Original Article
Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma
N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2489-2497December 9, 2004
- Abstract
Background
We evaluated the effect of adding secondary cytoreductive surgery to postoperative chemotherapy on progression-free survival and overall survival among patients who had advanced ovarian cancer and residual tumor exceeding 1 cm in diameter after primary surgery.
Methods
Women were enrolled within six weeks after primary surgery. If, after three cycles of postoperative paclitaxel plus cisplatin, a patient had no evidence of progressive disease, she was randomly assigned to undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by three more cycles of chemotherapy or three more cycles of chemotherapy alone.
Results
We enrolled 550 women. After completing three cycles of postoperative chemotherapy, 216 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy and 208 to receive chemotherapy alone. Surgery was declined by or medically contraindicated in 15 patients who were assigned to secondary surgery (7 percent). As of March 2003, 296 patients had died and 82 had progressive disease. The likelihood of progression-free survival in the group assigned to secondary surgery plus chemotherapy, as compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, was 1.07 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.54), and the relative risk of death was 0.99 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.24; P=0.92).
Conclusions
For patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma in whom primary cytoreductive surgery was considered to be maximal, the addition of secondary cytoreductive surgery to postoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin does not improve progression-free survival or overall survival.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes.Figure 2
Progression-free Survival.Article Activity
- Article
In most patients with ovarian carcinoma, the disease is diagnosed at an advanced stage because of the lack of effective screening. Standard treatment of such cases is a combination of maximal resection of primary and metastatic carcinoma and postoperative chemotherapy. Retrospective studies have demonstrated that the amount of residual tumor after primary surgery is a prognostic factor.1-6 The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) found that when the diameter of residual tumor is no more than 1 cm, survival tends to be longer, and this finding is also considered to indicate optimal debulking.5 Patients with residual tumor of no more than 1 cm who are treated with a platinum analogue and paclitaxel have a median progression-free survival of approximately 22 months and an overall survival of approximately 52 months, as compared with 14 and 26 months, respectively, among patients with larger residual tumors.7,8
Efforts to improve survival among women with advanced ovarian cancer have had only limited success. Two randomized trials reported increased survival when paclitaxel replaced cyclophosphamide in combination with cisplatin.9,10 In both studies, median progression-free survival and overall survival increased by 35 to 40 percent.
Secondary surgical cytoreduction after chemotherapy is a strategy for reducing tumor burden. Several prospective studies have shown that after two to six cycles of chemotherapy, residual disease can be reduced to 1 cm or less in 50 to 90 percent of patients who had undergone suboptimal debulking during primary surgery.11-16 The duration of survival in one study was reported to be 42 months among patients who underwent optimal cytoreduction with either primary or secondary surgery.13 A randomized study conducted by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) found significant increases in median progression-free survival (by five months) and overall survival (by six months) among patients who underwent suboptimal primary debulking followed by secondary surgery after three cycles of cisplatin and cyclophosphamide.17 We sought to determine whether secondary cytoreductive surgery improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients who had advanced ovarian cancer and residual tumor of more than 1 cm and who received cisplatin and paclitaxel.
Methods
Study Design and Evaluation
Eligible patients had stage III or stage IV ovarian carcinoma with residual intraperitoneal tumor that exceeded 1 cm in diameter after they had undergone surgery with the goal of removing as much tumor as possible. The histologic appearance and stage of the tumor were confirmed by central pathological review. Initially, patients with stage III or stage IV disease (on the basis of the presence of a malignant pleural effusion or a resected anterior abdominal-wall tumor) were eligible, but in March 1996, we began to exclude women with stage IV disease (without having reviewed our results until then), after the EORTC trial reported a greater benefit from secondary surgery after the exclusion of such patients from the analyses.
Pretreatment requirements included a history taking, physical examination, determination of race and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) performance status by the investigator, electrocardiography, a complete blood count, renal- and liver-function tests, urinalysis, evaluation of the tumor by means of computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, chest radiography, and measurement of electrolyte and CA-125 levels in serum. A GOG performance status of 2 or better and a life expectancy of at least eight weeks were required. No history of cancer, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy was permitted. Patients had to have the following laboratory findings: a leukocyte count of at least 3000 per cubic millimeter, a platelet count of at least 100,000 per cubic millimeter, a granulocyte count of at least 1500 per cubic millimeter, a serum creatinine level of no more than 2.0 mg per deciliter (177 μmol per liter), a bilirubin level that was no more than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range at the institution, and serum alanine aminotransferase, serum aspartate aminotransferase, and serum alkaline phosphatase levels that were no more than 3 times the upper limit of the normal range at the institution. Patients with tumors of low malignant potential, nonepithelial cancers, active infection, hepatitis, gastrointestinal bleeding, or a history of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or abnormal cardiac conduction within the preceding six months were ineligible.
The institutional review board of each participating institution approved the protocol. Before receiving treatment, all patients provided written informed consent consistent with federal, state, and local requirements. Patients filled out quality-of-life questionnaires at four points in the study.
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy was consistent with prior GOG protocols.8,9,18 Paclitaxel (135 mg per square meter of body-surface area) was administered as a 24-hour infusion followed immediately by an intravenous infusion of cisplatin (75 mg per square meter). Appropriate premedications were given to avoid hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel and lessen gastrointestinal symptoms. After patients recovered from the hematologic effects of chemotherapy (defined by an absolute granulocyte count of at least 1500 per cubic millimeter and a platelet count of at least 100,000 per cubic millimeter), chemotherapy was to be repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles. The dose of paclitaxel was to be reduced to 110 mg per square meter in the event of neutropenic fever, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, or grade 3 or 4 mucositis or diarrhea and further reduced to 90 mg per square meter in the event of persistent grade 3 or 4 adverse effects. To be consistent with other GOG protocols, in April 1997, paclitaxel doses were reduced to 110 mg per square meter in the event of asymptomatic grade 4 neutropenia, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to be administered for recurrent episodes. The dose of cisplatin was reduced to 50 mg per square meter in the event of grade 2 neuropathy, tinnitus, or symptomatic hearing loss and discontinued in the event of grade 3 or 4 neuropathy or persistent elevation of the serum creatinine level above 2.0 mg per deciliter. Patients were removed from the study if treatment was delayed by more than two weeks.
