IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3603-d360900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons of Clinical Outcomes in Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Frontline Intraperitoneal versus Dose-Dense Platinum/Paclitaxel Chemotherapy without Bevacizumab

Author

Listed:
  • Wan-Hua Ting

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan)

  • Chi-Huang Hsiao

    (Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan)

  • Hui-Hua Chen

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan)

  • Ming-Chow Wei

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan)

  • Ho-Hsiung Lin

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan)

  • Sheng-Mou Hsiao

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 220409, Taiwan
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan
    Graduate School of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 320315, Taiwan)

Abstract

Background: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between intraperitoneal chemotherapy and dose-dense chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of advanced ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer in women not receiving bevacizumab. Methods: All consecutive women with stage II~IV cancer treated with either frontline intraperitoneal or dose-dense platinum/paclitaxel chemotherapy and not receiving bevacizumab between March 2006 and June 2019 were reviewed. Results: A total of 50 women (intraperitoneal group, n = 22; dose-dense group, n = 28) were reviewed. Median progression-free survival (32.6 months versus 14.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.90, p = 0.03) and overall survival (not reached versus 30.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.79, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in the intraperitoneal group than in the dose-dense group. A multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model also indicated that the number of frontline chemotherapy cycles (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94, p = 0.02) was a predictor of better overall survival. Nausea/vomiting and nephrotoxicity occurred more frequently in the intraperitoneal group ( p = 0.02 and <0.0001, respectively). Conclusions: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy seems to be superior in progression free survival and overall survival to dose-dense chemotherapy in the frontline treatment of women with optimally resected advanced ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer and not receiving bevacizumab.

Suggested Citation

  • Wan-Hua Ting & Chi-Huang Hsiao & Hui-Hua Chen & Ming-Chow Wei & Ho-Hsiung Lin & Sheng-Mou Hsiao, 2020. "Comparisons of Clinical Outcomes in Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Frontline Intraperitoneal versus Dose-Dense Platinum/Paclitaxel Chemotherapy without Bevacizumab," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3603-:d:360900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3603/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3603/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3603-:d:360900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.