Advertisement

Predictive modeling for determination of microscopic residual disease at primary cytoreduction: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group 182 Study

Published:November 22, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.011

      Highlights

      • A predictive model for R0 was developed and validated.
      • Variables included disease score, stage, CA125, ascites, and stage-age interaction.
      • Model alone should not determine management of advanced stage ovarian cancer.

      Abstract

      Objective

      Microscopic residual disease following complete cytoreduction (R0) is associated with a significant survival benefit for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Our objective was to develop a prediction model for R0 to support surgeons in their clinical care decisions.

      Methods

      Demographic, pathologic, surgical, and CA125 data were collected from GOG 182 records. Patients enrolled prior to September 1, 2003 were used for the training model while those enrolled after constituted the validation data set. Univariate analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of R0 and these variables were subsequently analyzed using multivariable regression. The regression model was reduced using backward selection and predictive accuracy was quantified using area under the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) in both the training and the validation data sets.

      Results

      Of the 3882 patients enrolled in GOG 182, 1480 had complete clinical data available for the analysis. The training data set consisted of 1007 patients (234 with R0) while the validation set was comprised of 473 patients (122 with R0). The reduced multivariable regression model demonstrated several variables predictive of R0 at cytoreduction: Disease Score (DS) (p < 0.001), stage (p = 0.009), CA125 (p < 0.001), ascites (p < 0.001), and stage-age interaction (p = 0.01). Applying the prediction model to the validation data resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78, 95% CI). Inclusion of DS enhanced the model performance to an AUC of 0.83 (0.79 to 0.88, 95% CI).

      Conclusions

      We developed and validated a prediction model for R0 that offers improved performance over previously reported models for prediction of residual disease. The performance of the prediction model suggests additional factors (i.e. imaging, molecular profiling, etc.) should be explored in the future for a more clinically actionable tool.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2016/index.

        • Chang S.J.
        • Bristow R.E.
        • Chi D.S.
        • Cliby W.A.
        Role of aggressive surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer.
        J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 26: 336-342
        • Chi D.S.
        • Eisenhauer E.L.
        • Zivanovic O.
        • Sonoda Y.
        • Abu-Rustum N.R.
        • Levine D.A.
        • et al.
        Improved progression free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2009; 114: 26-31
        • Shih K.K.
        • Chi D.S.
        Maximal cytoreductive effort in epithelial ovarian cancer surgery.
        J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 21: 75-80
        • Chi D.S.
        • Eisenhauer E.L.
        • Lang J.
        • Huh J.
        • Haddad L.
        • Abu-Rustum N.R.
        • et al.
        What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIC epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)?.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2006; 03: 559-564
        • Winter III, W.E.
        • Maxwell G.L.
        • Tian C.
        • Carlson J.W.
        • Ozols R.F.
        • Rose P.G.
        • et al.
        Prognostic factors for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 3621-3627
        • Rodriguez N.
        • Miller A.
        • Richard S.D.
        • Rungruang B.
        • Hamilton C.A.
        • Bookman M.A.
        • et al.
        Upper abdominal procedures in advanced stage ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma patients with minimal or no gross residual disease: an analysis of GOG 182.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 130: 487-492
        • Chang S.J.
        • Hodeib M.
        • Chang J.
        • Bristow R.E.
        Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 130: 493-498
        • Chang S.J.
        • Bristow R.E.
        Evolution of surgical treatment paradigms for advanced stage ovarian cancer: redefining “optimal” residual disease.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 125: 483-492
        • Barlin J.N.
        • Long K.C.
        • Tanner E.J.
        • Gardner G.J.
        • Leitao Jr., M.M.
        • Levine D.A.
        • et al.
        Optimal (≤1 cm) but visible residual disease: is extensive debulking warranted?.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 130: 284-288
        • Horowitz N.S.
        • Miller A.
        • Rungruang B.
        • Richard D.S.
        • Rodriguez N.
        • Bookman M.A.
        • et al.
        Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 937-943
        • Vergote I.
        • Tropé C.G.
        • Amant F.
        • Kristensen G.B.
        • Ehlen T.
        • Johnson N.
        • et al.
        Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2010; 363: 943-953
        • Horowitz N.S.
        • Miller A.
        • Rungruang B.
        • Richard S.
        • Rodriguez N.
        • Bookman M.A.
        • et al.
        Miles of agreement and millimeters of controversy.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 3521-3522
        • Nick A.M.
        • Coleman R.L.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Sood A.K.
        A framework for a personalized surgical approach to ovarian cancer.
        Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 12: 239-245
        • Bookman M.A.
        • Brady M.F.
        • McGuire W.P.
        • Harper P.G.
        • Alberts D.S.
        • Friedlander M.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a phase III trial of the gynecologic cancer intergroup.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27: 1419-1425
        • Altman D.G.
        • Vergouwe Y.
        • Royston P.
        • Moons K.G.
        Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model.
        BMJ. 2009; 338: b605
      2. Harrell FE. Springer Series in Statistics: Regression Modeling Strategies (Corrected ed.) 2010; New York, NY: Springer New York. Pg 247.