Evaluation and Randomization
Three weeks after the third chemotherapy cycle, patients were evaluated for a response by means of a physical examination and CT of the abdomen and pelvis, unless CT findings had been normal at study entry and a previously elevated serum CA-125 level had returned to normal. Patients whose disease had not progressed and who had residual extraperitoneal tumor that was no more than 1 cm in diameter were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus secondary surgical cytoreduction or chemotherapy alone.
Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction
Secondary cytoreduction (laparotomy with a maximal effort to resect all gross tumor) was to be performed as soon as possible after hematologic recovery, but within six weeks after the completion of the third chemotherapy cycle. The fourth cycle of chemotherapy was to be administered as soon as possible, but no more than six weeks after secondary surgery.
Follow-up
Patients were reassessed six to nine weeks after completing protocol therapy by means of history taking, physical examination, evaluation of GOG performance status, a complete blood count, measurement of electrolytes, renal- and liver-function tests, CT of the abdomen and pelvis, chest radiography, and measurement of serum CA-125 levels. They were to be followed up every three months for two years, then semiannually for three years, and yearly thereafter. Progression was defined as a clinically evident increase in disease or an increase in serum CA-125 values to at least 100 U per milliliter (for patients whose CA-125 levels failed to return to normal, a doubling of the nadir CA-125 levels). Elevated serum CA-125 levels were confirmed by retesting at least two weeks later.
Statistical Analysis
The time at risk for disease progression or death was measured from the date of randomization. Progression-free survival was measured to the date of progression or death or to the date of last contact for patients who were alive and progression-free. Only eligible, randomized patients were included in the primary treatment comparisons. Between-group comparisons were based on assigned treatments and included randomized patients regardless of the amount of study treatment they received. The planned analysis was a log-rank test stratified according to the clinical response after three cycles of chemotherapy. In order to compare our results with those of the EORTC study,17 we also assessed progression-free and overall survival from the date of study enrollment.
The study was designed to ensure the enrollment of at least 400 eligible, randomized patients with data that could be evaluated. The final analysis was scheduled to occur after at least 225 deaths had been reported. It was considered that a 29 percent reduction in the death rate in the secondary-surgery group would be clinically significant. This effect size is equivalent to an 11 percent increase in the proportion of patients who survived more than 2.8 years (the expected median). Assuming proportional hazards, this study would provide an 81 percent chance of detecting a treatment effect of this size (treatment hazard ratio, 1.40) when the type I error was limited to 0.05 for a one-sided test. In this report, all P values are two-sided.
An interim analysis of survival and adverse events was to be performed when at least 60 deaths had occurred in the chemotherapy-alone group. A spending function for a type I error similar to that of O'Brien and Fleming was specified for the survival analysis. These results were presented in July 1999 to the GOG Data-Monitoring Committee, which decided to continue the study as planned. Adverse events, graded according to GOG Common Toxicity Criteria,19 were summarized as the maximal reported grade.
Study regimens were sequentially assigned by the GOG Statistical and Data Center in a blinded fashion with the use of randomly permuted blocks. Within each parent institution, separate treatment blocks were maintained for patients who had and those who had not had a response to the first three cycles of chemotherapy and for those with and those without radiographically measurable disease at study entry.
Results
From June 1994 through January 2001, 550 patients were enrolled. Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes. shows that disease progression was the commonest reason for non-randomization; 16 patients died before undergoing randomization, and 24 randomized patients were subsequently deemed ineligible after a central review. Of 424 eligible, randomized patients, 216 were assigned to chemotherapy plus secondary surgery and 208 to chemotherapy alone (Figure 1).Most patients were white, were 50 to 59 years of age, had a GOG performance status of 1, and had measurable stage III, grade 3, serous papillary carcinoma (Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of 424 Randomized, Eligible Patients.). The nature of the initial surgery, performed by a fellowship-trained or certified gynecologic oncologist in 95 percent of patients, was similar in both groups. At secondary surgery, the median diameter of the tumor was 2 cm (range, 0 to 20). Protocol compliance was good, with only 7 percent of the patients who were randomly assigned to undergo secondary cytoreduction not receiving surgery. Among patients who were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone, 3 percent had secondary surgery in violation of the protocol.Ninety-three percent of patients randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus secondary surgery and 98 percent of those randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone received three additional cycles of chemotherapy. The median time from the completion of the third cycle of chemotherapy to the initiation of the fourth cycle was 45 days (90th percentile, 63) in the secondary-surgery group, as compared with 21 days (90th percentile, 28) in the chemotherapy-alone group (P<0.001). Nonprotocol “consolidation” therapy was given before clinical progression in 21 patients in the secondary-surgery group (10 percent) and 26 patients in the chemotherapy-alone group (12 percent, P=0.45) (Figure 1).
As of March 2003, 296 patients had died. Among surviving patients, the median duration of follow-up was 46.6 months in the secondary-surgery group and 47.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone group. The median time to progression or death was 10.5 months in the secondary-surgery group and 10.7 months in the chemotherapy-alone group (Figure 2Figure 2
Progression-free Survival.). After adjustment for measurable-disease status and response after the first three cycles of chemotherapy, a proportional-hazards model estimated that the risk of progression or death was 7 percent higher in the secondary-surgery group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.869 to 1.31; P=0.54). Approximately 8 percent of patients in each group had rising serum CA-125 levels as their only indication of progression.The median duration of survival was 33.9 months in the secondary-surgery group and 33.7 months in the chemotherapy-alone group (Figure 3Figure 3
Overall Survival.). The adjusted estimate of the relative risk of death for the secondary-surgery group as compared with the chemotherapy-alone group was 0.989 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.786 to 1.24; P=0.92), indicating that secondary surgery did not appreciably increase overall survival after initial maximal surgical cytoreduction.The effect of secondary surgery on overall survival was assessed on the basis of the maximal diameter of residual tumor (2.0 cm or less, 2.1 to 5.0 cm, or 5.0 cm or more) after initial surgery, the patient's age, performance status, and the presence or absence of measurable disease before chemotherapy. A consistent lack of effect of secondary surgery was seen. The tumor diameter before secondary surgery was associated with survival: the death rate among patients with at least one mass that exceeded 1 cm in diameter was 71 percent higher than the rate among patients with tumors of 1 cm or less (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.21 to 2.42; P=0.003). Of 112 patients whose tumor exceeded 1 cm in diameter before they underwent secondary surgery, 79 (approximately 70 percent) had a residual mass of less than 1 cm and 33 (approximately 30 percent) had a residual mass of at least 1 cm after secondary surgery. The death rates in these two groups did not differ significantly (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.785 to 2.00; P=0.34).
