Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Management of recurrent ovarian cancer: when platinum-based regimens are not a therapeutic option
  1. Alice Bergamini1,2,
  2. Luca Bocciolone1,
  3. Andrei Fodor3,
  4. Massimo Candiani1 and
  5. Giorgia Mangili1
  1. 1 Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
  2. 2 Università Vita Salute San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
  3. 3 Radiotherapy, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alice Bergamini, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano 20132, Italy; bergamini.alice{at}


Ovarian cancer relapses have been traditionally classified according to the platinum-free interval, leading to an arbitrary categorization of possible scenarios and treatment options. Its relevance in assessing treatment strategies has been revised in the last several years, as the panorama is constantly changing in the era of personalized medicine and targeted therapies. Factors to be considered while defining the best management of recurrent disease, and, consequently, the available treatment alternatives are increasing. Platinum remains one of the milestones of ovarian cancer treatment, but for some patients it might not be an ideal choice for several reasons other than limited platinum sensitivity. This review aims to analyze the scenarios in which platinum is not considered suitable in the management of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, and the currently available alternatives.

  • ovarian cancer
  • medical oncology

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Contributors AB, GM and AF drafted the manuscript. MC and LB prepared it as a Review Article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests AB and GM report personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar and Roche, outside the submitted work; LB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, AstraZeneca, and Pharmamar outside the submitted work.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.