CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,197Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentBRCA gene mutations in cancerEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

ESMO-ESGO Consensus Conference Recommendations on Ovarian Cancer: Pathology and Molecular Biology, Early and Advanced Stages, Borderline Tumours and Recurrent Disease

Open access
Colombo, N., Sessa, C., du Bois, A., Ledermann, J., McCluggage, W.G., McNeish, I., Morice, P., Pignata, S. +55 more·2019·Annals of Oncology
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdz062
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdz062

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 103

  1. Dykewicz CA. Summary of the guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33(2): 139-144.
  2. Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP et al. Dysplastic changes in prophy- lactically removed fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol 2001; 195(4): 451-456.
  3. Singh N, Gilks CB, Wilkinson N, McCluggage WG. The secondary Mu ¨llerian system, field effect, BRCA, and tubal fimbria: our evolving understanding of the origin of tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcin- oma and why assignment of primary site matters. Pathology 2015; 47(5): 423-431.
  4. Singh N, McCluggage WG, Gilks CB. High-grade serous carcinoma of tubo-ovarian origin: recent developments. Histopathology 2017; 71(3): 339-356.
  5. McCluggage WG, Hirschowitz L, Gilks CB et al. The fallopian tube ori- gin and primary site assignment in extrauterine high-grade serous car- cinoma: findings of a survey of pathologists and clinicians. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2017; 36(3): 230-239.
  6. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RHE. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition. Lyon: IARC 2014.
  7. Gilks CB, Irving J, Ko ¨bel M et al. Incidental nonuterine high-grade ser- ous carcinomas arise in the fallopian tube in most cases: further evi- dence for the tubal origin of high-grade serous carcinomas. The Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 39(3): 357-364.
  8. Morrison JC, Blanco LZ Jr, Vang R, Ronnett BM. Incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and early invasive serous carcinoma in the nonprophylactic setting: analysis of a case series. Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 39(4): 442-453.
  9. Rabban JT, Garg K, Crawford B et al. Early detection of high-grade tubal serous carcinoma in women at low risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by systematic examination of fallopian tubes incidentally removed during benign surgery. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38(6): 729-742.
  10. Chen F, Gaitskell K, Garcia MJ et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carci- nomas associated with high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas: a system- atic review. BJOG 2017; 124(6): 872-878.
  11. Singh N, Gilks CB, Wilkinson N, McCluggage WG. Assessment of a new system for primary site assignment in high-grade serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube, ovary, and peritoneum. Histopathology 2015; 67(3): 331-337.
  12. Labidi-Galy SI, Papp E, Hallberg D et al. High grade serous ovarian car- cinomas originate in the fallopian tube. Nat Commun 2017; 8(1): 1093.
  13. Bashashati A, Ha G, Tone A et al. Distinct evolutionary trajectories of primary high-grade serous ovarian cancers revealed through spatial mu- tational profiling. J Pathol 2013; 231(1): 21-34.
  14. Eckert MA, Pan S, Hernandez KM et al. Genomics of ovarian cancer progression reveals diverse metastatic trajectories including intraepithe- lial metastasis to the fallopian tube. Cancer Discov 2016; 6(12): 1342-1351.
  15. Kuhn E, Kurman RJ, Vang R et al. TP53 mutations in serous tubal intra- epithelial carcinoma and concurrent pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma-evidence supporting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J Pathol 2012; 226(3): 421-426.
  16. Singh N, Faruqi A, Kommoss F et al. Extrauterine high-grade serous carcinomas with bilateral adnexal involvement as the only two disease sites are clonal based on TP53 sequencing results: implications for biol- ogy, classification, and staging. Mod Pathol 2018; 31(4): 652-659.
  17. Singh N, Gilks CB, Hirschowitz L et al. Primary site assignment in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: consensus statement on unifying practice worldwide. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141(2): 195-198.
  18. McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA et al. Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommenda- tions from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Pathol 2015; 28(8): 1101-1122.
