Author:
Li Cheng,Cui Qiulin,Wang Xuanhui,Yao Shuzhong,Tu Hua,Chen Ming
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The modeled CA-125 elimination constant K (KELIM) is a potential marker of tumor chemosensitivity in ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before interval surgery. The objective of this study was to externally validate the KELIM (rate of elimination of CA-125) score in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) undergoing NACT and explore its relation to the completeness of IDS and survival.
Methods
The study was based on a retrospective cohort of 133 patients treated for advanced HGSC, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages III–IV, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, folllowed by interval surgery, in two centres in China. CA-125 concentrations at baseline and during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were collected. We used standardized (std) KELIM for subsequent analysis. Clinicopathologic parameters were collected, and Kaplan‒Meier survival analyses were performed for PFS and OS.
Results
KELIM was an independent predictor of the probability of complete surgery and survival in our cohort. The median std KELIM score of patients with complete surgery was significantly higher than that of patients with incomplete IDS (1.20 vs. 0.71, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that a std KELIM score $$ \ge $$0.925 was an independent predictive factor for achieving complete resection (OR = 5.480; 95% CI, 2.409–12.466, P < 0.001) and better PFS (HR = 0.544; 95% CI: 0.349–0.849, P = 0.007) and OS (HR = 0.484; 95% CI: 0.251–0.930, P = 0.030).
Conclusions
The tumor-primary tumor chemosensitivity, assessed by the modeled CA-125 KELIM, calculated during NACT, is a major parameter to consider for decision-making regarding IDS attempts and predicting patient survival.
Funder
National Key Research and Development Program of China
National Key Research and Development Program of China,China
Beijing Kanghua Foundation
Baiqiuen Foundation
CSCO Cancer Research Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2008. Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(2):71–96. https://doi.org/10.3322/ca.2007.0010.
2. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer (Version 2.2022) [cited 2022 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.nccnorg/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarianpdf.
3. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC, Cliby WA. Relationship among surgical complexity, short-term morbidity, and overall survival in primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.495.
4. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Friedman RL, Lin W-CM, Pisani AL, Perticucci S. Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(2):390–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00278-6.
5. Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Fanfani F, Ercoli A, Lorusso D, Rossi M, Scambia G. A laparoscopy-based score to Predict Surgical Outcome in patients with Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1156–61. https://doi.org/10.1245/aso.2006.08.021.