Objective: To determine the prevalence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity associated with intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy subsequent to primary surgical debulking compared to post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking in advanced ovarian cancer.
Methods: Patients receiving IP chemotherapy from 2006 to 2010 were reviewed. Study cohort was stratified by initial treatment (upfront surgery vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy). The National Cancer Institute toxicity grading scale was used to assess treatment-related toxicities immediately before each cycle. The χ2 test was used to check for association between categorical variables.
Results: Thirty-three patients received IP chemotherapy after optimal debulking. Sixteen patients had upfront surgery. The total number of IP chemotherapy cycles administered was 134. Significantly, more patients treated with IP chemotherapy after intravenous neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced fatigue (P = 0.038) compared to those treated after upfront surgery. During the course of IP regimen, the patients having upfront surgery tended to experience more grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities (P = 0.06) and abdominal pain (P = 0.08). Twenty-four (73%) of 33 patients completed all prescribed IP chemotherapy cycles. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in need for dose reduction or delays, use of paclitaxel on day 8, neurologic/gastrointestinal/metabolic toxicities, and IP port complications.
Conclusions: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy can be given after optimal primary surgery or interval surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with similar toxicity profile. Toxicity data can be used to plan for optimal IP chemotherapy delivery, patient counseling, and ongoing supportive care.
- Ovarian cancer
- Intraperitoneal chemotherapy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.