Adverse effects were similar in frequency and severity in the two groups. There were 35 patients with peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or higher in the secondary-surgery group (16 percent) and 54 in the chemotherapy-alone group (26 percent, P=0.01), suggesting that the brief respite from chemotherapy in the former group may have ameliorated the neurologic adverse effects. The rates of expected hematologic adverse effects were very similar between groups. The secondary-surgery group had a higher rate of grade 3 or grade 4 gastrointestinal adverse effects than the chemotherapy-alone group (7 percent vs. 4 percent). Among patients who were randomly assigned to secondary surgery, two had a grade 4 pulmonary adverse event and three had a grade 4 cardiovascular adverse event, as compared with zero patients and one patient, respectively, in the chemotherapy-alone group. In two patients, study treatment after randomization may have contributed to the cause of death (renal insufficiency developed in one and pneumonia and respiratory failure developed in the other).
Discussion
In this randomized trial of the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer after a maximal attempt to debulk the tumor during primary surgery, we found that chemotherapy plus aggressive secondary surgery did not improve progression-free or overall survival as compared with chemotherapy alone. This finding contrasts with a previous EORTC trial of similar design.17 Both studies involved patients of similar age with advanced ovarian cancer and ascites (Table 2Table 2
Comparison of the Current and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Studies.), and both had acceptable rates of protocol compliance. The dissimilar results could reflect differences in efforts to maximize primary surgical debulking, the amount of residual disease after primary surgery, or the chemotherapy regimens. Our study required a maximal surgical effort that included a laparotomy, with the removal of as much gross disease as possible, whereas the extent of surgery was not specified in the EORTC study. The amount of residual tumor after primary surgery measured 5 cm or less in 55 percent of our patients, as compared with less than one third of the patients in the EORTC study, perhaps reflecting more aggressive primary cytoreductive surgery in our study.The more efficacious combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel (as compared with cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide, used in the EORTC study) may have blunted any sign of improvement from secondary surgery in our trial. The EORTC trial, which completed enrollment in May 1993, predated the use of paclitaxel for ovarian cancer in Europe. However, even among patients treated with a combination of paclitaxel and a platinum, the amount of residual disease is an important predictor of survival.20 The frequency and timing of clinical evaluations during surveillance may also have contributed to differences in survival.21
There are hurdles specific to studies evaluating surgical (as opposed to medical) interventions.22 In our trial, the surgeons' training was known and specific surgical procedures were required. This fact notwithstanding, there are most likely differences in surgical aggressiveness that are difficult to quantify. Although the association between residual disease and survival is well known, the clinical significance of the number and size of tumor deposits and the definition of optimal residual disease are matters of controversy. Tumor measurements have a high degree of interobserver variability,23 but in our study, the same surgeon usually performed both operations.
Patients with ovarian cancer are often examined by a surgeon or obstetrician-gynecologist who is not prepared to perform an aggressive cytoreductive surgery.24 Perhaps secondary surgery plus chemotherapy could benefit patients in whom the primary surgery was inadequate, as suggested by results of phase 2 trials and the EORTC trial.13,14,17
Although surgery is currently considered the initial standard treatment for patients with a good performance status who have apparent, advanced disease, the value of neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy is being investigated.25-29 The benefit of this approach is uncertain, since the progression-free interval for patients who have a complete response to chemotherapy is much shorter for those who begin with bulky disease.30 A randomized European trial comparing primary surgery plus postoperative chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery is ongoing.
Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (CA 27469, to the GOG Administrative Office; and CA 37517, to the GOG Statistical Office).
Dr. Moore reports having received consulting fees from Lilly and Aventis.
We are indebted to Caron Modeas for her assistance with the preparation of the manuscript.
Source Information
From Case Western Reserve University and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, MetroHealth Medical Center — both in Cleveland (P.G.R.); the Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut, and Hartford Hospital — both in Hartford (S.N.); the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y. (M.F.B.); the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. (D.C.-P.); the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey Medical Center, Hershey (G.O.); the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia (S.C.R.); the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.H.M.); and UniPath and Colorado Gynecologic Oncology — both in Denver (J.M.S.).
Address reprint requests to Ms. Denise Mackey at the Gynecologic Oncology Group Administrative Office, 4 Penn Center, 1600 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Appendix
The following GOG member institutions participated in this study: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Duke University Medical Center, Abington Memorial Hospital, Walter Reed Medical Center, Wayne State University, University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Colorado Gynecologic Oncology Group, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Indiana University Medical Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Albany Medical Center, University of California Medical Center at Irvine, Tufts–New England Medical Center, Rush–Presbyterian–St. Luke's Medical Center, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Community Clinical Oncology Program, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Washington University School of Medicine, Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, Columbus Cancer Council, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Women's Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia, Tacoma General Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Tampa Bay Cancer Consortium, Brookview Research, and Ellis Fischel Cancer Center.
- References
References
1
Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. In: Symposium on ovarian cancer. Monograph series no. 42. Washington, D.C.: National Cancer Institute, 1975:101-4.
