Table 1. New strategies in first-line treatment for ovarian cancer
From: Ovarian cancer standard of care: are there real alternatives?
Strategy | Trial | Number of patients | Stage | Armsa | Primary endpoint | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NACT | EORTC55971[19] | 670 | IIIC–IV | PS → CP × 6 | OS (non inferiority) | IDS is not inferior to PS (30 vs. 29 months, HR = 0.98, 90% CI = 0.84 to 1.13, P = 0.01) |
CP × 3 → IDS→CP × ⩾ 3 | ||||||
CHORUS trial[20] | 550 | IIIC–IV | PS → CP × 6 | OS (non inferiority) | IDS is not inferior to PS (24.5 vs. 22.8 months, HR = 0.87, 80% CI, 0.76 to 0.98) | |
CP × 3→IDS→CP × ⩾ 3 | ||||||
IP CHT | GOG172[22] | 429 | III | PS → IPCisP × 6 | PFS and OS | Prolonged PFS (23.8 vs. 18.3 months, P = 0.05) and prolonged OS (65.6 vs. 49.7 months, P = 0.03) |
PS → IVCisP × 6 | ||||||
GOG114[23] | 462 | III | PS, IVC→ IVP, IPCis × 6 | PFS and OS | Prolonged PFS (27.9 vs. 22.2 months, P = 0.01) and prolonged OS (63.2 vs. 52.2 months, P = 0.05) | |
PS → IVCisP × 6 | ||||||
DD CHT | 637 | II–IV | 3weeCP × 6 | PFS and OS | Prolonged PFS (28 vs. 17.2 months, P = 0.015) and prolonged OS (100 vs. 62 months, P = 0.039) | |
3weeC+ wP × 6 | ||||||
MITO-7[32] | 822 | IC–IV | 3weeCP × 6 | QoL and PFS | Better QoL for wCP (P < 0.001) but no benefit in PFS (17.3 vs. 18.3 months, P = 0.66) | |
wCP × 6 | ||||||
GOG262[36] | 692 | II–IV | 3weeCP × 6 | PFS | Prolonged PFS (only without bevacizumab, HR = 0.97) | |
3weeBCP × 6→Bm | ||||||
3weeC+ wP × 6 | ||||||
3weeC+ wP →Bm | ||||||
New doublets | SCOTROC 1[37] | 1,077 | IC–IV | CP × 6 | PFS | No benefit in PFS (14.8 vs. 15.0 months, P = 0.707) |
CD × 6 | ||||||
MITO-2[39] | 820 | IC–IV | CP × 6 | PFS | No benefit in PFS (16.8 vs. 19.0 months, P = 0.58) | |
C-LPD × 6 |