Abstract
Ovarian cancer is a disease that remains confined to the abdominal cavity in the majority of cases. IP therapy, therefore, offers an attractive treatment strategy for providing high concentrations of drugs directly to tumor sites. The size of any remaining tumor nodules at the initiation of chemotherapy is the most critical factor in selecting patients who may benefit from IP therapy. It has been demonstrated that chemotherapeutic agents can penetrate into tumor nodules approximately 1–2 mm from the surface. Then, theoretically, IP therapy should only benefit patients with very small residual disease at the initiation of therapy or it must be combined with intravenous therapy that can reach the center of tumor nodules. Los et al. [1] used an IP rat model to demonstrate that the concentration of cisplatin was higher in the periphery of tumor nodules following IP administration, while the concentration in the center was equivalent to that of intravenously (IV) administered cisplatin. By convention, optimal residual disease is defined as no individual tumor mass greater than 1 cm in diameter. Most recent trials of IP therapy include this definition as part of their eligibility criteria. Whether or not patients with larger disease at the initiation of IP therapy may also benefit from IP therapy is controversial. GOG 104, a randomized trial of IV cyclophophamide plus IP cipslatin vs. IV cylophosphamide plus IP cisplatin [2], permitted accrual of women with residual disease up to 2 cm in diameter. The effect of the treatment route (IV vs. IP) was not influenced by the size of the residual disease (microscopic vs. #0.5 cm vs. > 0.5–2 cm). Although it is possible that women with suboptimal disease may benefit from IP therapy, the majority of randomized trials that have demonstrated a benefit to IP therapy have included patients with optimal residual disease [3, 4].
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Los G, Mutsaers PH, van der Vijgh WJ et al (1989) Direct diffusion of cisdiamminedichloroplatinum (II) in intraperitoneal rat tumors after intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a comparison with systemic chemotherapy. Cancer Res 49:3380–3384
Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV et al (1996) Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 335:1950–1955
Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L et al (2006) Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 354:34–43
Markman M, Bundy BN, Alberts DS et al (2001) Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 19:1001–1007
Shapiro F, Schneider J, Markman MM et al (1997) High-intensity intravenous cyclophosphamide and cisplatin, interim surgical debulking, and intraperitoneal cisplatin in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a pilot trial with ten-year follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 67:39–45
Barakat RR, Almadrones L, Venkatraman ES et al (1998) A phase II trial of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide as consolidation therapy in patients with Stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer following negative surgical assessment. Gynecol Oncol 69:17–22
Piccart MJ, Floquet A, Scarfone G et al (2003) Intraperitoneal cisplatin versus no further treatment: 8-year results of EORTC 55875, a randomized phase III study in ovarian cancer patients with a pathologically complete remission after platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 13:196–203
Barakat RR, Sabbatini P, Bhaskaran D et al (2002) Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma: results of long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 20:694–698
Barakat RR, Fennelly D, Pizzuto F, Venkatraman ES, Brown C, Curtin JP (1997) Salvage intraperitoneal therapy of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of retroperitoneal nodal disease. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 18:161–163
Sabbatini P, Spriggs DR (2006) Consolidation for ovarian cancer in remission. J Clin Oncol 24:537–539
Tournigarnd C, Louvet C, Molitor JL et al (2003) Long-term survival with consolidation intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer with pathological complete remission. Gynecol Oncol 91:341–345
Zivanovic O, Barakat RR, Sabbatini PJ et al (2008) Prognostic factors for patients with stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer receiving intraperitoneal chemotherapy after second-look assessment: results of long-term follow-up. Cancer 112:2690–2697
Los G, Mutsaers PH, Lenglet WJ, Baldew GS, McVie JG (1990) Platinum distribution in intraperitoneal tumors after intraperitoneal cisplatin treatment. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 25:389–394
Los G, Verdegaal EM, Mutsaers PH, McVie JG (1991) Penetration of carboplatin and cisplatin into rat peritoneal tumor nodules after intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 28:159–165
Berek JS, Taylor PT, Gordon A et al (2004) Randomized, placebo controlled study of oregovomab for consolidation of clinical remission in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3507–3516
Markman M (2003) Rationale for maintenance or consolidation therapy in ovarian cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 1:176–178
Markman M (2003) Consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 5:454–458
Markman M, Liu PY, Wilczynski S et al (2003) Southwest Oncology Group; Gynecologic Oncology Group. Phase III randomized trial of 12 versus 3 months of maintenance paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after complete response to platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 21:2460–2465
Nicholson S, Gooden CS, Hird V et al (1998) Radioimmunotherapy after chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a matched analysis. Oncol Rep 5:223–226
Chi DS, Franklin CC, Levine DA et al (2004) Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: a change in surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol 94:650–654
Markman M, Jones W, Lewis JL Jr et al (1992) Impact of laparotomy finding of significant intraabdominal adhesions on the surgically defined complete response rate to subsequent salvage intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 118:163–165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barakat, R.R. (2010). Criteria for Using Intraperitoneal (IP) Chemotherapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer. In: Alberts, D., Clouser, M., Hess, L. (eds) Intraperitoneal Therapy for Ovarian Cancer. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12130-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12130-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12129-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12130-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)