Toxicity of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and risk factors for severe toxicity in optimally debulked ovarian cancer patients

  • Y.-J. K
  • K.-T. L
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
1Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect and toxicity of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer and to determine the risk factors for severe toxicity. Materials and methods: Patients who received IP chemotherapy after optimal debulking surgery for ovarian cancer between 2006 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with none/Grade 1 or Grade 2 toxicity and those with Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicity. Results: In 41 patients, the mean number of IP cycles administered was 5.6 and most patients (80.5%) completed at least six cycles. The reasons for discontinuation were catheter-related problems (30%), disease progression (20%), or drug-related adverse effects (30%). Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicity was observed in 30 patients (73.2%). The rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher in the patients with Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicity (37%) than in the patients without Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicity (9%), however, this difference was not significant (p = 0.128). During a mean follow-up period of 33.6 months, tumor recurrence occurred in 20 (48.8%) patients and the median progression-free survival was 30.0 months. Conclusion: Despite the high rate of adverse events, IP chemotherapy can be delivered with a high completion rate and manageable toxicity to patients with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Toxicity should be closely monitored in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy until a large prospective study can be performed to determine its influence.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Y.-J., K., & K.-T., L. (2015). Toxicity of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and risk factors for severe toxicity in optimally debulked ovarian cancer patients. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 54(3), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2013.12.010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free