Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.011. Epub 2017 Nov 23.

Predictive modeling for determination of microscopic residual disease at primary cytoreduction: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group 182 Study.

Author information

1
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: nhorowitz@partners.org.
2
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Inova Fairfax Women's Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, United States. Electronic address: George.maxwell@inova.org.
3
NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group, Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. Electronic address: amiller@gogstats.org.
4
Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20889, United States. Electronic address: chad.a.hamilton2.mil@mail.mil.
5
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Medical College of Georgia of Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, United States. Electronic address: brungruange@gru.edu.
6
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, CA 92868, United States. Electronic address: noah.t.rodriguez@gmail.com.
7
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19102, United States. Electronic address: Scott.richard@jefferson.edu.
8
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, United States. Electronic address: Thomase.krivak@ahn.org.
9
Dept. of Gynecologic Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States. Electronic address: jeffreye.fowler@osumc.edu.
10
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, United States. Electronic address: mutchd@wudosis.wustl.edu.
11
Department of OB/GYN, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States. Electronic address: lvl@med.unc.edu.
12
Department of GYN/ONC, Tacoma General Hospital, Tacoma, WA 98405, United States. Electronic address: rogerblee@aol.com.
13
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States. Electronic address: argenta@umn.edu.
14
Gyn/Onc Division, University of Iowa, Iowa, IA 52242, United States. Electronic address: david-bender@uiowa.edu.
15
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA 92868, United States. Electronic address: ktewari@uci.edu.
16
Department of GYN/ONC, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230, United States. Electronic address: dgershen@mdanderson.org.
17
NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group, Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. Electronic address: james.j.java@gmail.com.
18
US Oncology Research and Arizona Oncology, Tucson, AZ 85711, United States. Electronic address: michael.bookman@usoncology.com.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Microscopic residual disease following complete cytoreduction (R0) is associated with a significant survival benefit for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Our objective was to develop a prediction model for R0 to support surgeons in their clinical care decisions.

METHODS:

Demographic, pathologic, surgical, and CA125 data were collected from GOG 182 records. Patients enrolled prior to September 1, 2003 were used for the training model while those enrolled after constituted the validation data set. Univariate analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of R0 and these variables were subsequently analyzed using multivariable regression. The regression model was reduced using backward selection and predictive accuracy was quantified using area under the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) in both the training and the validation data sets.

RESULTS:

Of the 3882 patients enrolled in GOG 182, 1480 had complete clinical data available for the analysis. The training data set consisted of 1007 patients (234 with R0) while the validation set was comprised of 473 patients (122 with R0). The reduced multivariable regression model demonstrated several variables predictive of R0 at cytoreduction: Disease Score (DS) (p<0.001), stage (p=0.009), CA125 (p<0.001), ascites (p<0.001), and stage-age interaction (p=0.01). Applying the prediction model to the validation data resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78, 95% CI). Inclusion of DS enhanced the model performance to an AUC of 0.83 (0.79 to 0.88, 95% CI).

CONCLUSIONS:

We developed and validated a prediction model for R0 that offers improved performance over previously reported models for prediction of residual disease. The performance of the prediction model suggests additional factors (i.e. imaging, molecular profiling, etc.) should be explored in the future for a more clinically actionable tool.

KEYWORDS:

Microscopic residual; Ovarian cancer

PMID:
29174555
PMCID:
PMC5962447
DOI:
10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.011
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center