2
Hacker NF ,Berek JS ,Lagasse LD ,Nieberg RK ,Elashoff RM . Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:413-420
Web of Science | Medline3
Delgado G ,Oram DH ,Petrilli ES . Stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: the role of maximal surgical reduction. Gynecol Oncol 1984;18:293-298
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Bertelsen K . Tumor reduction surgery and long-term survival in advanced ovarian cancer: a DACOVA study. Gynecol Oncol 1990;38:203-209
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Hoskins WJ ,McGuire WP ,Brady MF , et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:974-980
Web of Science | Medline6
Bristow RE ,Tomacruz RS ,Armstrong DK ,Trimble EL ,Montz FJ . Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1248-1259
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Markman M ,Bundy BN ,Alberts DS , et al. Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1001-1007
Web of Science | Medline8
Muggia FM ,Braly PS ,Brady MJ , et al. Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III and IV ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:106-115
Web of Science | Medline9
McGuire WP ,Hoskins WJ ,Brady MF , et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1-6
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline10
Piccart MJ ,Bertelsen K ,James K , et al. Randomized intergroup trial of cisplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: three-year results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:699-708
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Ng LW ,Rubin SC ,Hoskins WJ , et al. Aggressive chemosurgical debulking in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1990;38:358-363
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Lawton FG ,Redman CW ,Luesley DM ,Chan KK ,Blackledge G . Neoadjuvant (cytoreductive) chemotherapy combined with intervention debulking surgery in advanced, unresected epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:61-65
Web of Science | Medline13
Wils J ,Blijham G ,Naus A , et al. Primary or delayed debulking surgery and chemotherapy consisting of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in stage III-IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:1068-1073
Web of Science | Medline14
Neijt JP ,Aartsen EJ ,Bouma J ,Heintz AP ,van Lent M ,van Lindert AC . Cytoreductive surgery with or without preceding chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. Prog Clin Biol Res 1985;201:217-223
Medline15
Raju KS ,McKinna JA ,Barker GH ,Wiltshaw E ,Jones JM . Second-look operations in the planned management of advanced ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:650-654
Web of Science | Medline16
Vogel SE ,Seltzer V ,Calanog A , et al. “Second-effort“ surgical resection for bulky ovarian cancer. Cancer 1984;54:2220-2225
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
van der Burg MEL ,van Lent M ,Buyse M , et al. The effect of debulking surgery after induction chemotherapy on the prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:629-634
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline18
Ozols RF ,Bundy BN ,Greer BE , et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3194-3200
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Blessing JA. Design, analysis and interpretation of chemotherapy trials in gynecologic cancer. In: Deppe G, ed. Chemotherapy of gynecologic cancer. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1984:68-72.
20
Winter WE ,Maxwell L ,Tian C , et al. Prognostic factors for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2004;92:412-412 abstract.21
Eisenhauer EA ,Vermorken JB ,van Glabbeke M . Predictors of response to subsequent chemotherapy in platinum pretreated ovarian cancer; a multivariate analysis of 704 patients. Ann Oncol 1997;8:963-968
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Reynolds T . Why randomized surgical oncology trials are so scarce. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1182-1183
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Prefontaine M ,Gelfand AT ,Donovan JT ,Powell JL . Reproducibility of tumor measurements in ovarian cancer: a study of interobserver variability. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55:87-90
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Boente MP ,Yeh K ,Hogan WM ,Ozols RF . Current status of staging laparotomy in colorectal and ovarian cancer. Cancer Treat Res 1996;82:337-357
CrossRef | Medline25
Jacob JH ,Gershenson DM ,Morris M ,Copeland LJ ,Burke TW ,Wharton JT . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1991;42:146-150
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Schwartz PE ,Rutherford TJ ,Chambers JT ,Kohorn EI ,Thiel RP . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: long-term survival. Gynecol Oncol 1999;72:93-99
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Surwit E ,Childers J ,Atlas M , et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1996;6:356-361
CrossRef | Web of Science28
Onnis A ,Marchetti M ,Padovan P ,Castellan L . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1996;17:393-396
Medline29
Vergote I ,DeWever I ,Tjalma W ,Van Gramberen M ,Decloedt J ,van Dam P . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary debulking surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 285 patients. Gynecol Oncol 1998;71:431-436
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Rubin SC ,Randall TC ,Armstrong KA ,Chi DS ,Hoskins WJ . Ten-year follow-up of ovarian cancer patients after second-look laparotomy with negative findings. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:21-24
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (107)
Citing Articles
1
Willi Oberaigner, Pamela Minicozzi, Magdalena Bielska-Lasota, Claudia Allemani, Roberta de Angelis, Lucia Mangone, Milena Sant. (2012) Survival for Ovarian Cancer in Europe: The across-country variation did not shrink in the past decade. Acta Oncologica1-13
CrossRef2
Hani Gabra, Sarah Blagden. 2012. Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. , 760-775.
CrossRef3
MARI B. ELSTRAND, BERIT SANDSTAD, HALLDIS OKSEFJELL, BEN DAVIDSON, CLAES G. TROPÉ. (2011) Prognostic significance of residual tumor in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma stage IV in a 20-year perspective. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavicano-no
CrossRef4
John O. Schorge, Eric E. Eisenhauer, Dennis S. Chi. (2011) Current Surgical Management of Ovarian Cancer. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America
CrossRef5
Paul J. Hoskins. (2011) Which is the better surgical strategy for newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. Current Opinion in Oncology 23:5, 501-506
CrossRef6
Ignace Vergote, Frédéric Amant, Gunnar Kristensen, Tom Ehlen, Nick S. Reed, Antonio Casado. (2011) Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. European Journal of Cancer 47, S88-S92
CrossRef7
Ahmed Elattar, Andrew Bryant, Brett A Winter-Roach, Mohamed Hatem, Raj Naik, Ahmed Elattar. 2011. Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. .