  19. Prat J. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124(1): 1-5.
  20. Prat J. Ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer staging: rationale and explanation of new FIGO staging 2013. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 29(6): 858-869.
  21. Oza AM, Cook AD, Pfisterer J et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16(8): 928-936.
  22. Pujade-Lauraine E, Hilpert F, Weber B et al. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: the AURELIA open-label randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(13): 1302-1308.
  23. Poveda AM, Selle F, Hilpert F et al. Bevacizumab combined with weekly paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan in platinum- resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: analysis by chemotherapy cohort of the randomized phase III AURELIA trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(32): 3836-3838.
  24. Aghajanian C, Blank SV, Goff BA et al. OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(17): 2039-2045.
  25. Maru D, Venook AP, Ellis LM. Predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab: are we there yet? Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19(11): 2824-2827.
  26. Bais C, Mueller B, Brady MF et al. Tumor microvessel density as a po- tential predictive marker for bevacizumab benefit: GOG-0218 biomark- er analyses. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109(11): 109.
  27. Collinson F, Hutchinson M, Craven RA et al. Predicting response to bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: a panel of potential biomarkers inform- ing treatment selection. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19(18): 5227-5239.
  28. Backen A, Renehan AG, Clamp AR et al. The combination of circulating Ang1 and Tie2 levels predicts progression-free survival advantage in bevacizumab-treated patients with ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20(17): 4549-4558.
  29. Bell D, Berchuck A, Chien J et al. Integrated genomic analyses of ovar- ian carcinoma. Nature 2011; 474(7353): 609-615.
  30. Gelmon KA, Tischkowitz M, Mackay H et al. Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12(9): 852-861.
  31. Swisher EM, Lin KK, Oza AM et al. Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum- sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an inter- national, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18(1): 75-87.
  32. Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(26): 2495-2505.
  33. Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(15): 1382-1392.
  34. Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian can- cer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(8): 852-861.
  35. Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovar- ian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18(9): 1274-1284.
  36. Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(22): 2154-2164.
  37. Bowman A, Gabra H, Langdon SP et al. CA125 response is associated with estrogen receptor expression in a phase II trial of letrozole in ovar- ian cancer: identification of an endocrine-sensitive subgroup. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8(7): 2233-2239.
  38. Smyth JF, Gourley C, Walker G et al. Antiestrogen therapy is active in selected ovarian cancer cases: the use of letrozole in estrogen receptor- positive patients. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13(12): 3617-3622.
  39. Gershenson DM, Sun CC, Iyer RB et al. Hormonal therapy for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125(3): 661-666.
  40. Friedlander M, Trimble E, Tinker A et al. Clinical trials in recurrent ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21(4): 771-775.
  41. Monk BJ, Herzog TJ, Tewari KS. Evolution of chemosensitivity and re- sistance assays as predictors of clinical outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Curr Pharm Des 2016; 22(30): 4717-4728.
  42. Mackay HJ, Brady MF, Oza AM et al. Prognostic relevance of uncom- mon ovarian histology in women with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010; 20(6): 945-952.
  43. Dann RB, DeLoia JA, Timms KM et al. BRCA1/2 mutations and expression: response to platinum chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125(3): 677-682.
  44. Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C et al. BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(21): 2654-2663.
  45. Safra T, Borgato L, Nicoletto MO et al. BRCA mutation status and de- terminant of outcome in women with recurrent epithelial ovarian can- cer treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Mol Cancer Ther 2011; 10(10): 2000-2007.
  46. Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI et al. Germline and somatic muta- tions in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20(3): 764-775.
  47. Bajrami I, Frankum JR, Konde A et al. Genome-wide profiling of genetic synthetic lethality identifies CDK12 as a novel determin- ant of PARP1/2 inhibitor sensitivity. Cancer Res 2014; 74(1): 287-297.
  48. Patch AM, Christie EL, Etemadmoghadam D et al. Whole-genome characterization of chemoresistant ovarian cancer. Nature 2015; 521(7553): 489-494.
  49. Walton JB, Farquharson M, Mason S et al. CRISPR/Cas9-derived mod- els of ovarian high grade serous carcinoma targeting BRCA1, PTEN and NF1, and correlation with platinum sensitivity. Sci Rep 2017; 7(1): 16827.
  50. Kang S, Ju W, Kim JW et al. Association between excision repair cross- complementation group 1 polymorphism and clinical outcome of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with epithelial ovarian can- cer. Exp Mol Med 2006; 38(3): 320-324.
  51. Rubatt JM, Darcy KM, Tian C et al. Pre-treatment tumor expression of ERCC1 in women with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer is not predictive of clinical outcomes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125(2): 421-426.
  52. Muallem MZ, Braicu I, Massir M et al. ERCC1 expression as a predictor of resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy in primary ovarian can- cer. Anticancer Res 2014; 34(1): 393-399.
  53. Blackledge G, Lawton F, Redman C, Kelly K. Response of patients in phase II studies of chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: implications for pa- tient treatment and the design of phase II trials. Br J Cancer 1989; 59(4): 650-653.
  54. Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E et al. Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21(2): 419-423.
  55. Tian C, Markman M, Zaino R et al. CA-125 change after chemotherapy in prediction of treatment outcome among advanced mucinous and clear cell epithelial ovarian cancers: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 2009; 115(7): 1395-1403.
  56. Chen X, Zhang J, Cheng W et al. CA-125 level as a prognostic indicator in type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23(5): 815-822.
  57. Azad NS, Annunziata CM, Steinberg SM et al. Lack of reliability of CA125 response criteria with anti-VEGF molecularly targeted therapy. Cancer 2008; 112(8): 1726-1732.
  58. Lindemann K, Kristensen G, Mirza MR et al. Poor concordance be- tween CA-125 and RECIST at the time of disease progression in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: analysis of the AURELIA trial. Ann Oncol 2016; 27(8): 1505-1510.
  59. Scaletta G, Plotti F, Luvero D et al. The role of novel biomarker HE4 in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17(9): 827-839.
  60. Giannopoulou L, Kasimir-Bauer S, Lianidou ES. Liquid biopsy in ovar- ian cancer: recent advances on circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56(2): 186-197.
  61. Bo ¨hm S, Faruqi A, Said I et al. Chemotherapy response score: develop- ment and validation of a system to quantify histopathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcin- oma. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(22): 2457-2463.
  62. Said I, Bo ¨hm S, Beasley J et al. The chemotherapy response score (CRS): interobserver reproducibility in a simple and prognostically relevant system for reporting the histologic response to neoadjuvant chemother- apy in tuboovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2017; 36(2): 172-179.
  63. Coghlan E, Meniawy TM, Munro A et al. Prognostic role of histological tumor regression in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-grade serous tubo-ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27(4): 708-713.
  64. Lee JY, Chung YS, Na K et al. External validation of chemotherapy re- sponse score system for histopathological assessment of tumor regres- sion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol 2017; 28(6): e73.
  65. Singh P, Kaushal V, Rai B et al. The chemotherapy response score is a useful histological predictor of prognosis in high-grade serous carcin- oma. Histopathology 2018; 72(4): 619-625.
  66. Ditzel HM, Strickland KC, Meserve EE et al. Assessment of a chemo- therapy response score (CRS) system for tubo-ovarian high-grade ser- ous carcinoma (HGSC). Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019; 38(3): 230-240.
  67. Cohen PA, Powell A, Bo ¨hm S et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score predicts survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiv- ing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data (July 11, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn. com/abstract¼3292601 (20 December 2018, date last accessed).
  68. Rodrı ´guez IM, Prat J. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a clinicopatho- logic analysis of 75 borderline tumors (of intestinal type) and carcino- mas. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26(2): 139-152.
  69. Lee KR, Scully RE. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a clinicopathologic study of 196 borderline tumors (of intestinal type) and carcinomas, including an evaluation of 11 cases with 'pseudomyxoma peritonei'. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24(11): 1447-1464.
  70. Chen S, Leitao MM, Tornos C, Soslow RA. Invasion patterns in stage I endometrioid and mucinous ovarian carcinomas: a clinicopathologic analysis emphasizing favorable outcomes in carcinomas without de- structive stromal invasion and the occasional malignant course of carci- nomas with limited destructive stromal invasion. Mod Pathol 2005; 18(7): 903-911.
  71. Khunamornpong S, Settakorn J, Sukpan K et al. Primary ovarian mu- cinous adenocarcinoma of intestinal type: a clinicopathologic study of 46 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2014; 33(2): 176-185.
  72. Tabrizi AD, Kalloger SE, Ko ¨bel M et al. Primary ovarian mucinous car- cinoma of intestinal type: significance of pattern of invasion and immu- nohistochemical expression profile in a series of 31 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2010; 29(2): 99-107.
  73. Gouy S, Saidani M, Maulard A et al. Characteristics and prognosis of stage I ovarian mucinous tumors according to expansile or infiltrative type. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28(3): 493-499.
  74. Hart WR. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2005; 24(1): 4-25.
  75. Bell DA. Low-grade serous tumors of ovary. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2014; 33(4): 348-356.
  76. Malpica A, Longacre TA. Prognostic indicators in ovarian serous bor- derline tumours. Pathology 2018; 50(2): 205-213.
  77. Vang R, Hannibal CG, Junge J et al. Long-term behavior of serous bor- derline tumors subdivided into atypical proliferative tumors and nonin- vasive low-grade carcinomas: a population-based clinicopathologic study of 942 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2017; 41(6): 725-737.
  78. Hauptmann S, Friedrich K, Redline R, Avril S. Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification: evolving concepts and diagnos- tic criteria. Virchows Arch 2017; 470(2): 125-142.
  79. Karlsen NMS, Karlsen MA, Ho ¨gdall E et al. Relapse and disease specific survival in 1143 Danish women diagnosed with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT). Gynecol Oncol 2016; 142(1): 50-53.
  80. du Bois A, Ewald-Riegler N, de Gregorio N et al. Borderline tumours of the ovary: a cohort study of the Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gyna ¨kologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49(8): 1905-1914.
  81. Uzan C, Muller E, Kane A et al. Prognostic factors for recurrence after conservative treatment in a series of 119 patients with stage I serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Ann Oncol 2014; 25(1): 166-171.
  82. Matias-Guiu X, Stewart CJR. Endometriosis-associated ovarian neopla- sia. Pathology 2018; 50(2): 190-204.
  83. Park HJ, Kim DW, Yim GW et al. Staging laparoscopy for the manage- ment of early-stage ovarian cancer: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209(1): 58.e1-e8.
  84. Vergote I, De Brabanter J, Fyles A et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001; 357(9251): 176-182.
  85. Morice P, Joulie F, Camatte S et al. Lymph node involvement in epithe- lial ovarian cancer: analysis of 276 pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenec- tomies and surgical implications. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197(2): 198-205.
  86. Powless CA, Aletti GD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Cliby WA. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122(3): 536-540.
  87. Gouy S, Saidani M, Maulard A et al. Staging surgery in early-stage ovar- ian mucinous tumors according to expansile and infiltrative types. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2017; 22: 21-25.
  88. Muyldermans K, Moerman P, Amant F et al. Primary invasive mucin- ous ovarian carcinoma of the intestinal type: importance of the expan- sile versus infiltrative type in predicting recurrence and lymph node metastases. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49(7): 1600-1608.
  89. Minig L, Heitz F, Cibula D et al. Patterns of lymph node metastases in apparent stage I low-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24(9): 2720-2726.
  90. Houck K, Nikrui N, Duska L et al. Borderline tumors of the ovary: cor- relation of frozen and permanent histopathologic diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 839-843.
  91. Shih KK, Garg K, Soslow RA et al. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of ovarian borderline tumor. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 123(3): 517-521.
  92. Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A et al. Fertility-sparing surgery in epi- thelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review of oncological issues. Ann Oncol 2016; 27(11): 1994-2004.
