States. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):236–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.09.002 27612977.
16. Weaver DT, Raphel TJ, Melamed A, Rauh-Hain JA, Schorge JO, Knudsen AB, et al. Modeling treatment outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Projected benefits of a test to optimize treatment selection. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(2):256–262. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.02.007 29486993.
17. Clamp AR, McNeish I, Dean A, Gallardo D, Weon-Kim J, O'Donnell D, et al. 929O_PRICON8: A GCIG phase III randomised trial evaluating weekly dose- dense chemotherapy integration in first-line epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal carcinoma (EOC) treatment: Results of primary progression- free survival (PFS) analysis. Annals of Oncology. 2017;28(suppl_5):mdx440.039–mdx440.039. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx440.039
18. Chan JK, Brady MF, Penson RT, Huang H, Birrer MJ, Walker JL, et al. Weekly vs. Every-3-Week Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(8):738–48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505067 26933849; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5081077.
19. Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G, Kim BG, Oaknin A, Friedlander M, et al. Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810858 30345884.
20. Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(3):683–90. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9747-3 18183467; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2234447.
21. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. United States Life Tables. 2011.
22. Bookman MA, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Harper PG, Alberts DS, Friedlander M, et al. Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(9):1419–25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.1684 19224846; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2668552.
23. Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Isonishi S, Takahashi F, Michimae H, Kimura E, et al. Long-term results of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin versus conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin for treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (JGOG 3016): a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):1020–6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70363-2 23948349.
24. Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):249–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6 26002111.
25. Vergote I, Trope CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806 20818904.
26. Wright AA, Cronin A, Milne DE, Bookman MA, Burger RA, Cohn DE, et al. Use and Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2841–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4776 26240233; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4554746.
27. Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, Fleming GF, Monk BJ, Huang H, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):2473–83. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1104390 22204724.
28. Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Takahashi F, Isonishi S, Jobo T, Aoki D, et al. Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1331–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61157-0 19767092
29. McLaughlin JR, Rosen B, Moody J, Pal T, Fan I, Shaw PA, et al. Long-term ovarian cancer survival associated with mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(2):141–8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs494 23257159; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3611851.
30. Walker JL, Brady MF, Wenzel L, Fleming GF, Huang HQ, DiSilvestro PA, et al. Randomized Trial of Intravenous Versus Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2019:JCO1801568. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01568 31002578.
31. Frey MK, Pothuri B. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) testing in ovarian cancer clinical practice: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2017;4:4. doi: 10.1186/s40661-017-0039-8 28250960; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5322589.
32. Passot G, Bakrin N, Roux AS, Vaudoyer D, Gilly FN, Glehen O, et al. Quality of life after cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a prospective study of 216 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(5):529–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.019 24370285.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 9
- S diagnostikou Parkinsonovy nemoci může nově pomoci AI nástroj pro hodnocení mrkacího reflexu
- Je libo čepici místo mozkového implantátu?
- Pomůže v budoucnu s triáží na pohotovostech umělá inteligence?
- AI může chirurgům poskytnout cenná data i zpětnou vazbu v reálném čase
- Nová metoda odlišení nádorové tkáně může zpřesnit resekci glioblastomů
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Graviola (Annona muricata) attenuates behavioural alterations and testicular oxidative stress induced by streptozotocin in diabetic rats
- CH(II), a cerebroprotein hydrolysate, exhibits potential neuro-protective effect on Alzheimer’s disease
- Comparison between Aptima Assays (Hologic) and the Allplex STI Essential Assay (Seegene) for the diagnosis of Sexually transmitted infections
- Assessment of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity using CareStart G6PD rapid diagnostic test and associated genetic variants in Plasmodium vivax malaria endemic setting in Mauritania
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy