Chemotherapy of ovarian cancer in elderly patients

Tiffany A. Troso-Sandoval, Stuart M. Lichtman

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 11725, USA

Chemotherapy of ovarian cancer in elderly patients

Tiffany A. Troso-Sandoval, Stuart M. Lichtman

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 11725, USA

Epithelial ovarian cancer is primarily a disease of older women. Advanced age is risk factor for decreased survival. Optimal surgery and the safe and efective administration of chemotherapy are essential for prolonged progression-free and overall survival (OS). In this article, the available regimens in both the primary treatment and relapsed seting are reviewed.

Ovarian cancer; chemotherapy; paclitaxel; carboplatin; intraperitoneal; elderly; geriatrics

Introduction

Epithelial ovarian cancer is primarily a disease of older women. The median age at diagnosis is 63 years with 45.8% aged 65 years and older. In 2013, there were an estimated 222,400 new cases diagnosed and 14,030 will die of the disease1. Serous cancers which compromise 80%-85% of the tumors can manifest as ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal primaries2. Approximately 70% of patients will present at advanced stage and there is no effective screening test to detect disease at an early stage to improve survival. Risks to the development of epithelial ovarian cancer are associated with factors producing uninterrupted ovulation such as no prior pregnancy or low parity. Family history is a strong risk, especially those with a breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA-1 or -2) and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC, Lynch II syndrome). In those situations, onset of disease had a mean age at diagnosis of 42.7 years but can occur at any age including over 703,4. Age is associated with a marked decline in overall survival (OS). The reason for this is uncertain. Possibilities include diagnosis, undertreatment or biology5-8.

Older patients have problems which are ofen not present in the younger patient population. Tese including comorbidities, impairments in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive impairment and geriatric syndromes. One of the geriatric syndromes, polypharmacy, is particularly important when administering chemotherapy. Tere are issues of drug interactions, particularly with cytochrome P450 system, potentially leading to increase toxicity. Guidelines are being formulated for evaluation and minimize medication and improve outcomes9. The pharmacology of drugs used in ovarian cancer in older patients has been published as well as the effect of organ dysfunction10-15. Despite these issues most studies and subset analyses have shown older patients can tolerate chemotherapy at similar dose intensity as younger patients without a signifcant impact on quality of life (QOL)16. Physiologic age rather than chronologic age predicts toxicity associated with therapy. In particular, functional capacity, which does not correlate with Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and comorbidity, is a useful predictor of the toxicity and beneft of systemic chemotherapy, as well as survival, morbidity and mortality in elderly cancer patients17. Te older patients can derive maximal beneft from treatment with appropriate planning and supportive care. Interestingly, it has been postulated that clinical factors such as age, stage and tumor subtype have less of an impact on QOL than psychosocial factors such as family support and transportation. Further, several studies have sought to quantify and compare QOL in ovarian cancer patients18,19. A subset analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 172 showed that personal well-being (PWB) when assessed on FACT-G was associated with a beter overall outcome including an increased OS20.

Tis paper reviews the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer with emphasis on older patients. While, much of the data isa subset analysis of larger studies in which older patients are underrepresented, prospective studies have been performed and are underway. Tere is no one defnition of older or elderly. Studies originally used 65 years primarily due to Medicare data. Studies now focus on patients over the age of 70 years based on data showing these patients are at a greater risk of adverse events and vulnerability21.

Primary treatment of ovarian cancer

Chemotherapy post cytoreduction

With the aging of the population there will be an increase in the number of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. A curative approach requires optimal cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy22. More than half of the newly diagnosed patients are over 65 years of age. Because of multiple factors including inadequate screening, nonspecifc symptoms and tumor biology, most patients present at an advanced stage. Older patients have been shown to be less likely offered standard therapy, are more likely to develop toxicity and have poorer outcomes4,23-26. Unfortunately older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and the presence of multimorbidity, polypharmacy and other geriatric factors make treatment challenging27. Table 1 reviews the phase III trials of primary treatment.

The combination of a taxane and platinum is a standard recommendation for primary chemotherapy in women following optimal or suboptimal surgical resection22. Current literature supports utilizing a combination of intravenous paclitaxel given every three weeks in combination with carboplatin. Alternatively a dose dense regimen of weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin is being used also in this seting37. Te other standard in optimally cytoreduced patients is intraperitoneal chemotherapy43,45. This usually consists of intravenous and intraperitoneal paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin. Follow-up studies have demonstrated the continued efficacy of this approach46,47. However, this treatment regimen may be difficult for some older patients. Patient selection is critical to avoid excessive toxicity and allowpatients to benefit from this treatment48. In cases of paclitaxel hypersensitivity, often due to the diluent Cremophor EL, docetaxel is an acceptable alternative unless the reaction is a class efect to taxanes49.

Table 1 Review of phase III clinical trials for the initial therapy of epithelial ovarian cancer

Since the year 2000, GOG study 158 has set the standard for primary chemotherapy. Results showed that carboplatin was better tolerated than cisplatin, yet provided comparable median free OS50. Despite that fact that this trial utilized an areaunder-curve (AUC) of 7.5 (current recommendations AUC 5-6), the regimen was well tolerated with less than 10% nonhematological toxicity and an 87% completion rate. Of note, only 12% of the patients enrolled in this trial were over 70 years old and there was no subset analysis for this elderly population. In an atempt to improve on this doublet, a third drug was added in a randomized trial, GOG 182 (topotecan, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine). The third drug did not add benefit but did add toxicity. Tere were no diferences in outcomes in patients over 70 years compared to younger patients except for increased neuropathy and hematologic toxicity25,40.

Several trials have looked at utilizing weekly paclitaxel to increase PFS and OS with decreased toxicity compared to every 3-week paclitaxel. MITO-5 looked at a combination of weekly paclitaxel (60 mg/m2) and carboplatin AUC 2 on days 1, 8, 15, 21 of a 28-day cycle. An encouraging 88.5% of the elderly patients were treated without significant toxicity51. The JGOG 3016 trial from Japan was an important randomized phase III study looking at the same question of dose dense weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin vs. every 3-week administration. An improvement in both median PFS (28.2 vs. 17.5 months) and OS (100.5 vs. 62.2 months) was seen in the dose dense weekly group vs. the every 3-week group with a median follow up of 76.8 months52.

MITO 7 looked at every 3-week paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin AUC 6 vs. weekly paclitaxel (60 mg/m2) and weekly carboplatin (AUC 2) in a large multi-center-randomized trial and the regimens had comparable median PFS (17.3 vs. 18.3 months with the weekly schedule). Although the results of a superior median PFS with dose dense paclitaxel was not replicated in this trial compared to Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG), the weekly regimen did show less hematological and neurological toxicity. Smaller difference in median PFS in MITO 7 may be due to lower paclitaxel weekly dosing (60 vs. 80 mg/m2) in addition to weekly dosing of carboplatin (AUC 2 vs. q3 week AUC 6)53. Te median age of patients was approximately 60 years. Patient age (above 70 years vs. below) did not afect efcacy. In suboptimally debulked patients, GOG 262 is evaluating every 3-week paclitaxel vs. dose-dense weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin with or without bevacizumab.

Te addition of bevacizumab to postoperative paclitaxel and carboplatin was explored in GOG 218 and ICON-738,39. In GOG 218, patients were randomized to paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without bevacizumab and the third arm included bevacizumab maintenance. Although there was no significant difference between arms in OS, PFS was improved with the addition of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg given with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by bevacizumab maintenance38. ICON-7 looked at the same combination in a 2 arm design (paclitaxel/carboplatin ± bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks with bevacizumab maintenance). This study included a greater population of optimally debulked patients (73%) and despite initially reporting an improvement of median PFS with the addition of bevacizumab, this difference shrank to a 1 month difference with data maturation. OS was also not increased overall in this trial. In spite of an exploratory analysis of patients with poor prognosis, there was a signifcant improvement in OS (34.5 vs. 39.3 months) with the addition of bevacizumab39.

Unfortunately, no subset analysis of older patients was performed in either GOG 218 or ICON-7 and therefore no direct conclusion can be drawn as to the safety and toxicity of this regimen in elderly patients. Other studies have demonstrated an increased risk of toxicity with bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy in patients over 65 years old. In one study, patients who received bevacizumab were more likely to have grade 3-5 toxicity (78% vs. 57%), with the most common grade 3 toxicity being hypertension54,55.

Elderly specific trials

GOG 273 was initiated in 2011 and is the frst study to look at first line chemotherapy in elderly women and to assess both tolerance of chemotherapy and evaluate predictive characteristics that led to ability to complete treatment. Patients were evaluated with a geriatric assessment score to predict toxicity and for QOL. Treatment regimens were chosen by their physician (carboplatin AUC 5 vs. paclitaxel 135 mg/m2and carboplatin AUC 5 vs. weekly paclitaxel 60 mg/m2and carboplatin AUC 5). Arm 3 was added later in 2013 afer frst 2 arms had reached accrual. Preliminary data of the frst 2 arms showed that patients chosen to be treated with every 3-week paclitaxel and carboplatin were younger and more ft, and had beter rates of completion without dose delay or reductions. Patients chosen to receive single agent carboplatin were found to have lower rates of completion. Patients with limited social activities were also found to be less likely to complete chemotherapy. QOL was reported as improved in both arms of the trial21,26.

The treatment of elderly patients was addressed in theGINECO studies. A comprehensive geriatric assessment was used to stratify the patients’ ability to tolerate treatment. In EOC 1, cyclophosphamide and carboplatin were administered every 4 weeks with 6 cycles being completed in 72% of patients56. In EOC 2, paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 5) were administered every 3 weeks57. The planned 6 cycles was completed in 68% of the patients and geriatric assessment was found to have prognostic value in predicting toxicity. Retrospective analysis of this data showed that use of paclitaxel in elderly patients did increase toxicity, specifcally neurotoxicity. Older patients have been shown to have increased incidence of neurotoxicity58. Depression is another important factor found to have independent prognostic value. A geriatric vulnerability score was developed which can identify two groups with signifcantly diferent OS outcomes, treatment completion rates, grade 3–4 non-hematological toxic efects, serious adverse events and unplanned hospital admissions59. Te clinical EWOC-1 uses the geriatric vulnerability score to define stage III/IV patients and treats them with carboplatin with or without paclitaxel (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02001272; accessed December 14, 2015).

Role of intraperitoneal therapy

In 2006, Armstrong et al.43published their data from GOG 172 on intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin and paclitaxel in stage 3, optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer. This practice-changing regimen had significantly higher OS (68.6 vs. 49.7 months) when compared to intravenous (IV) paclitaxel and cisplatin. In this study, patients received a complex regimen of IV paclitaxel day 1, intraperitoneal cisplatin day 2 and IP paclitaxel day 8 in a 21-day cycle. Te regimen has signifcant toxicity and only 42% of all patients were able to complete all 6 planned cycles. Of the 415 patients enrolled, only 12% were older than 70 years43.

In a retrospective case control study of elderly patients (＞65 years old) who received IP therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 1994 and 2008, 54% of patients completed all 6 cycles and 75% completed at least 4 cycles. Only 12% required dose reductions. This study showed that IP chemotherapy could be given safely to older patients. Factors related choosing the appropriate older patients include evaluating performance status, functional status activities of daily living (ADLs), renal function, normal auditory function, and cardiac function43,48.

Recent studies have demonstrated the overall underuse of IV/IP therapy across all patients, but signifcantly less in patients over the age of 6547. Several factors are identifed in this study as barriers to IP/IV administration of chemotherapy, one of which is age at time of diagnosis. In a prospective trial across multiple NCCN institutions, patients aged 55-64 years old (compared with patients of 18-54 years) had an odds ratio of receiving IP/ IV therapy of 0.8147. In contradistinction, the OR for patients aged 65-74 years was 0.46 and only 0.11 for patients aged over 74 years old. Despite the established 16-month median OS data from GOG 172, there is a signifcant barrier to acceptance of IP/ IV therapy as the standard of care in optimally debulked ovarian cancer patients, even under the age of 65. Placement of an IP port, risk of infection, institutional barriers to administration, inconvenience, and increased toxicity are all considered barriers. Additionally, some believe that dose dense paclitaxel with carboplatin, as in JGOG 3016, may potentially offer an alternative to IP therapy. Further studies will be needed to clarify this question.

Maintenance therapies

Although primary cytotoxic chemotherapy has a high initial response rate, the median PFS is 16 months. Unfortunately, most relapsed cases are incurable and will ultimately result in death from disease60. Subsequent rounds of chemotherapy can cause accumulative side efects, which may also limit future quality of life and survival. Preventing recurrent disease or prolonging time to progression should therefore be a goal of future treatment approaches. Elder specific maintenance studies have not been performed.

The concept of maintenance therapy has been evaluated in several studies for patients that have had complete responses to upfront therapy. Paclitaxel was one of the frst agents evaluated in this role to show an increase in PFS61. Updated results of maintenance paclitaxel monthly for 12 vs. 3 months showed a signifcant improvement for 12 monthly treatments (PFS 22 vs. 14 months and median OS 53 vs. 48 months)62. Neurotoxicity was a limiting factor with 23% of patients in the 12 monthly treatments suffering from grade 2 and 10% with grade 3/4. In the elderly population this risk of worsening neuropathic pain and motor dysfunction would most likely make this approach prohibitory.

Terapies targeted at VEGF have also shown some promise as maintenance38,63. In two phase III studies, GOG 218 and ICON 7, the continuation of bevacizumab afer completion of standard 6 cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy with bevacizumab, showed a signifcant increase in median PFS. As discussed earlier, increased risk of hypertension was noted, but the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was lower than previously reported.

In a non-cytotoxic, anti-VEGF approach, oral pazopanib was evaluated as a single agent in the maintenance seting in patientswith advanced ovarian cancer that did not progress afer initial chemotherapy64. This phase III trial randomized patients to pazopanib 800 mg daily vs. placebo and showed an increase of in 5.6-month PFS (17.9 vs. 12.3 months). No signifcant diference in OS was noted. Pazopanib was relatively well tolerated with most frequent toxicities including grade 1/2 hypertension, diarrhea, neutropenia or changes in liver function test (LFTs). Approximately 23% of the study participants were 65 years or older and patients up to age 85 were also included. Subset analysis based on age showed improved hazard ratio in the older subset although no breakdown based on age and toxicity was reported.

Future studies looking at PARP inhibitors, PIK3 inhibitors, AKT, mTOR, IGF-1R and other small molecule inhibitors are currently underway and many more agents are in development as the age of molecularly targeted oncology are incorporated in approaches for maintenance therapy65.

Platinum sensitive relapse in elderly patients

Treatment options available at the time of relapse are based upon the extent of disease, the timing of the relapse with respect to initial therapy, and the patient’s performance status. Patients are considered to have platinum sensitive disease if the relapse occurs at 6 months or more following initial therapy. Surgical options at relapse are usually limited due to extent of disease and likelihood of further progression following surgery26,44. Table 2 reviews the phase III trials of relapse. The paper of Teo et al.44focuses on doublet therapy.