  93. Satoh T, Hatae M, Watanabe Y et al. Outcomes of fertility-sparing sur- gery for stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposal for patient selec- tion. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(10): 1727-1732.
  94. Fruscio R, Corso S, Ceppi L et al. Conservative management of early- stage epithelial ovarian cancer: results of a large retrospective series. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(1): 138-144.
  95. Bentivegna E, Fruscio R, Roussin S et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with an isolated ovarian recurrence after conservative treat- ment of epithelial ovarian cancer: review of the results of an international multicenter study comprising 545 patients. Fertil Steril 2015; 104(5): 1319-1324.
  96. Collinson F, Qian W, Fossati R et al. Optimal treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 2014; 25(6): 1165-1171. 101. Colombo N, Guthrie D, Chiari S et al. International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Trial 1: a randomized trial of adjuvant chemother- apy in women with early-stage ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(6): 125-132. 102. Colombo N, Pecorelli S. What have we learned from ICON1 and ACTION? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13(Suppl 2): 140-143. 103. Colombo N, Trimbos JB, Guthrie D et al. ACTION þ ICON1: two par- allel randomised phase III trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to no adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery in women with high risk early ovarian cancer [abstract]. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37(Suppl 6): 276. 104. Shimizu D, Sato N, Sato T et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I ovarian carcinoma with intraoperative tumor capsule rupture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41(3): 432-439. 105. Takada T, Iwase H, Iitsuka C et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: an analysis of fully staged patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22(4): 573-578. 106. Takano M, Sugiyama T, Yaegashi N et al. Less impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: a retrospect- ive Japan clear cell carcinoma study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010; 20(9): 1506-1510. 107.
  97. Mizuno M, Kajiyama H, Shibata K et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I ovarian clear cell carcinoma: is it necessary for stage IA? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22(7): 1143-1149. 108. Oseledchyk A, Leitao MM Jr, Konner J et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I endometrioid or clear cell ovarian cancer in the platinum era: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results cohort study, 2000-2013. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(12): 2985-2993. 109. Chatterjee S, Chen L, Tergas AI et al. Utilization and outcomes of chemotherapy in women with intermediate-risk, early-stage ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127(6): 992-1002. 110. Kajiyama H, Mizuno M, Shibata K et al. A recurrence-predicting prog- nostic factor for patients with ovarian clear-cell adenocarcinoma at re- productive age. Int J Clin Oncol 2014; 19(5): 921-927. 111. Prat J, De Nictolis M. Serous borderline tumors of the ovary: a long- term follow-up study of 137 cases, including 18 with a micropapillary pattern and 20 with microinvasion. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26(9): 1111-1128. 112. Timmers PJ, Zwinderman AH, Coens C et al. Understanding the prob- lem of inadequately staging early ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(5): 880-884. 113. Trimbos B, Timmers P, Pecorelli S et al. Surgical staging and treatment of early ovarian cancer: long-term analysis from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102(13): 982-987. 114. Trimbos JB, Parmar M, Vergote I et al. International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Trial 1 and Adjuvant ChemoTherapy In Ovarian Neoplasm Trial: two parallel randomized phase III trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(2): 105-112. 115. Trimbos JB, Vergote I, Bolis G et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Adjuvant Chemotherapy In Ovarian Neoplasm Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(2): 113-125. 116. Vergote I, Trimbos JB, Guthrie D et al. Results of a randomized trial in 923 patients with high-risk early ovarian cancer, comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with no further treatment following surgery [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20(Part I): 201a. 117. Bell J, Brady MF, Young RC et al. Randomized phase III trial of three versus six cycles of adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel in early stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 102(3): 432-439. 118. Chan JK, Tian C, Fleming GF et al. The potential benefit of 6 vs. 3 cycles of chemotherapy in subsets of women with early-stage high-risk epithe- lial ovarian cancer: an exploratory analysis of a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116(3): 301-306. 119. Bakkum-Gamez JN, Richardson DL, Seamon LG et al. Is there a high- risk subgroup of stage I epithelial ovarian cancer that is most likely to benefit from 6 versus 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010; 20(7): 1125-1131. 120. Bolis G, Colombo N, Pecorelli S et al. Adjuvant treatment for early epi- thelial ovarian cancer: results of two randomised clinical trials compar- ing cisplatin to no further treatment or chromic phosphate (32P).
  98. Song T, Choi CH, Park HS et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: oncologic safety and reproductive outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21(4): 640-646. 171. Vasconcelos I, Olschewski J, Braicu I, Sehouli J. Limited efficacy of platinum-based adjuvant treatment on the outcome of borderline ovar- ian tumors. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 186: 26-33. 172. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined ex- ploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer 2009; 115(6): 1234-1244. 173. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK et al. Survival effect of max- imal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20(5): 1248-1259. 174. Vergote IB, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vanderstichele A. How to select neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary debulking surgery in patients with stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(32): 3827-3828. 175. du Bois A, Quinn M, Thigpen T et al. 2004 consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: final document of the 3rd International Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (GCIG OCCC 2004). Ann Oncol 2005; 16(Suppl 8): viii7-viii12. 176.
  99. Stuart GC, Kitchener H, Bacon M et al. 2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21(4): 750-755. 177. Vergote I, Trope ´CG, Amant F et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pri- mary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(10): 943-953. 178. Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M et al. Primary chemotherapy versus pri- mary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2015; 386(9990): 249-257. 179. Vergote I, du Bois A, Amant F et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: on what do we agree and disagree? Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128(1): 6-11. 180. Michielsen K, Dresen R, Vanslembrouck R et al. Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI compared to computed tomog- raphy for pre-operative assessment of patients suspected for ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2017; 83: 88-98. 181. Risum S, Høgdall C, Loft A et al. Prediction of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in primary ovarian cancer with combined positron emis- sion tomography/computed tomography-a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108(2): 265-270. 182.
  100. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(1): 34-43. 208. Tewari D, Java JJ, Salani R et al. Long-term survival advantage and prognostic factors associated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy treat- ment in advanced ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(13): 1460-1466. 209. Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with opti- mally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(17): 3194-3200. 210. du Bois A, Lu ¨ck HJ, Meier W et al. A randomized clinical trial of cis- platin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(17): 1320-1329. 211. Gore M, du Bois A, Vergote I. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer remains experimental. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(28): 4528-4530. 212. Walker J, Brady MF, DiSilvestro PA et al. A phase III trial of bevacizu- mab with IV versus IP chemotherapy for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma: an NRG oncology study. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141(1): 208. 213. Spiliotis J, Vaxevanidou A, Sergouniotis F et al. The role of cytoreduc- tive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of recurrent advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. J BUON 2011; 16(1): 74-79. 214. Batista TP. Comment on: surgery and HIPEC in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective randomized phase III study. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24(Suppl 3): 630. 215. Harter P, Reuss A, Sehouli J et al. Brief report about the role of hyper- thermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a prospective randomized phase 3 study in recurrent ovarian cancer from Spiliotis et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27(2): 246-247. 216. Chiva LM, Gonzalez-Martin A. A critical appraisal of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the treatment of advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 136(1): 130-135. 217. Lim MC, Chang SJ, Yoo HJ et al. Randomized trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in women with primary advanced peritoneal, ovarian, and tubal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(15_Suppl): 5520. 218.