        • Youden W.J.
        Index for rating diagnostic tests.
        Cancer. 1950; 13: 32-35
        • Harrell Jr., F.E.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Califf R.M.
        • Pryor D.B.
        • Rosati R.A.
        Regression modeling strategies for improved prognostic prediction.
        Stat. Med. 1984; 3: 143-152
        • Harrell Jr., F.E.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Mark D.B.
        Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions, and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.
        Stat. Med. 1996; 15: 361-387
        • Bristow R.E.
        • Duska L.R.
        • Lambrou N.C.
        • Fishman E.K.
        • O'Neill M.J.
        • Trimble E.L.
        • et al.
        A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography.
        Cancer. 2000; 89: 1532-1540
        • Axtell A.E.
        • Lee M.H.
        • Bristow R.E.
        • Dowdy S.C.
        • Cliby W.A.
        • Raman S.
        • et al.
        Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 384-389
        • Gemer O.
        • Gdalevich M.
        • Ravid M.
        • Piura B.
        • Rabinovich A.
        • Gasper T.
        • et al.
        A multicenter validation of computerized tomography models as predictors of non-optimal primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
        Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009; 35: 1109-1112
        • Kang S.
        • Park S.Y.
        To predict or not to predict? The dilemma of predicting the risk of suboptimal cytoreduction in ovarian cancer.
        Ann. Oncol. 2011; 22 (Dec): viii23-viii28
        • Dowdy S.C.
        • Mullany S.A.
        • Brandt K.R.
        • Huppert B.J.
        • Cliby W.A.
        The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma.
        Cancer. 2004; 101: 346-352
        • Ferrandina G.
        • Sallustio G.
        • Fagotti A.
        • Vizzielli G.
        • Paglia A.
        • Cucci E.
        • et al.
        Role of CT scan-based and clinical evaluation in the preoperative prediction of optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective trial.
        Br. J. Cancer. 2009; 101: 1066-1073
        • Rutten I.J.
        • van de Laar R.
        • Kruitwagen R.F.
        • Bakers F.C.
        • Ploegmakers M.J.
        • Pappot T.W.
        • et al.
        Prediction of incomplete primary debulking surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: an external validation study of three models using computed tomography.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 140: 22-28
        • Suidan R.S.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Sarasin D.M.
        • Teicher J.B.
        • Milonov S.
        • Iyer R.B.
        • et al.
        A multi-center prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 134: 455-461
        • Janco J.M.
        • Glaser G.
        • Kim B.
        • McGree M.E.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • Cliby W.A.
        • et al.
        Development of a prediction model for residual disease in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 138: 70-77
        • Ko S.M.
        • Jung D.C.
        • YT Oh.
        • Kim S.H.
        • Kang S.
        Discrepancy between preoperative imaging and surgical findings in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a study of initial false-negative lesions.
        J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2013; 37: 568-571
        • Fagotti A.
        • Vizzielli G.
        • Fanfani F.
        • et al.
        Definition of a dynamic laparoscopic model for the prediction of incomplete cytoreduction in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: proof of a concept.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 139: 5-9
        • Rutten M.J.
        • Garenstroom K.N.
        • Van Gorp T.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy to predict the result of primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer patients (LapOvCa-trial): a multicenter randomized controlled study.
        BMC Cancer. 2012; 12: 31
        • Riester M.
        • Wei W.
        • Waldron L.
        • Culhane A.C.
        • Trippa L.
        • Oliva E.
        • et al.
        Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples.
        J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014; 106