Carboplatin can be used as a single agent in platinum sensitive relapse, particularly in patients with lower performance status. Te risk of developing platinum refractory disease at a faster rate and concerns of lower response rates, led to an important study comparing monotherapy with a doublet containing paclitaxel. ICON 4 evaluated a combination of paclitaxel plus platinum based chemotherapy versus platinum alone. The combination therapy showed an increased median PFS (12 vs. 9 months) and OS (29 vs. 24 months). Neurological toxicities (grade 2-4) were higher with the combination, but interestingly the monotherapy had higher hematological toxicity. While almost one third of the cohort was over 65 years old, there was no age specifc increase in toxicities in the older patients66. When repeated dosing of carboplatin is utilized, whether a single agent or combination, the issue of an acute hypersensitivity reaction must be considered. Various methodologies are being employed to try to reduce the incidence and modify the reaction69,70.

An EORTC intergroup trial evaluated the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin vs. carboplatin alone in a cohort of 356 patients. Although this study was not powered to demonstrate an OS advantage, the combination therapy did show a significant increase in response rate (47.2% vs. 30.9%) and increase in PFS (8.6 vs. 5.8 months). The study included a QOL component that also demonstrated a better toxicity profile than paclitaxel and carboplatin doublet as well as no statistical difference in PFS related to age above or below 60 years71.

Further investigation of carboplatin-based doublets was evaluated in the CALYPSO trial comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel and carboplatin in a cohort of 976 patients. Tis non inferiority trial showed that the liposomal doxorubicin arm had superior PFS (11.3 vs. 9.4 months) with no signifcant diference in hematological toxicities, but had less non-hematological toxicities such as hypersensitivity reactions and peripheral neuropathy. In a subset analysis of patients over 70 years (median age 74), the toxicity profles remained in favor of non-taxane arm with less alopecia, neuropathy, arthralgias and febrile neutropenia. The pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm had more hand foot syndrome compared with the paclitaxel arm, as this is a known side effect of the drug. Overall, carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin was found to have a beter therapeutic index in patients over 70 years of age72.

Te role of bevacizumab in the seting of platinum sensitive ovarian recurrence was investigated in the OCEANS trial. Gemcitabine and carboplatin was compared to be the samewith addition of bevacizumab67. The combination with bevacizumab showed an increase in PFS (12 vs. 8.4 months) and an increase in response rate (78.5% vs. 57.4%). Older patients were well represented in the cohort with the median age 60-61 years old and more than 35% of patients over 65 years. Toxicities associated with the addition of bevacizumab included grade 3 hypertension (17.4% vs. 1%) but there was no specific breakdown in over 65-year-old patients. Notably, there were no bowel perforation or GI bleeding reported for patients while on treatment. Recently, a fnal update of OS and safety was reported which did not show any new safety concerns but also showed no significant increase in OS (33.6 vs. 32.9 months) after median follow up of over 58 months73.

Table 2 Phase III trials of relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer

Platinum resistant relapse in eldly patients

Patients are considered to have platinum resistant disease if they sufer a recurrence within 6 months from primary chemotherapy. In this seting, patients are ofen retreated with a non-platinum single agent such as weekly paclitaxel, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, topotecan, pemetrexed or vinorelbine26. Tere are not any studies looking specifcally at this situation in the elderly patient. Single agent paclitaxel has an expected response rate of 10%-25% with a median duration of response ranging 4 to 8 months. Gemcitabine, topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin are often preferred agents given their favorable toxicity profile in the elderly population. Treatment in this setting is strictly palliative, so toxicity considerations as well as maintenance of QOL are paramount.

Bevacizumab has been utilized as a single agent, nonchemotherapy option in the recurrent setting. In a phase II study, the GOG looked at the response rate and safety profile of bevacizumab in patients with recurrent or persistent disease. In a group of 62 patients with a median age of 57, there was a 21% clinical response rate (2 complete, 11 partial; median response duration, 10 months), and PFS greater than 6 months of 40.3%. Unfortunately there was no age related subset analysis performed. Primary toxicities included grade 3 hypertension (9.7%), grade 3 venous thromboembolism (1.6%), but no GI perforation74.