CrossRef8
Kjersti Brenne, Dag André Nymoen, Thea Eline Hetland, Claes G. Trope', Ben Davidson. (2011) Expression of the Ets transcription factor EHF in serous ovarian carcinoma effusions is a marker of poor survival. Human Pathology
CrossRef9
Eberhard Stoeckle, Benjamin Boubli, Anne Floquet, Véronique Brouste, Marie Sire, Sabrina Croce, Laurence Thomas, Frédéric Guyon. (2011) Optimal timing of interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: yet to be defined?. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
CrossRef10
Andreas du Bois, Christian Marth, Jacobus Pfisterer, Philipp Harter, Felix Hilpert, Alain G. Zeimet, Jalid Sehouli. (2011) Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cannot Be Regarded as Adequate Routine Therapy Strategy of Advanced Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 21:6, 1165-1168
CrossRef11
Sarah I. Kamel, Mechteld C. Jong, Richard D. Schulick, Teresa P. Diaz-Montes, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Kenzo Hirose, Barish H. Edil, Michael A. Choti, Robert A. Anders, Timothy M. Pawlik. (2011) The Role of Liver-directed Surgery in Patients with Hepatic Metastasis from a Gynecologic Primary Carcinoma. World Journal of Surgery 35:6, 1345-1354
CrossRef12
Michael S. Anglesio, Mark S. Carey, Martin Köbel, Helen MacKay, David G. Huntsman. (2011) Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: A report from the first Ovarian Clear Cell Symposium, June 24th, 2010. Gynecologic Oncology 121:2, 407-415
CrossRef13
Gilles Freyer, Anna V. Tinker. (2011) Clinical Trials and Treatment of the Elderly Diagnosed With Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 21:4, 776-781
CrossRef14
L. Lestrade. (2011) Cancer épithélial évolué de l’ovaire de la patiente âgée: quel état des lieux suite à la Conférence internationale de Vancouver?. Oncologie 13:2-3, 78-82
CrossRef15
Amnon Amit, Julian Schink, Ari Reiss, Lior Lowenstein. (2011) PET/CT in Gynecologic Cancer: Present Applications and Future Prospects—A Clinician’s Perspective. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 38:1, 1-21
CrossRef16
Peter G. Rose, Mark F. Brady. (2011) EORTC 55971: Does it apply to all patients with advanced state ovarian cancer?. Gynecologic Oncology 120:2, 300-301
CrossRef17
Valentina Guarneri, Elena Barbieri, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Federico Piacentini, PierFranco Conte. (2011) Timing for starting second-line therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 11:1, 49-55
CrossRef18
C. Fotopoulou, R. Richter, E.I. Braicu, S.-C. Schmidt, W. Lichtenegger, J. Sehouli. (2010) Can complete tumor resection be predicted in advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer? A systematic evaluation of 360 consecutive patients. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 36:12, 1202-1210
CrossRef19
J. Tate Thigpen, David Alberts, Michael Birrer, Larry Copeland, Robert L. Coleman, Maurie Markman, Robert C. Bast, Eric L. Eisenhauer, Gini Fleming, Paula M. Fracasso, David M. Gershenson, Thomas Herzog, Bradley J. Monk, Robert F. Ozols, Gordon Rustin, Mark F. Brady, Marissa Shrader, Aarati Ranganathan. (2010) Current Challenges and Future Directions in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: Proceedings of the First Global Workshop on Ovarian Cancer. Clinical Ovarian Cancer 3:2, 81-97
CrossRef20
Siriwan Tangjitgamol, Sumonmal Manusirivithaya, Malinee Laopaiboon, Pisake Lumbiganon, Andrew Bryant, Siriwan Tangjitgamol. 2010. Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. .
CrossRef21
M. A. Bookman. (2010) The addition of new drugs to standard therapy in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. Annals of Oncology 21:Supplement 7, vii211-vii217
CrossRef22
Amnon Amit, Julian Schink, Ari Reiss, Lior Lowenstein. (2010) PET/CT in Gynecologic Cancer: Present Applications and Future Prospects—A Clinician’s Perspective. PET Clinics 5:4, 391-405
CrossRef23
Edward L. Trimble, Michael J. Birrer, William J. Hoskins, Christian Marth, Ray Petryshyn, Michael Quinn, Gillian M. Thomas, Henry C. Kitchener. (2010) Current Academic Clinical Trials in Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 20:7, 1290-1298
CrossRef24
Jonathan A. Ledermann. (2010) Primary Chemotherapy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 20, S17-S19
CrossRef25
Ahmet Bilici, Taflan Salepci, Faysal Dane, Mahmut Gumus, Bala Basak Oven Ustaalioglu, Mesut Seker, Tarik Salman, Cem Turan, Orhan Unal, Mustafa Yaylaci. (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with unresectable, advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a single centre experience. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 282:4, 417-425
CrossRef26
Vergote, Ignace, Tropé, Claes G., Amant, Frédéric, Kristensen, Gunnar B., Ehlen, Tom, Johnson, Nick, Verheijen, René H.M., van der Burg, Maria E.L., Lacave, Angel J., Panici, Pierluigi Benedetti, Kenter, Gemma G., Casado, Antonio, Mendiola, Cesar, Coens, Corneel, Verleye, Leen, Stuart, Gavin C.E., Pecorelli, Sergio, Reed, Nick S., . (2010) Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Primary Surgery in Stage IIIC or IV Ovarian Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 363:10, 943-953
Full Text27
Helen J. Mackay, Mark F. Brady, Amit M. Oza, Alexander Reuss, Eric Pujade-Lauraine, Ann M. Swart, Nadeem Siddiqui, Nicoletta Colombo, Michael A. Bookman, Jacobus Pfisterer, Andreas du Bois. (2010) Prognostic Relevance of Uncommon Ovarian Histology in Women With Stage III/IV Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 20:6, 945-952
