Overall survival rate of female patients with advanced ovarian cancer after combined treatment with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy
DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2024-8-6-3
A.S. Dzasokhov1, A.A. Kostin2, V.L. Astashov1, A.V. Turiev1, I.Yu. Luneva1
1Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary, Balashikha, Russian Federation
2RUDN University, Moscow, Russian Federation
Background: ovarian cancer (OC) is considered an aggressive disease diagnosed at late stages, which leads to a decrease in the survival rate of female patients. According to the therapy standards at stage III–IV of this disease, it is recommended to use combined treatment in the form of cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. At present, the administration method of chemotherapy drugs is being actively discussed, in particular, intravenously or intraperitoneally.
Aim: to evaluate the 2-year survival rate of female patients with malignant ovarian neoplasm in peritoneal carcinomatosis after combined treatment with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC).
Patients and Methods: a prospective randomized controlled trial included 164 female patients with stage IIIB and IIIC OC aged 32 to 75 years, who were randomly divided into two groups. The main group included 79 (48.1%) female patients who, immediately after cytoreductive surgery and anterior abdominal wall wound suturing, underwent a PIPAC course, as well as polychemotherapy (PCT) according to the TС (taxotere + cyclophosphamide) regimen. The control group included 85 (51.9%) female patients who underwent only cytoreductive surgery and PCT according to the above regimen. All patients were monitored for 24 months.
Results: the number of fatal complications in the main group after performing three PIPAC courses decreased by almost 2.5 times versus the control group. At the same time, the median overall survival rate after 2 years of follow-up in the main group was 82.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.551–0.939), and in the control group — 75.5% (95% CI 0.531–0.882). To identify statistically significant differences between groups in overall survival rate, the log-rank test, the likelihood-ratio test and the Wald test for the Cox proportional hazards regression model were used. The actual significance levels (p-value) of these tests were 0.07, 0.06, 0.08, respectively. Given the small number of fatal outcomes (only 15 cases), it can be concluded that the control and main groups differ statistically significantly in overall survival rate at the level of 0.06.
Conclusion: PIPAC is a modern and effective method for adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. Due to the low mortality rate after three PIPAC courses (7.9% less in the main group), it is a safe palliative treatment option for stage IIIB and IIIC OC.
Keywords: ovarian cancer, peritoneal carcinomatosis, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy, PIPAC, locally advanced cancer, polychemotherapy, overall survival rate.
For citation: Dzasokhov A.S., Kostin A.A., Astashov V.L., Turiev A.V., Luneva I.Yu. Overall survival rate of female patients with advanced ovarian cancer after combined treatment with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2024;8(6):332– 337 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2024-8-6-3.ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Alexey S. Dzasokhov — C. Sc. (Med.), Head of the Department of Oncogynecology, Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary; 6, Karbysheva str., Balashikha, 143900, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0003-4977-3533.
Andrey A. Kostin — corresponding member of the RAS, Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor of the RAS, First Vice-Rector for Scientific Work, Head of the Department of Urology and Operative Nephrology with a course in Oncourology at the Medical Institute, RUDN University; 6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0002-0792-6012.
Vladimir L. Astashov — Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor, Chief Medical Officer of Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary; 6, Karbysheva str., Balashikha, 143900, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0003-1075-3797.
Artur V. Turiev — oncologist of the Department of Oncogynecology, Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary; 6, Karbysheva str., Balashikha, 143900, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0001-9284-4873.
Irina Yu. Luneva — Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary; 6, Karbysheva str., Balashikha, 143900, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0003-7603-9489.
Contact information: Aleksey S. Dzasokhov, e-mail: apprentice@list.ru.
Financial Disclosure: no authors have a financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned.
There is no conflict of interest.
Received 30.10.2023.
Revised 22.11.2023.
Accepted 18.12.2023.
2. Stewart C., Ralyea C., Lockwood S. Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2019;35(2):151–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.001.
3. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., А.О. Шахзадова А.О. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2021 году (заболеваемость и смертность). М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Гер-цена — филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России; 2022.Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., A.O. Shakhzadova A.O. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2021 (morbidity and mortality). M.: MNIOI im. P.A. Herzen — branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "National Medical Research Center of Radiology" of the Russian Ministry of Health; 2022 (in Russ.)
4. Armstrong D.K., Alvarez R.D., Bakkum-Gamez J.N. et al. Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(2):191–226. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0007.