The use of bevacizumab in the elderly population has raised concerns of increased risk of thromboembolic events, hypertension and GI perforation54. Subsequently, the increased morbidity from hypertension and thromboembolism may also be increased in elderly overall, but particularly heightened in patients with multimorbidity.

Previously reported risk of bowel perforation may have been originally overestimated. In a single institutional retrospective analysis of 160 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with bevacizumab, there was only a 4% incidence of bevacizumab associated GI perforation75. Additionally, in a prospective phase III trial of chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer, the addition of bevacizumab was shown to only increase risk of bowel perforation by 1.4% (2.8% vs. 1.2%)38. Nevertheless, neither of these studies contained risk related to age.

The addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy agent was evaluated in the platinum resistant recurrent setting in AURELIA, a large, randomized phase III open label trial. In this study, the investigator would choose the chemotherapy agent for the patient from pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, weekly paclitaxel or topotecan, and then patients were randomized to receive single agent chemotherapy versus addition of bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of PFS was slightly improved with the addition of bevacizumab (6.7 vs. 3.4 months) and overall response rate was also increased with combination (27.3% vs. 11.8%). There was no difference in OS in this poor prognosis cohort76.

Conclusion

The treatment of high grade serous ovarian cancer in elderly patients requires careful assessment of the patient’s functionality. Despite the high percentage of patients over the age of 65 (＞50%) who develop high grade serous ovarian cancer, very few studies have specifically analyzed efficacy and toxicity in the elderly patient, or have included only small percentages of patients from this age group.

Additionally, most studies did not include a geriatric assessment which encompasses not just a Karnofsky performance status but also assesses important factors such as number and severity of comorbidities, living conditions, cognitive evaluation, nutritional status and presence of other geriatric syndromes such as dementia, delirium, depression and falls. In selected elderly patients, chemotherapy can be administered both safely and effectively. There are several regimens available to consider for the elderly patient and careful atention should be given in selecting the appropriate combination therapy with respect to side efect profle. GOG 273 is actively evaluating the efcacy and toxicity of chemotherapy specifcally in the elderly population. This important prospective study also includes a comprehensive geriatric assessment and we anxiously await the results of this trial.

Future research utilizing small molecule inhibitors and targeted therapies will need to include the elderly, over 65-year-old population, more comprehensively as well. Current technologies that enable molecular profiling of tumor tissue will becomeinvaluable in selecting appropriate targeted therapy. PARP inhibitors, PIK3CA inhibitors and mTOR inhibitors as well as WEE-1 kinase inhibitors from the p53 pathway, are likely to become important therapies in the treatment of ovarian cancer. These inhibitors and many others are actively being studied in both the relapse setting as well as in upfront therapy. Many of these exciting new therapies may afford improved efficacy and less toxicity in the elderly population.

Conflict of interest statement

No penitential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Ovary Cancer. Available online: htp://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary. html; accessed February 2, 2014.

2. Soslow R. Histologic subtypes of ovarian carcinoma: an overview. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2008;27:161-174.

3. Chen S, Iversen ES, Friebel T, Finkelstein D, Weber BL, Eisen A, et al. Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large United States sample. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:863-871.

4. Tew WP, Lichtman SM. Ovarian cancer in older women. Semin Oncol 2008;35:582-589.

5. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE--5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:23-34.

6. Lichtman SM. How I treat ovarian cancer in older women. J Geriatr Oncol 2014;5:223-229.

7. Bouchardy C, Rapiti E, Blagojevic S, Vlastos AT, Vlastos G. Older female cancer patients: importance, causes, and consequences of undertreatment. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1858-1869.

8. Fourcadier E, Trétarre B, Gras-Aygon C, Ecarnot F, Daurès JP, Bessaoud F. Under-treatment of elderly patients with ovarian cancer: a population based study. BMC Cancer 2015;15:937.

