Clinical analysis of pathologic complete responders in advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical characteristics of patients who attained pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and to identify specific predictive or prognostic factors associated with pCR. METHODS: Two distinct populations of patients who underwent NACT followed by interval tumor reductive surgery (TRS) were used in this retrospective study. The first contained 472 patients from a single institution. The second contained only pCR patients (67); those identified from population one, plus 44 obtained through collaborative institutions. Cox analysis and log-rank tests were performed to assess associations between clinical characteristics and pCR outcome, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The median RFS and OS in our pCR-only population was 24.2 and 80.8 months, respectively, with a median follow-up time of 32.4 months. In our single institution population, 23 patients attained pCR (4.9%) and had longer RFS compared to non-pCR patients with viable microscopic, optimal, or suboptimal residual disease (24.3 vs. 12.1 vs. 11.6 vs. 9.6 months, p = 0.025, 0.012, 0.008, respectively), and longer OS compared to those with optimal or suboptimal residual disease (54.5 vs. 29.4 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.027, 0.007, respectively). Patients were more than three-fold likely to attain pCR if their CA125 value was normal at the time of surgery (OR 3.54, 95% CI: 1.14-11.05, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Women with pCR after NACT have significantly longer RFS compared to those with residual viable tumor at the time of interval tumor-reductive surgery, and CA125 is plausible biomarker for identifying these extreme responders preoperatively.

Is it reasonable to administer pegfilgrastim on day 1 of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen? A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is recent evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of same-day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients undergoing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim on day 1 (D1) versus day 2 (D2) for primary prevention of neutropenia in women receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility model was designed comparing standard D2 versus D1 administration of pegfilgrastim to ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate risk (10-15%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Rates of FN despite prophylaxis were modeled as 10% for D1 and 5% for D2. Societal costs associated with D2 injection ($175.71) were incorporated. Quality of life (QOL) was modeled from published data; we assumed a small decrement in QOL on treatment days. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: D1 administration was less costly ($17,195 versus $17,681) and resulted in higher QOL (0.2298 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.2288 QALYs) than D2. Results were sensitive to the risk of FN. D1 remained dominant or cost-effective (ICER less than $50,000/QALY) compared to D2 if the FN rate with D1 was assumed less than 14.5% (baseline estimate 10%). If the FN rate with D1 was assumed greater than or equal to 15%, D1 was not cost-effective compared to D2, with an ICER greater than $100,000/QALY. Findings are insensitive to variations in the modeled cost of treating FN, the additional cost of D2 injection, and the reduced QOL associated with treatment visits. CONCLUSION: Administration of D1 pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in women with ovarian cancer who are treated with intermediate risk chemotherapy.

Factors influencing clinical trial enrollment among ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients who did not enroll on a clinical trial and identify barriers that may limit enrollment among patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) presenting for first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with stage II-IV EOC from 10/2009-4/2013, a time period during which multiple trials were available to all EOC patients, including optimally debulked, suboptimally debulked, or undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Enrollment status, demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details were recorded. SAS version 9.3 was used for all analyses. RESULTS: 144 patients met study criteria; 67% were enrolled on a trial. Enrolled patients were significantly younger (median 61 vs 68years, p=0.002). Stage (p=0.30), race (p=0.75), and performance status (p=0.38) were similar between enrolled and non-enrolled patients. Distance did not impact enrollment, as nearly half of patients in both groups lived >50miles from the treatment center (39.0% vs 47.8%, p=0.36). Mode of chemotherapy administration significantly differed based on participation (all p<0.05). Despite similar residual disease status (p=1.00) and number of chemotherapy regimens received (p=0.59), patients treated on trial had a higher 3-year survival rate (70.7% vs 51.7%, p=0.031). The difference in median progression-free survival approached significance (20.2 vs 9.2months, p=0.091). CONCLUSION: In an institution where the culture is to offer clinical trials to all eligible patients, 33% of front-line EOC patients did not participate. Increasing age was associated with non-participation. Modifiable barriers must be overcome so that trial enrollment can better reflect true EOC demographics.

Evaluation of the Hematologic Safety of Same Day Versus Standard Administration (24- to 72-Hour Delay) of Pegfilgrastim in Gynecology Oncology Patients Undergoing Cytotoxic Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the safety and efficacy of administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day compared with standard administration 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients undergoing pegfilgrastim to mitigate the myelosuppressive consequences of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia following pegfilgrastim for same-day administration (D1) versus standard administration (D2+). Secondary outcomes included dose delay, regimen change, hospitalization due to neutropenia, and incidence of febrile neutropenia. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-one patients with 2071 administrations of pegfilgrastim were included. Five hundred six administrations of pegfilgrastim were given on D1 compared with 1565 administrations on D2+. The most common malignancy was ovarian cancer (79.1%), followed by endometrial (14.5%). Comparing the D1 and D2+ cohorts, noninferiority was not established for the incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (2.6% vs 1.8%, adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.6; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-3.2) or dose modification (6.5% vs 4.9%; aRR, 1.3; 90% CI, 0.9-1.8). However, the rate of treatment delays (7.3% vs 9.4%; aRR, 0.8; 90% CI, 0.6-1.1) in the D1 and D2+ groups suggested that delays in the D1 group were not more common than in the D2+ group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hematologic toxicities and dose modification in patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim were not as low as in those undergoing standard administration. However, treatment delays were found to be no more frequent in those receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus standard administration. Same-day administration of pegfilgrastim is a reasonable option.