CrossRef28
Antonio González-Martín, Gemma Toledo, Luis Chiva. (2010) Epithelial ovarian carcinoma: current evidences and future perspectives in the first-line setting. Clinical and Translational Oncology 12:6, 418-430
CrossRef29
Valentina Guarneri, Federico Piacentini, Elena Barbieri, Pier Franco Conte. (2010) Achievements and unmet needs in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 117:2, 152-158
CrossRef30
Mayu Yunokawa, Noriyuki Katsumata, Kan Yonemori, Tsutomu Kouno, Chikako Shimizu, Masashi Ando, Yasuhiro Fujiwara. (2010) Weekly Administration of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in the Treatment of Advanced Ovarian or Peritoneal Cancers With Poor Performance Status. Clinical Ovarian Cancer 3:1, 47-51
CrossRef31
Vivian E. von Gruenigen, Helen Q. Huang, Karen M. Gil, Heidi E. Gibbons, Bradley J. Monk, Peter G. Rose, Deborah K. Armstrong, David Cella, Lari Wenzel. (2010) A Comparison of Quality-of-Life Domains and Clinical Factors in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 39:5, 839-846
CrossRef32
Lori E. Weinberg, Gustavo Rodriguez, Jean A. Hurteau. (2010) The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology 101:4, 334-343
CrossRef33
John K. Chan, Chunqiao Tian, Deanna Teoh, Bradley J. Monk, Thomas Herzog, Daniel S. Kapp, Jeffrey Bell. (2010) Survival after recurrence in early-stage high-risk epithelial ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic Oncology 116:3, 307-311
CrossRef34
Oliver Zivanovic, Camelia S. Sima, Alexia Iasonos, William J. Hoskins, Pavani R. Pingle, Mario M.M. Leitao, Yukio Sonoda, Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, Richard R. Barakat, Dennis S. Chi. (2010) The effect of primary cytoreduction on outcomes of patients with FIGO stage IIIC ovarian cancer stratified by the initial tumor burden in the upper abdomen cephalad to the greater omentum. Gynecologic Oncology 116:3, 351-357
CrossRef35
A. Fagotti, F. Fanfani, G. Vizzielli, V. Gallotta, A. Ercoli, A. Paglia, B. Costantini, M. Vigliotta, G. Scambia, G. Ferrandina. (2010) Should laparoscopy be included in the work-up of advanced ovarian cancer patients attempting interval debulking surgery?. Gynecologic Oncology 116:1, 72-77
CrossRef36
Igor E. Martinek, Sean Kehoe. (2010) When Should Surgical Cytoreduction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Take Place?. Journal of Oncology 2010, 1-6
CrossRef37
T. Onda, H. Yoshikawa, T. Yasugi, K. Matsumoto, Y. Taketani. (2010) The Optimal Debulking after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer: Proposal Based on Interval Look During Upfront Surgery Setting Treatment. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 40:1, 36-41
CrossRef38
Philipp Harter, Felix Hilpert, Sven Mahner, Stefan Kommoss, Florian Heitz, Jacobus Pfisterer, Andreas du Bois. (2009) Prognostic Factors for Complete Debulking in First- and Second-Line Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 19:Suppl 2, S14-S17
CrossRef39
Michael A. Bookman. (2009) Trials With Impact on Clinical Management. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 19:Suppl 2, S55-S62
CrossRef40
Peter E. Schwartz. (2009) Contemporary considerations for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary ovarian cancer. Current Oncology Reports 11:6, 457-465
CrossRef41
Vivian E. von Gruenigen, Helen Q. Huang, Karen M. Gil, Heidi E. Gibbons, Bradley J. Monk, Peter G. Rose, Deborah K. Armstrong, David Cella, Lari Wenzel. (2009) Assessment of factors that contribute to decreased quality of life in Gynecologic Oncology Group ovarian cancer trials. Cancer 115:20, 4857-4864
CrossRef42
Bryan T Hennessy, Robert L Coleman, Maurie Markman. (2009) Ovarian cancer. The Lancet 374:9698, 1371-1382
CrossRef43
John H. Farley, Chunqiao Tian, G. Scott Rose, Carol L. Brown, Michael Birrer, G. Larry Maxwell. (2009) Race does not impact outcome for advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with cisplatin/paclitaxel. Cancer 115:18, 4210-4217
CrossRef44
Ritu Salani, Floor J Backes, Larry J Copeland. (2009) Overview of epithelial ovarian cancer and updates in management strategies. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 4:4, 383-399
CrossRef45
A. Fagotti, I. Paris, F. Grimolizzi, F. Fanfani, G. Vizzielli, A. Naldini, G. Scambia. (2009) Secondary cytoreduction plus oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients: A pilot study. Gynecologic Oncology 113:3, 335-340
CrossRef46
Vallipuram Sivanesaratnam. (2009) Third S. S. Ratnam Memorial Lecture 2007. Ovarian cancer: Is there hope for women?. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 35:3, 393-404
CrossRef47
K Singh, J Balega, KK Chan. (2009) A statement for extensive primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 116:6, 865-865
CrossRef48
S. Aebi, M. Castiglione, . (2009) Newly and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology 20:Supplement 4, iv21-iv23
CrossRef49
J. Tate Thigpen. (2009) CON: Secondary Surgical Debulking Is Not an Acceptable Option in Patients with Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer. Clinical Ovarian Cancer 2:1, 21-23
CrossRef50
Siriwan Tangjitgamol, Sumonmal Manusirivithaya, Malinee Laopaiboon, Pisake Lumbiganon, Siriwan Tangjitgamol. 2009. Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. .
