Skip to main content

Response evaluation after neoadjuvant therapy: evaluation of chemotherapy response score and serological and/or radiological assessment of response in ovarian cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose

The chemotherapy response score (CRS) is a histopathological tool to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (OC). We critically evaluated the clinical value of CRS and compared its predictive power to standard serological (CA125) and radiological response.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 277 OC patients, who received primary chemotherapy, was performed. CRS, serological, and radiological findings were correlated with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

CRS could be determined in 172 of 277 patients (62.1%). In patients with CRS3, a longer median PFS and OS was observed compared with CRS1/2 patients (31.2 vs. 18.9, P < 0.001; 55.0 vs. 36.1 months, P = 0.050). CA125 and radiological response evaluation were also predictive for PFS and OS. Patients with serological and radiological complete response showed longer PFS (23.0 vs. 14.4, P = 0.011; 21.4 vs. 9.6 months, P < 0.001) and OS (49.5 vs. 29.0, P = 0.003; 45.0 vs. 12.9 months, P < 0.001). Patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had the best median PFS (52.8 months), even compared with non-pCR CRS3 (27.8 months). In the total study cohort, serological, and radiological complete response was better at predicting PFS (hazard ratio 2.23 and 2.77).

Conclusion

In this study, evaluation of response to chemotherapy by CRS was not superior to conventional methods (CA125 or radiology). Independent of the evaluation method, response to NACT was predictive of PFS and OS. We observed no added value for CRS as a prognostic marker. The clinical relevance of CRS should be discussed, as no therapeutic consequences result from CRS evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J (2009) Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory 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 115(6):1234–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24149

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rose PG, Nerenstone S, Brady MF et al (2004) Secondary surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian carcinoma. N Engl J Med 351(24):2489–2497. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041125

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363(10):943–953. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908806

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M et al (2015) Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 386(9990):249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62223-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    du Bois A, Baert T, Vergote I (2019) Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 37(27):2398–2405. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.00022

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E et al (2011) 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 21(2):419–423. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182070f17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bohm S, Faruqi A, Said I et al (2015) 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 33(22):2457–2463. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.60.5212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bohm S, Le N, Lockley M et al (2019) Histopathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a prognostic biomarker in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: updated chemotherapy response score (CRS) results. Int J Gynecol Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2018-000092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA et al (2015) Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Pathol 28(8):1101–1122. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    The College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary tumors of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum; Version: OvaryFallopian1.0.0.1. Available from https://documents.cap.org/protocols/cp-ovary-fallopian-tube-peritoneum-2017-v1001.pdf. Accessed: 30 March 2020

  14. 14.

    The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. Dataset for histopathological reporting of carcinomas and borderline tumours of the ovaries, fallopian tubes and peritoneum, July 2019. Available from https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/63d413b3-ee69-43df-aa7f495e062a4d47/G079-Dataset-for-histopathological-reporting-of-carcinomas-of-the-ovaries-fallopian-tubes-and-peritoneum-For-Publication.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2020

  15. 15.

    Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A et al (2019) ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol 30(5):672–705. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz062

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Vallius T, Hynninen J, Kemppainen J et al (2018) (18)F-FDG-PET/CT based total metabolic tumor volume change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45(7):1224–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3961-z

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Winfield JM, Wakefield JC, Dolling D et al (2019) Diffusion-weighted MRI in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a response marker. Radiology 293(2):374–383. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rizzo S, Del Grande M, Manganaro L, Papadia A, Del Grande F (2020) Imaging before cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 30(1):133–138. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Phillips A, Sundar S, Singh K et al (2018) Complete cytoreduction after five or more cycles of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy confers a survival benefit in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(6):760–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.P.R. and T.B. wrote the manuscript. J.P.R., T.B., M.L.M., B.A., M.B., F.H., H.P., S.S., P.H., and A.d.B. collected the data. K.-U.W. performed analysis of radiological imaging. S.H. performed the histological analysis. A.d.B., P.H., and T.B. provided the study design and supervised the project. J.P.R., T.B., and A.T. performed the statistical analysis. J.P.R. and T.B. analyzed the data. All authors discussed the results, corrected, and validated the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Philipp Ramspott.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

J.P.R., M.L.M., A.T., K.-U.W., and S.H. have no conflict of interest to declare. T.B. has been an advisor for Tesaro and received research grant from Amgen, non-financial support from Amgen, MSD, Roche, and Tesaro, outside the submitted work. B.A. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche and Tesaro, personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, and Celgene, non-financial support from PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. M.B. reports non-financial support from prIME Oncology, outside the submitted work. F.H. reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Molecular Health, non-financial support from PharmaMar, and New Oncology, outside the submitted work. H.P. reports non-financial support from Tesaro, outside the submitted work. S.S. reports personal fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, and Clovis, personal fees and travel grants from GSK/Tesaro, and travel grants from Pharmamar, outside the submitted work. P.H. reports grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Tesaro, and Roche, personal fees from Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, grants and personal fees from Public funding (ASCO, DKH, DFG), personal fees from Clovis, Immunogen, grants from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medac, and Genmab, outside the submitted work. A.d.B. received honoraria and particpated in advisory boards for Roche, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Tesaro/GSK, MSD, Genmab, and Biocad, outside the submitted work.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study before treatment.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

a

Supplementary file1. Supplementary Fig. 1 Progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with CRS 1/2 and serological stable disease (SD) or partial remission (PR). b Progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with CRS 3 and serological complete remission (CR). c Overall survival (OS) in patients with CRS 1/2 and serological stable disease (SD) or partial remission (PR). d Overall survival (OS) in patients with CRS 3 and serological complete remission (CR). Determination of CRS did not show any difference in PFS (P = 0.939, P = 0.218) or OS (P = 0.420, P = 0.903) compared to serological SD/PR or CR. (TIF 492 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramspott, J.P., Baert, T., MacKintosh, M.L. et al. Response evaluation after neoadjuvant therapy: evaluation of chemotherapy response score and serological and/or radiological assessment of response in ovarian cancer patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 304, 1021–1032 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06020-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ovarian cancer
  • Debulking surgery
  • Chemotherapy