Treatment of ovarian cancer with surgery, short-course chemotherapy and whole abdominal radiation

Summary Background The primary aim was to induce a high number of pCR in early (FIGO IC, IIB + C) – and advanced (FIGO ffl – IV) – stage ovarian cancer with a surgery plus 4 cycles of cisplatin and meiphalan (PAMP) regimen. The second objective was to prevent relapse with WAR in patients in remission after chemotherapy. Patients and methods 218 eligible patients were treated after staging laparotomy with cisplatin 80 mg/sqm iv. on day 1 and melphalan 12 mg/sqm i.v. on day 2 q 4 weeks. Response was verified by second-look laparotomy. WAR was carried out with the open field technique on a linear accele rator (daily dose: 1.3 Gy, total dose: 29.9 Gy) in patients with pathological or clinical CR or pathological PR with microscopical residual disease. Results 146/218 patients (67%, 95% CI: 61%–73%) responded to PAMIP: 56 (26%) achieved pCR, 24 (11%), cCR, 56 (26%) pPR and 10 (5%) cPR (c = clinical, p = pathological). Multivariate analyses revealed that in advanced stages (92 cases in remission), the achievement of pCR was the most important factor for longer time to failure (TIF) and survival. Only 5 1/118 (43%) patients in remission received WAR Early-stage patients < = 55 years were more likely to have WAR than patients older than 55 years (77% vs. 23%; p = 0.02). Advanced-stage patients with cCR were less likely to be irradiated than patients with pCR or pPR (10% vs. 51%; p = 0.003). Toxicity of PAMP was acceptable with 10% of WHO grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Acute hematological toxicity of WAR caused interruption (33%) or incompleteness (33%) of irradiation in the majority of patients. Conclusions PAMP is an effective treatment for advanced ovarian cancer with a 67% response rate after 4 cycles. For the majority of patients in remission, WAR as a consolidation treatment was hardly feasible. For these patients new treatment modalities to consolidate remission are needed.