Chemotherapy Response Score in Ovarian Cancer Patients: An Overview of Its Clinical Utility

Ioannis Rodolakis, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Michalis Liontos, Dimitrios Haidopoulos, Dimitrios Loutradis, Alexandros Rodolakis, Aristotelis Bamias, Nikolaos Thomakos, Ioannis Rodolakis, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Michalis Liontos, Dimitrios Haidopoulos, Dimitrios Loutradis, Alexandros Rodolakis, Aristotelis Bamias, Nikolaos Thomakos

Abstract

The chemotherapy response score has been developed over the last few years as a predictive index of survival outcomes for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval debulking surgery. While its importance in predicting patients at risk of developing recurrences earlier seems to be important, its accuracy in determining patients with a shorter overall survival remains arbitrary. Moreover, standardization of the actual scoring system that was initially developed as a 6-tiered score and adopted as a 3-tiered score is still needed, as several studies suggest that a 2-tiered system is preferable. Given its actual importance in detecting patients with shorter progression-free survival, research should also focus on the actual predictive value of determining patients with platinum resistance, as a suboptimal patient response to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy might help determine patients at risk of an earlier recurrence. In the present review, we summarize current knowledge retrieved from studies addressing outcomes related to the chemotherapy response score in epithelial ovarian cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and discuss differences in outcome reporting to help provide directions for further research.