9. Nightingale G, Hajjar E, Swartz K, Andrel-Sendecki J, Chapman A. Evaluation of a pharmacist-led medication assessment used to identify prevalence of and associations with polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use among ambulatory senior adults with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1453-1459.

10. Lichtman SM, Hollis D, Miller AA, Rosner GL, Rhoades CA, Lester EP, et al. Prospective evaluation of the relationship of patient age and paclitaxel clinical pharmacology: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9762). J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1846-1851.

11. Hurria A, Lichtman SM. Clinical pharmacology of cancer therapies in older adults. Br J Cancer 2008;98:517-522.

12. Lichtman SM, Wildiers H, Chatelut E, Steer C, Budman D, Morrison VA, et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology Chemotherapy Taskforce: evaluation of chemotherapy in older patients--an analysis of the medical literature. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1832-1843.

13. Launay-Vacher V, Aapro M, De Castro G Jr, Cohen E, Deray G, Dooley M, et al. Renal efects of molecular targeted therapies in oncology: a review by the Cancer and the Kidney International Network (C-KIN). Ann Oncol 2015;26:1677-1684.

14. Launay-Vacher V, Chatelut E, Lichtman SM, Wildiers H, Steer C, Aapro M, et al. Renal insufciency in elderly cancer patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology clinical practice recommendations. Ann Oncol 2007;18:1314-1321.

15. Lichtman SM, Wildiers H, Launay-Vacher V, Steer C, Chatelut E, Aapro M. International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) recommendations for the adjustment of dosing in elderly cancer patients with renal insufciency. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:14-34.

16. Chen H, Cantor A, Meyer J, Beth Corcoran M, Grendys E, Cavanaugh D, et al. Can older cancer patients tolerate chemotherapy? A prospective pilot study. Cancer 2003;97:1107-1114.

17. Extermann M, Overcash J, Lyman GH, Parr J, Balducci L. Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1582-1587.

18. Wenzel LB, Huang HQ, Armstrong DK, Walker JL, Cella D; Gynecologic Oncology Group. Health-related quality of life during and afer intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy for optimally debulked ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:437-443.

19. Vasey PA, Jayson GC, Gordon A, Gabra H, Coleman R, Atkinson R, et al. Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel-carboplatin versus paclitaxel-carboplatin as frst-line chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1682-1691.

20. von Gruenigen VE, Huang HQ, Gil KM, Frasure HE, Armstrong DK, Wenzel LB. Te association between quality of life domains and overall survival in ovarian cancer patients during adjuvant chemotherapy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:379-382.

21. Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, Owusu C, Klepin HD, Gross CP, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3457-3465.

22. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival efect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1248-1259.

23. Fairfeld KM, Murray K, Lucas FL, Wierman HR, Earle CC, Trimble EL, et al. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy and use of health services for older women with epithelial ovarian cancer. JClin Oncol 2011;29:3921-3926.

24. Fairfeld KM, Murray KM, Wierman HR, Han PK, Hallen S, Miesfeldt S, et al. Disparities in hospice care among older women dying with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:14-18.

25. Tew WP, Java J, Chi D, Menzin A, Lovecchio JL, Bookman MA, et al. Treatment outcomes for older women with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from a phase III clinical trial (GOG182). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2010;28:5030.

26. Tew WP, Muss HB, Kimmick GG, Von Gruenigen VE, Lichtman SM. Breast and ovarian cancer in the older woman. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2553-2561.

27. Talarico L, Chen G, Pazdur R. Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4626-4631.

28. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, Kucera PR, Partridge EE, Look KY, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1-6.

29. Muggia FM, Braly PS, Brady MF, Suton G, Niemann TH, Lentz SL, et al. Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:106-115.

