Is intraperitoneal chemotherapy still an acceptable option in primary adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer?

The role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy in treating newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been the subject of controversy for almost three decades. Three large intergroup phase III trials (GOG 104, 114, 172) have demonstrated a survival benefit associated with i.p. over intravenous (i.v.) therapy in advanced, low-volume EOC. Despite the positive clinical trial results and a subsequent National Cancer Institute alert in 2006, i.p. treatment has not been widely accepted as the standard of care in the United States and is infrequently used in Europe. The hesitancy of clinicians to use i.p. therapy is likely attributed to higher toxicity, inconvenience, catheter complications, and clinical trial design issues. On the other hand, In a long-term follow-up report from these trials, we showed that the effect of i.p. chemotherapy extends beyond 10 years and that the more cycles of i.p. therapy portends for improved survival over similar cycles of i.v. therapy with younger patients having a higher likelihood of completing 6 cycles of i.p.

Treatment: More recently, a fourth randomized phase III trial, GOG 252, failed to show a survival advantage associated with i.p. cisplatin and i.p. carboplatin over dose-dense i.v. paclitaxel and carboplatin. Since the use of bevacizumab was incorporated in all arms of the study, this anti-vascular agent may have equalized or negated the clinical advantage of i.p. chemotherapy and dose-dense weekly as suggested in GOG 262. We are awaiting the results of the Asian iPocc trial comparing dose-dense paclitaxel to i.p. chemotherapy without bevacizumab, though the differences in the tumor histology and pharmacokinetics in Asian versus non-Asian patients may influence the interpretation of the results worldwide. In this review, we review the polarizing opinions on the relevance of i.p. therapy in today's clinical armamentarium. Never before, have oncologists examined the same datasets with divergent conclusions. This topic is confusing to patients and clinicians alike and has led to inconsistent guidelines and reimbursement. However, it might be time to move on. Now more than ever, we have novel combinations to personalize upfront treatments for advanced ovarian cancer. In addition to i.p. therapy we also need to focus on targeted therapy, biomarkers, survivorship, and the sequencing of therapy.