Keywords: chemotherapy response; interval debulking surgery; ovarian cancer; overall survival; progression-free survival.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Ervik M., Dikshit R., Eser S., Mathers C., Rebelo M., Parkin D.M., Forman D., Bray F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon, France: 2013.
    1. Chen W., Zheng R., Baade P.D., Zhang S., Zeng H., Bray F., Jemal A., Yu X.Q., He J. Cancer Statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2016;66:115–132. doi: 10.3322/caac.21338.
    1. Sehouli J., Savvatis K., Braicu E.-I., Schmidt S.-C., Lichtenegger W., Fotopoulou C. Primary Versus Interval Debulking Surgery in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Results From a Systematic Single-Center Analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2010;20:1331–1340. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181f15714.
    1. Katsumata N., Yasuda M., Isonishi S., Takahashi F., Michimae H., Kimura E., Aoki D., Jobo T., Kodama S., Terauchi F., et al. Long-term results of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin versus conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin for treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (JGOG 3016): A randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1020–1026. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70363-2.
    1. Nishio S., Ushijima K. Clinical significance of primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy-interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020;50:379–386. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa015.
    1. Wakabayashi M.T., Lin P.S., Hakim A.A. The role of cytoreductive/debulking surgery in ovarian cancer. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. JNCCN. 2008;6:803–810; quiz 811. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2008.0060.
    1. Haidopoulos D., Pergialiotis V., Zachariou E., Sapantzoglou I., Thomakos N., Stamatakis E., Alexakis N. Maximal Effort Cytoreduction in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Perioperative Complications and Survival Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort. J. Clin. Med. 2023;12:622. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020622.
    1. Cummins C., Kumar S., Long J., Balega J., Broadhead T., Duncan T., Edmondson R.J., Fotopoulou C., Glasspool R.M., Kolomainen D., et al. Investigating the Impact of Ultra-Radical Surgery on Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Population-Based Data in a Multicentre UK Study. Cancers. 2022;14:4362. doi: 10.3390/cancers14184362.
    1. Colombo N., Sessa C., du Bois A., Ledermann J., McCluggage W.G., McNeish I., Morice P., Pignata S., Ray-Coquard I., Vergote I., et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: Pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann. Oncol. 2019;30:672–705. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz062.
    1. Fagotti A., Ferrandina M.G., Vizzielli G., Pasciuto T., Fanfani F., Gallotta V., Margariti P.A., Chiantera V., Costantini B., Alletti S.G., et al. Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION-NCT01461850) Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2020;30:1657–1664. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640.
    1. Vergote I., Coens C., Nankivell M., Kristensen G.B., Parmar M.K.B., Ehlen T., Jayson G.C., Johnson N., Swart A.M., Verheijen R., et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancers: Pooled analysis of individual patient data from the EORTC 55971 and CHORUS trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1680–1687. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30566-7.
    1. Morice P., Dubernard G., Rey A., Atallah D., Pautier P., Pomel C., Lhommé C., Duvillard P., Castaigne D. Results of interval debulking surgery compared with primary debulking surgery in advanced stage ovarian cancer. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2003;197:955–963. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.06.004.
    1. Le T., Williams K., Senterman M., Hopkins L., Faught W., Fung-Kee-Fung M. Histopathologic assessment of chemotherapy effects in epithelial ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and delayed primary surgical debulking. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007;106:160–163. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.03.029.
    1. Cohen P.A., Powell A., Böhm S., Gilks C.B., Stewart C.J., Meniawy T., Bulsara M., Avril S., Brockbank E.C., Bosse T., et al. Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019;154:441–448. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679.
    1. Said I., Böhm S., Beasley J., Ellery P.M., Faruqi A.Z.F., Ganesan R.F., Hirschowitz L.F., Jeetle S.F., Leen S.L.S.F., McCluggage W.G.F., et al. The Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS): Interobserver Reproducibility in a Simple and Prognostically Relevant System for Reporting the Histologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tuboovarian High-grade Serous Carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2017;36:172–179. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000307.
    1. Santoro A., Travaglino A., Inzani F., Straccia P., Arciuolo D., Valente M., D’Alessandris N., Scaglione G., Angelico G., Piermattei A., et al. Prognostic Value of Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS) Assessed on the Adnexa in Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2022;12:633. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12030633.
    1. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
    1. Böhm S., Faruqi A., Said I., Lockley M., Brockbank E., Jeyarajah A., Fitzpatrick A., Ennis D., Dowe T., Santos J.L., et al. Chemotherapy Response Score: Development and Validation of a System to Quantify Histopathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:2457–2463. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212.
    1. Ditzel H.M., Strickland K.C., Meserve E.E., Stover E., Konstantinopoulos P.A., Matulonis U.A., Muto M.G., Liu J.F., Feltmate C., Horowitz N., et al. Assessment of a Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS) System for Tubo-Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma (HGSC) Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2019;38:230–240. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000513.
    1. Lawson B.C., Euscher E.D., Bassett R.L., Liu J., Ramalingam P., Zhong Y., Fleming N.D., Malpica A. A 3-Tier Chemotherapy Response Score for Ovarian/Fallopian Tube/Peritoneal High-grade Serous Carcinoma: Is it Clinically Relevant? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2020;44:206–213. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001391.
    1. Lee J.-Y., Chung Y.S., Na K., Kim H.M., Park C.K., Nam E.J., Kim S., Kim S.W., Kim Y.T., Kim H.-S. External validation of chemotherapy response score system for histopathological assessment of tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017;28:e73. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e73.
    1. Michaan N., Chong W.Y., Han N.Y., Lim M.C., Park S.Y. Prognostic Value of Pathologic Chemotherapy Response Score in Patients With Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2018;28:1676–1682. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001366.
    1. Santoro A., Angelico G., Piermattei A., Inzani F., Valente M., Arciuolo D., Spadola S., Mulè A., Zorzato P., Fagotti A., et al. Pathological Chemotherapy Response Score in Patients Affected by High Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: The Prognostic Role of Omental and Ovarian Residual Disease. Front. Oncol. 2019;9:778. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00778.
    1. Masoodi T., Siraj S., Siraj A.K., Azam S., Qadri Z., Parvathareddy S.K., Tulbah A., Al-Dayel F., AlHusaini H., AlOmar O., et al. Genetic heterogeneity and evolutionary history of high-grade ovarian carcinoma and matched distant metastases. Br. J. Cancer. 2020;122:1219–1230. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-0763-4.
    1. Khalique L., Ayhan A., Whittaker J.C., Singh N., Jacobs I.J., Gayther S.A., Ramus S.J. The clonal evolution of metastases from primary serous epithelial ovarian cancers. Int. J. Cancer. 2009;124:1579–1586. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24148.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj