Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer patients receiving three versus more cycles of chemotherapy after neoadjuvant treatment and interval cytoreductive surgery
  1. Josephine S Kim1,2,
  2. Margaret I Liang3,4,
  3. Emily N Prendergast3,4,
  4. Jill Alldredge5,
  5. Avisek Datta6,
  6. Jean A Hurteau2,
  7. Carolyn V Kirschner2,
  8. Gustavo Rodriguez2,
  9. Tilley J Vogel2,
  10. Rebecca A Brooks1,
  11. Ilana Cass3,
  12. Joshua G Cohen4,
  13. Kristine R Penner5,
  14. Chi E Wang6 and
  15. Elena S Diaz Moore2
  1. 1Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2Division of Gynecologic Oncology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
  3. 3Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
  4. 4Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  5. 5Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California Irvine, Orange, California, USA
  6. 6Department of Biostatistics and Research Informatics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Josephine S Kim, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA;{at}


Objectives To compare clinical outcomes for stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery followed by up to three versus more cycles of post-operative chemotherapy.

Methods We conducted a multi-institution retrospective cohort study of patients treated from January 2005 to February 2016 with neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy followed by interval surgery and post-operative chemotherapy. The following were exclusion criteria: more than four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bevacizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-platinum therapy, prior chemotherapy, and elevated CA125 values after three post-operative chemotherapy cycles. Progression-free and overall survival and toxicity profiles were compared between groups receiving up to three cycles versus more that three cycles post-operatively.

Results A total of 100 patients met inclusion criteria: 41 received up to three cycles and 59 received more than three cycles. The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, performance status, tumor histology, optimal cytoreduction rates, and median number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Median progression-free survival was 14 vs 16.6 months in those receiving up to three cycles versus more than three cycles, respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68, p=0.97). Similarly, median overall survival was not different at 47.1 vs 69.4 months, respectively (HR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42, p=0.10). There were no differences in grade 2 or higher chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Conclusions Extending post-operative chemotherapy beyond three cycles in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery with normalization of CA125 levels was not associated with improved survival or greater toxicity. Future study in a larger cohort is warranted to define optimal length of cytotoxic treatment.

  • ovarian cancer
  • neoadjuvant chemotherapy
  • postoperative chemotherapy

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 Each author listed has made a substantial contribution to the manuscript, has approved the final version for submission, and agrees to be accountable for the integrity of the work. Conception and design: ESD, JSK. Collection and assembly of data: ESD, JSK, MIL, ENP, JA. Data analysis: AD, CEW, JSK, ESD. Data interpretation: all authors. Manuscript writing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

  • 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 None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Institutional Review Boards: NorthShore University HealthSystem (EH16-172), University of Chicago (13372B), University of California, Los Angeles (16-000350-CR-00002), University of California, Irvine (HS#2016-3058), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (45573).

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

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.