CrossRef51
Chunqiao Tian, Maurie Markman, Richard Zaino, Robert F. Ozols, William P. McGuire, Franco M. Muggia, Peter G. Rose, David Spriggs, Deborah K. Armstrong. (2009) CA-125 change after chemotherapy in prediction of treatment outcome among advanced mucinous and clear cell epithelial ovarian cancers. Cancer 115:7, 1395-1403
CrossRef52
Kristin K. Zorn, Chunqiao Tian, William P. McGuire, William J. Hoskins, Maurie Markman, Franco M. Muggia, Peter G. Rose, Robert F. Ozols, David Spriggs, Deborah K. Armstrong. (2009) The prognostic value of pretreatment CA 125 in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 115:5, 1028-1035
CrossRef53
Amy D. Tiersten, P.Y. Liu, Harriet O. Smith, Sharon P. Wilczynski, William R. Robinson, Maurie Markman, David S. Alberts. (2009) Phase II evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and debulking followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy in women with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Study S0009. Gynecologic Oncology 112:3, 444-449
CrossRef54
Nyree Griffin, Lee A. Grant, Susan J. Freeman, Mercedes Jimenez-Linan, Laurence H. Berman, Helena Earl, Ahmed Ashour Ahmed, Robin Crawford, James Brenton, Evis Sala. (2009) Image-guided biopsy in patients with suspected ovarian carcinoma: a safe and effective technique?. European Radiology 19:1, 230-235
CrossRef55
(2008) A statement for extensive primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 115:13, 1713-1714
CrossRef56
George A. Omura. (2008) Progress in Gynecologic Cancer Research: The Gynecologic Oncology Group Experience. Seminars in Oncology 35:5, 507-521
CrossRef57
S.M. Lenhard, A. Burges, T.R.C. Johnson, A. Kirschenhofer, C. Bruns, R. Linke, K. Friese. (2008) Predictive value of PET–CT imaging versus AGO-scoring in patients planned for cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 140:2, 263-268
CrossRef58
C. William Helm, Robert E. Bristow, Shigeki Kusamura, Dario Baratti, Marcello Deraco. (2008) Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with and without cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology 98:4, 283-290
CrossRef59
C Pomel, DPJ Barton, I McNeish, J Shepherd. (2008) A statement for extensive primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 115:7, 808-810
CrossRef60
P. Morice, F. Planchamp, E. Daraï, E. Leblanc, J. -P. Lefranc, D. Querleu, H. Crouet, J. Dauplat, E. Fondrinier, P. Kerbrat, M. Taillandier, J. Levêque, P. Rauch, F. Selle, R. Villet. (2008) Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: Standards, Options: Recommandations 2007 pour la prise en charge des patientes atteintes de tumeurs épithéliales malignes de l’ovaire. Traitement chirurgical (rapport abrégé). Oncologie 10:4, 283-288
CrossRef61
P. Lèguevaque, S. Motton, T. Chapman, A. Gesson-Paute, M. Soulé-Tholy, G. Escourrou, H. Roché, D. Franck, C. Chevelle, J. Hoff. (2008) Chimiothérapie néoadjuvante dans les cancers ovariens avancés: impact sur la qualitéde la chirurgie d’intervalle et sur la survie sans rechute. Oncologie 10:3, 216-225
CrossRef62
J. Sehouli, C. Fotopoulou, G. Oskay-Özcelik, D. Koensgen-Mustea, A. Mustea, U. Neumann, H. Weidemann, P. Neuhaus, W. Lichtenegger. (2008) Operative Therapie beim Ovarialkarzinomrezidiv. Der Onkologe 14:2, 201-218
CrossRef63
Thomas Lowe, Betty Ferrell, Lucille Leong. (2007) Quality-of-Life Issues in the Management of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Current Treatment Options in Oncology 8:6, 402-416
CrossRef64
J. Pfisterer, P. Harter, F. Hilpert, A. Bois. (2007) Peritoneal metastasiertes Ovarialkarzinom. Der Chirurg 78:12, 1111-1116
CrossRef65
Mario M. Leitao, Dennis S. Chi. (2007) Operative management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Current Oncology Reports 9:6, 478-484
CrossRef66
Jo Morrison, Alexander Swanton, Sally Collins, Sean Kehoe, Jo Morrison. 2007. Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer. .
CrossRef67
Michelle L. Harrison, Thomas Ind, Peter Blake, Martin E. Gore. 2007. Multidisciplinary Team Management of Gynaecological Cancers. .
CrossRef68
F. C. Muñoz-Casares, S. Rufián, M. J. Rubio, E. Lizárraga, C. Díaz-Iglesias, E. Aranda, R. Ciria, J. Muntané, P. Barrios, J. Torres-Melero, S. González-Moreno, L. González-Bayón, B. Camps, P. Bretcha, J. Farré, G. Ortega-Pérez, A. Gómez-Portilla. (2007) Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. Present, future directions and proposals. Clinical and Translational Oncology 9:10, 652-662
CrossRef69
Eddy Cotte, Olivier Glehen, Faheez Mohamed, Franck Lamy, Claire Falandry, François Golfier, Francois Noel Gilly. (2007) Cytoreductive Surgery and Intraperitoneal Chemohyperthermia for Chemoresistant and Recurrent Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Prospective Study of 81 Patients. World Journal of Surgery 31:9, 1813-1820
CrossRef70
T. Le, L. Hopkins, W. Faught, M. Fung-Kee-Fung. (2007) The lack of significance of Ca125 response in epithelial ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and delayed primary surgical debulking. Gynecologic Oncology 105:3, 712-715
CrossRef71
Philippe Debourdeau, Michel Pavic, Christine Zammit, Marc Aletti, Corinne Pogant, Bernard Colle. (2007) Surveillance des cancers en rémission complète. La Presse Médicale 36:6, 949-963
CrossRef72
Giovanni D. Aletti, Mary M. Gallenberg, William A. Cliby, Aminah Jatoi, Lynn C. Hartmann. (2007) Current Management Strategies for Ovarian Cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82:6, 751-770
CrossRef73
G. D. Aletti, M. M. Gallenberg, W. A. Cliby, A. Jatoi, L. C. Hartmann. (2007) Current Management Strategies for Ovarian Cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82:6, 751-770
CrossRef74
June Y Hou, Peter E Schwartz. (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:3, 321-329
CrossRef75
Ottó Lehoczky, Tamás Pulay. (2007) Hámeredetű petefészekrákos betegekben végzett elsődleges műtét eredményessége a túlélés tükrében. Orvosi Hetilap 148:20, 929-933
CrossRef76
Ritu Salani, Antonio Santillan, Marianna L. Zahurak, Robert L. Giuntoli, Ginger J. Gardner, Deborah K. Armstrong, Robert E. Bristow. (2007) Secondary cytoreductive surgery for localized, recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer 109:4, 685-691