5. Xiao Y., Bi M., Guo H., Li M. Multi-omics approaches for biomarker discovery in early ovarian cancer diagnosis. EBioMedicine. 2022;79:104001. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104001.
6. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Fuchs H.E., Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21654.
7. Torre L.A., Trabert B., DeSantis C.E. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):284–296. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21456.
8. Calanzani N., Nijenhuis L., Shahaj O. et al. A systematic review of health system level initiatives promoting the earlier diagnosis of cancer among the adult population in high-income countries. J Glob Oncol. 2018;4:38s. DOI: 10.1200/jgo.18.35900.
9. Nash Z., Menon U. Ovarian cancer screening: Current status and future directions. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;65:32–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.02.010.
10. Мансур А., Грицкевич А.А., Костин А.А. и др. Качество жизни пациенток с парауретральными кистами. Андрология и генитальная хирургия. 2022;23(4):74–80. DOI: 10.17650/2070-9781-2022-23-4-74-80. Mansur A., Gritskievich A.A., Kostin A.A. et al. Quality of life of patients with paraurethral cysts. Andrology and Genital Surgery. 2022;23(4):74–80. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/2070-9781-2022-23-4-74-80.
11. Мансур А., Грицкевич А.А., Кульченко Н.Г. и др. Кальциноз парауретральной кисты (клиническое наблюдение). Вестник современной клинической медицины. 2022;15(6):133–137. DOI: 10.20969/VSKM.2022.15(6).133-137.Mansur A., Gritskievich А.А., Kulchenko N.G. et al. Calcification of a paraurethral cyst (а clinical case). The Bulletin of Contemporary Clinical Medicine. 2022;15(6):133–137 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20969/VSKM.2022.15(6).133-137.
12. Ekmann-Gade A.W., Høgdall C., Seibæk L. et al. Days alive and out of hospital after surgical treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: A Danish nationwide cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49(10):107039. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107039.
13. Onda T., Satoh T., Ogawa G. et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:114–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.020.
14. Тюляндина А.С., Коломиец Л.А., Морхов К.Ю. и др. Практические рекомендации по лекарственному лечению рака яичников, первичного рака брюшины и рака ма-точных труб. Злокачественные опухоли: Практические рекомендации RUSSCO. 2021;11(3S2-1):158–171. DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2021-11-3s2-1.Tyulandina A.S., Kolomiets L.A., Morkhov K.Yu. et al. Practical recommendations for drug treatment of ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer and fallopian tube cancer. Malignant tumors: Practical recommendations RUSSCO. 2021;11(3S2-1):158–171 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2021-11-3s2-1.
15. Ngoi N.Y., Syn N.L., Goh R.M. et al. Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2(2):CD012007. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
16. Fagotti A., Ferrandina M.G., Vizzielli G. еt al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION-NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(11):1657–1664. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.
17. de Bree E., Michelakis D. An overview and update of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2020;21(12):1479–1492. DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1766024.
18. Kim S.I., Kim J.H., Lee S. et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;167(3):547–556. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.10.010.
19. Van Driel W.J., Koole S.N., Sikorska K. et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:230–240. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708618.
20. Wang Y., Ren F., Chen P. et al. Effects of CytoReductive surgery plus hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus CytoReductive surgery for ovarian cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(3):301–309. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.528.
21. Ceribelli C., Debs T., Chevallier A. et al. Initial experience of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a French hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) expert center. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2803–2806. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07488-6.
22. Hu J., Wang Z., Wang X., Xie S. Side-effects of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Peer J. 2023;11:e15277. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15277.
23. Lundbech M., Krag A.E., Iversen L.H., Hvas A.M. Postoperative bleeding and venous thromboembolism in colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(1):17–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-04021-6.
24. Baggaley A.E., Lafaurie G.B.R.C., Tate S.J. et al. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework. Br J Surg. 2022;110(1):10–18. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac284.
25. Račkauskas R., Baušys A., Lukšta M. et al. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal malignancy: initial experience of the first program in the Baltic countries. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):236. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02357-5.
26. Kefleyesus A., Bhatt A., Escayola C. et al. Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1204886. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1204886.
27. Alyami M., Mercier F., Siebert M. et al. Unresectable peritoneal metastasis treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) leading to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(1):128–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.028.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.
Распечатать