  101. Coleman R, Enserro D, Spirtos NM et al. A phase III randomized con- trolled trial of secondary surgical cytoreduction (SSC) followed by platinum-based combination chemotherapy (PBC), with or without bevacizumab (B) in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (PSOC): a NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(15_Suppl): 5501. 267. Harter P, Sehouli J, Reuss A et al. Prospective validation study of a pre- dictive score for operability of recurrent ovarian cancer: the Multicenter Intergroup study DESKTOP II. A project of the AGO Kommission OVAR, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO-Austria, and MITO. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21(2): 289-295. 268. Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Ercoli A et al. Is there a role for tertiary (TCR) and quaternary (QCR) cytoreduction in recurrent ovarian cancer? Anticancer Res 2015; 35(12): 6951-6955. 269. Fotopoulou C, Zang R, Gultekin M et al. Value of tertiary cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer: an international multicenter evalu- ation. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20(4): 1348-1354. 270. Feuer DJ, Broadley KE. Corticosteroids for the resolution of malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal can- cer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD001219. 271. Peng X, Wang P, Li S et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing octreo- tide and scopolamine butylbromide in symptom control of patients with inoperable bowel obstruction due to advanced ovarian cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13: 50. 272.
  102. Guastalla J, Vincent P, Le Roi A. CA125 evaluation of chemotherapy re- sponse in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: Rustin criteria revis- ited. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: 204a. 294. Pfisterer J, Dean AP, Baumann K et al. Carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/bevacizumab (CD-BEV) vs. carboplatin/gemcitabine/bev- acizumab (CG-BEV) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: a pro- spective randomized phase III ENGOT/GCIG-Intergroup study (AGO study group, AGO-Austria, ANZGOG, GINECO, SGCTG) (9330). Ann Oncol 2018; 29(Suppl 8): viii332-viii358. 295. Pujade-Lauraine E, Wagner U, Aavall-Lundqvist E et al. Pegylated lipo- somal doxorubicin and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel and car- boplatin for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in late relapse. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(20): 3323-3329. 296. Gordon AN, Fleagle JT, Guthrie D et al. Recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxo- rubicin versus topotecan. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(14): 3312-3322. 297. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be antici- pated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 2015; 26(8): 1547-1573. 298. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(23): 2563-2577. 299. Herzog TJ, Ison G, Alvarez RD et al. FDA ovarian cancer clinical trial endpoints workshop: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology White Paper. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 147(1): 3-10. 300. Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J et al. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(10): 2340-2366. 301.
  103. P. Morice, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France; S. Nicum, Cancer Centre, Oxford, UK; S. Olbrecht, Leuven Cancer Institute and University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Colombo, N., Sessa, C., du Bois, A., Ledermann, J., McCluggage, W. G., McNeish, I., Morice, P., Pignata, S., Ray-Coquard, I., Vergote, I., Baert, T., Belaroussi, I., Dashora, A., Olbrecht, S., Planchamp, F., Querleu, D., Baert, T., Banerjee, S., Belaroussi, I., Blecharz, P., Bruchim, I., Cibula, D., Colombo, N., Concin, N., Davidson, B., Dashora, A., Devouassoux-Shisheboran, M., du Bois, A., Ferrero, A., Glasspool, R., González-Martin, A., Heinzelmann-Schwarz, V., Joly, F., Kim, J. W., Kridelka, F., Ledermann, J., Lorusso, D., Mahner, S., McCluggage, W. G., McNeish, I., Mikami, M., Mirza, M. R., Morice, P., Nicum, S., Olbrecht, S., O’Donnell, D. M., Pautier, P., Planchamp, F., Pignata, S., Querleu, D., Ray-Coquard, I., Rodolakis, A., Sehouli, J., Selcukbiricik, F., Sessa, C., Singh, N., Tan, D. S. P., Timmerman, D., Tognon, G., van der Velden, J., Vergote, I., Witteveen, P. O., & Zeimet, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
  • Institut Bergonié (FR)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Cibula, D.
  • Lorusso, D.
  • Timmerman, D.
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
672-705
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/annonc/mdz062
OpenAlex
W3023274953
Cited by
1,197
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 186 · 2022: 198 · 2021: 187 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 30
FWCI
128.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Collections portal (Koç University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • ESMO
  • ESGO
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
ovarian cancer, early-stage ovarian cancer, borderline ovarian tumors, advanced ovarian cancer, recurrent ovarian cancer, clinical guidelines
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Neoplasm Metastasis, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Ovarian Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Tumor, Survival Rate, Neoplasm Grading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review