CrossRef77
Robert E. Bristow, Eric L. Eisenhauer, Antonio Santillan, Dennis S. Chi. (2007) Delaying the primary surgical effort for advanced ovarian cancer: A systematic review of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction. Gynecologic Oncology 104:2, 480-490
CrossRef78
Jan Hauspy, Allan Covens. (2007) Cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:1, 15-21
CrossRef79
Thierry Petit, Michel Velten, Anne d’Hombres, Christian Marchal, Xavier Montbarbon, Françoise Mornex, Philippe Quetin, Jean-Pierre Gérard, Pascale Romestaing, Christian Carrie. (2007) Long-term survival of 106 stage III ovarian cancer patients with minimal residual disease after second-look laparotomy and consolidation radiotherapy. Gynecologic Oncology 104:1, 104-108
CrossRef80
A. GADDUCCI, S. COSIO, P. ZOLA, F. LANDONI, T. MAGGINO, E. SARTORI. (2007) Surveillance procedures for patients treated for epithelial ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 17:1, 21-31
CrossRef81
Philipp Harter, Andreas du Bois, Maik Hahmann, Annette Hasenburg, Alexander Burges, Sibylle Loibl, Martina Gropp, Jens Huober, Daniel Fink, Willibald Schröder, Karsten Muenstedt, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Guenter Emons, Jacobus Pfisterer, Kerstin Wollschlaeger, Hans-Gerd Meerpohl, Georg-Peter Breitbach, Berno Tanner, Jalid Sehouli. (2006) Surgery in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) DESKTOP OVAR Trial. Annals of Surgical Oncology 13:12, 1702-1710
CrossRef82
Robert E. Bristow, Dennis S. Chi. (2006) Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology 103:3, 1070-1076
CrossRef83
S KEHOE. (2006) Treatments for gynaecological cancers. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 20:6, 985-1000
CrossRef84
Barbara A. Goff, Barbara J. Matthews, Michelle Wynn, Howard G. Muntz, Denise M. Lishner, Laura-Mae Baldwin. (2006) Ovarian cancer: Patterns of surgical care across the United States. Gynecologic Oncology 103:2, 383-390
CrossRef85
D.S. Chi, E.L. Eisenhauer, J. Lang, J. Huh, L. Haddad, N.R. Abu-Rustum, Y. Sonoda, D.A. Levine, M. Hensley, R.R. Barakat. (2006) What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIC epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)?. Gynecologic Oncology 103:2, 559-564
CrossRef86
C. Tropé, J. Kaern. (2006) Primary surgery for ovarian cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 32:8, 844-852
CrossRef87
M. Kohandel, S. Sivaloganathan, A. Oza. (2006) Mathematical modeling of ovarian cancer treatments: Sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy. Journal of Theoretical Biology 242:1, 62-68
CrossRef88
&NA;. (2006) Staging, cytoreduction and chemotherapy improve long-term outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. Drugs & Therapy Perspectives 22:8, 10-13
CrossRef89
Thomas J. Herzog, Robert L. Coleman, Maurie Markman, David Cella, J. Tate Thigpen. (2006) The role of maintenance therapy and novel taxanes in ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 102:2, 218-225
CrossRef90
Snehal Bhoola, William J. Hoskins. (2006) Diagnosis and Management of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:6, 1399-1410
CrossRef91
Robert E. Bristow. (2006) Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes: Response to a letter from Dr. Maurie Markman. Gynecologic Oncology 101:3, 551-552
CrossRef92
Maurie Markman. (2006) Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Gynecologic Oncology 101:3, 550-551
CrossRef93
Robert E. Bristow. (2006) Predicting “unresectable” ovarian cancer: Taking aim at a moving target. Gynecologic Oncology 100:3, 449-450
CrossRef94
J. Pfisterer, B. Schmalfeldt, A. du Bois. (2006) Das Ovarialkarzinom. Der Gynäkologe 39:3, 239-250
CrossRef95
Mirjam J. A. Engelen, Henrike E. Kos, Pax H. B. Willemse, Jan G. Aalders, Elisabeth G. E. de Vries, Michael Schaapveld, Renee Otter, Ate G. J. van der Zee. (2006) Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 106:3, 589-598
CrossRef96
E GLATSTEIN. (2006) Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction for Advanced Ovarian CarcinomaRose PG, for the Gynecologic Oncology Group (Case Western Reserve Univ, Cleveland, Ohio; et al) N Engl J Med 351:2489–2497, 2004§. Yearbook of Medicine 2006, 161-162
CrossRef97
B.J. MONK, P.J. DiSAIA. (2005) What is the role of conservative primary surgical management of epithelial ovarian cancer: the United States experience and debate. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 15:s3, 199-205
CrossRef98
J. Rahaman, J. Holland, C.J. Cohen. (2005) Response to the letter. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 15:6, 1259-1259
CrossRef99
P.F. ESCOBAR, C.M. MICHENER, P.G. ROSE. (2005) Second-look operation improves survival in suboptimal, debulked, stage III ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 15:6, 1258-1258
CrossRef100
Philipp Harter, Andreas du Bois. (2005) The role of surgery in ovarian cancer with special emphasis on cytoreductive surgery for recurrence. Current Opinion in Oncology 17:5, 505-514
CrossRef101
J Morrison, A Swanton, S Kehoe, Jo Morrison. 2005. Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer. .
CrossRef102
Adnan Munkarah. (2005) Does secondary surgical cytoreduction improve survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer?. Nature Clinical Practice Oncology 2:4, 188-189
CrossRef103
Sean Kehoe, Jo Morrison. (2005) Current management of ovarian carcinoma. Therapy 2:2, 275-286
CrossRef104
Nicholas S Reed, Azmat H Sadozye. (2005) Role of chemotherapy in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 5:1, 139-147
CrossRef105
Cannistra, Stephen A., . (2004) Cancer of the Ovary. New England Journal of Medicine 351:24, 2519-2529
Full Text106
Cabot, Richard C.Harris, Nancy Lee, Shepard, Jo-Anne O., Ebeling, Sally H.Ellender, Stacey M.Peters, Christine C., Penson, Richard T., Sahani, Dushyant, Bell, Debra A., . (2004) Case 37-2004. New England Journal of Medicine 351:24, 2531-2538
Full Text107
Thigpen, Tate, . (2004) The If and When of Surgical Debulking for Ovarian Carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine 351:24, 2544-2546
Full Text
