Date post: | 06-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | akbarnovan |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
1/48
Dr. Rafyandi
PICO
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
2/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
3/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
4/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
5/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
6/48
To determine the overall survival and relativeeect o multiple prognostic variables incohorts o patients ith advanced!stageovarian cancer treated ith platinum!based
neoad"uvant chemotherapy in lieu o primarycytoreductive surgery.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
7/48
Tenty!to cohorts o patients ith #tage IIIand I$ ovarian cancer %&'( patients) ereidentifed rom articles in *+D,I-+ %/&/0122()
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
8/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
9/48
The mean number o patients in each cohortas '& %median3'14 range3205()
*edian survival time ranged rom 2.1 to 61.2months.
7or all cohorts ta8en together4 the meaneighted median survival time as 16.(months.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
10/48
+ach 29 increase inthe proportion opatients in each cohortundergoing ma:imalinterval cytoreductivesurgery as associatedith a ./ monthincrease in median
survival time%/(9CI32.1' months0'.(2 months4 p32.215).
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
11/48
+ach incrementalchemotherapy cycleas signifcantlyassociated ith a 6.
month decrease inmedian survival time%/(9CI3&. to ;2.months4 p32.26
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
12/48
+ach 29 increase inthe proportion opatients receiving ata:ane as associatedith a .< monthincrease in mediansurvival time %/(9CI32.&5 months01.1(
months4 p=2.222()
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
13/48
+ach 29 increase in the proportion opatients ith stage I$ disease as associatedith an estimated 1.' month decrease inmedian survival time %/(9CI3;'.52 months
to ;.22 months4 p32.221).-o statistically signifcant relationship
beteen median cohort age and mediansurvival time %p32.66&).
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
14/48
-eoad"uvant chemotherapy in lieu o primarycytoreduction is associated ith inerioroverall survival compared to initial surgery.
Increasing percent ma:imal cytoreduction ispositively associated ith median cohortsurvival
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
15/48
The negative survival eect o increasingnumber o chemotherapy cycles prior tointerval surgery suggests that defnitiveoperative intervention should be underta8en
as early in the treatment program as possible.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
16/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
17/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
18/48
To compare
$#
Primarydebul8ing
surgery %PD#)olloed by
platinum!basedchemotherapy
-eoad"uvantchemotherapy%->CT) olloed
by intervaldebul8ing
surgery andadditional
chemotherapyin advanced ovarian
carcinoma.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
19/48
• Patients
+ligible patients had biopsy!proven stage IIICor I$ invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma4primary peritoneal carcinoma4 or allopian!tubecarcinoma.
• Study design
Patients ere randomly assigned either to PD#
olloed by at least si: courses o platinum!based chemotherapy or to three courses o->CT olloed by interval debul8ing surgery
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
20/48
5& patients ere enrolled
''< ?ere assigned to PD#''6 ?ere assignd to
->CT
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
21/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
22/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
23/48
The overall test or a treatment eect on globalhealth as not signifcant.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
24/48
Overall survival as similar in the to groups in theintention!to!treat analyses %1/ months in the primary!surgery group and '2 months in the neoad"uvant!
chemotherapy group)
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
25/48
Progression-free survival was similar in the two groups in the
intention-to-treat analyses (12 months in both groups)
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
26/48
• Aa@ard ratio or death in the group assignedto neoad"uvant chemotherapy olloed byinterval debul8ing4 as compared ith thegroup assigned to primary debul8ing4 as
2./& %/29 confdence interval BCI4 2.&6 to.' P 3 2.2 or nonineriority)
• Aa@ard ratio or progressive disease as .2%/29 CI4 2.&/ to .().
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
27/48
Similar results for overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1!!"
#!$ %&, !' to 11" P * !!1 for noninferiority)
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
28/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
29/48
PDS(months)
NACT(months)
-o residual tumor %optimal result) 6( '&
Residual tumors that measured to2 mm in diameter %suboptimalresult)
'1 15
Residual tumors larger than 2 mm%other result)
1< 1(
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
30/48
The strongest independent predictors o prolongedsurvival4 in descending orderE
• >bsence o residual tumor ater surgery %P=2.22)
• #tage IIIC disease %P 3 2.22)
• #mall tumor si@e beore randomi@ation %P 3 2.22)
• +ndometrioid histologic type4 olloed indescending order by serous4 mi:ed4undierentiated4 mucinous4 and clear!cell types %P
3 2.22()• Founger age %P 3 2.22().
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
31/48
The standard o care or omen ith stage IIIGor earlier!stage epithelial ovarian cancer H agroup ith a better prognosis than the currentstudy population H remains primary
cytoreductive surgery.Only those patients ith proven stage IIIC or
I$ disease should be considered orneoad"uvant chemotherapy.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
32/48
The clinician may assess important predictiveactors ith respect to residual macroscopicdisease ater debul8ing surgery %e.g.4presence or absence o coe:isting illnesses4
age4 disease burden4 location o metastaticsites4 ?AO perormance status4 and tumorstage).
,aparoscopy4 in addition to a:ial CT4 may
provide inormation about the disease burden
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
33/48
->CT is not inerior to PD# or patients ithstage IIIC or I$ ovarian carcinoma.
-o signifcant advantages o ->CT or PD#ere observed ith respect to survival4
adverse eects4 uality o lie4 orpostoperative morbidity or mortality.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
34/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
35/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
36/48
To evaluate the use o neoad"uvantchemotherapy %->CT) and primary debul8ingsurgery %PD#) beore and ater results rom arandomi@ed trial ere published and shoed
nonineriority beteen ->CT and PD# in themanagement o advanced!stage ovariancarcinoma.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
37/48
#tudy design E retrospective analysisPlace E at *emorial #loan Jettering Cancer
Center
Time E Kanuary 4 122& to *ay 4 12'
Patients E all nely diagnosed patients hopresented ith stage III or I$ diseaseaccording to 7ILO staging criteria %(&<
patients)
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
38/48
+:clusion E i they had already undergone PD#at an outside acility4 completed ->CT prior topresentation4 presented ith borderline orlo!grade histology4 or had stage I or II
disease The decision to oer PD# as a primary
treatment strategy as at the discretion othe individual surgical attending
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
39/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
40/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
41/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
42/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
43/48
There ere no '2!day postoperative deaths ineither the PD# or ->CT cohort
There ere &2 %69) grade ' or 6 adverseevents in the entire cohort o (&< patients
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
44/48
PDS NACT
*edianP7#
1.5 months%/(9 CI4 /.(01'.&)
'./ months%/(9 CI 1.(!
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
45/48
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
46/48
• The best survivaloutcomes ere observedin patients ho achieveda complete grossresection at the time o
PD#4 although O# atercomplete gross resectionat the time o ID#%median O#4
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
47/48
In this single!institution analysis4 the bestsurvival outcomes ere observed in patientsho ere deemed eligible or PD# olloed byplatinum!based chemotherapy
?ith improved optimal resection rates andless adverse event in ->CT4 they concludethat ->CT is reasonable treatment strategyor advanced ovarian cancer.
8/17/2019 Pico Pds vs Nact
48/48