30. Piccart MJ, Green JA, Lacave AJ, Reed N, Vergote I, Benedeti-Panici P, et al. Oxaliplatin or paclitaxel in patients with platinumpretreated advanced ovarian cancer: A randomized phase II study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gynecology Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1193-1202.

31. Neijt JP, Engelholm SA, Tuxen MK, Sorensen PG, Hansen M, Sessa C, et al. Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3084-3092.

32. Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, Fowler JM, Clarke-Pearson D, Burger R, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3194-3200.

33. Hilpert F, du Bois A, Greimel ER, Hedderich J, Krause G, Venhof L, et al. Feasibility, toxicity and quality of life of frst-line chemotherapy with platinum/paclitaxel in elderly patients aged＞or=70 years with advanced ovarian cancer--a study by the AGO OVAR Germany. Ann Oncol 2007;18:282-287.

34. Greimel ER, Bjelic-Radisic V, Pfsterer J, Hilpert F, Daghofer F, du Bois A, et al. Randomized study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaf Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group comparing quality of life in patients with ovarian cancer treated with cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:579-586.

35. ICON2: randomised trial of single-agent carboplatin against threedrug combination of CAP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) in women with ovarian cancer. ICON Collaborators. International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Study. Lancet 1998;352:1571-1576.

36. International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Group. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus standard chemotherapy with either singleagent carboplatin or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in women with ovarian cancer: the ICON3 randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:505-515.

37. Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Takahashi F, Isonishi S, Jobo T, Aoki D, et al. Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:1331-1338.

38. Burger R, Brady MF, Bookman MA, Fleming GF, Monk BJ, Huang H, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2473-2483.

39. Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfsterer J, Ledermann JA, Pujade-Lauraine E, Kristensen G, et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2484-2496.

40. Bookman MA, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Harper PG, Alberts DS, Friedlander M, et al. Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1419-1425.

41. Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV, O'Toole R, Williams SD, Young JA, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1950-1955.

42. Markman M, Bundy BN, Alberts DS, Fowler JM, Clark-Pearson DL, Carson LF, et al. Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1001-1007.

43. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;354:34-43.

44. Teo MY, Power DG, Tew WP, Lichtman SM. Doublet chemotherapy in the elderly patient with ovarian cancer. Oncologist 2012;17:1450-1460.

45. Suidan RS, St Clair CM, Lee SJ, Barlin JN, Long Roche KC, Tanner EJ, et al. A comparison of primary intraperitoneal chemotherapy to consolidation intraperitoneal chemotherapy in optimally resectedadvanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;134:468-472.

46. Tewari D, Java JJ, Salani R, Armstrong DK, Markman M, Herzog T, et al. Long-term survival advantage and prognostic factors associated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment in advanced ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1460-1466.

47. Wright AA, Cronin A, Milne DE, Bookman MA, Burger R, Cohn DE, et al. Use and efectiveness of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for treatment of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2841-2847.

48. O'Cearbhaill R, Li D, Shi W, Taler H, Sabbatini PJ, Konner J, et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in older women with epithelial ovarian cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 2012;3:189-195.

49. Agarwal R, Gourley C, Perren TJ, Reed N, Parkin DE, Carty K, et al. First-line therapy for ovarian cancer with carboplatin followed by paclitaxel-gemcitabine (SCOTROC5): a feasibility study and comparative analysis of the SCOTROC series. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2020-2026.

50. Bookman MA, Greer BE, Ozols RF. Optimal therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: carboplatin and paclitaxel vs. cisplatin and paclitaxel (GOG 158) and an update on GOG0 182-ICON5. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003;13:735-740.

51. Pignata S, Breda E, Scambia G, Pisano C, Zagonel V, Lorusso D, et al. A phase II study of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel as frstline treatment of elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A Multicentre Italian Trial in Ovarian cancer (MITO-5) study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008;66:229-236.

52. Fujiwara K, Aotani E, Hamano T, Nagao S, Yoshikawa H, Sugiyama T, et al. A randomized Phase II/III trial of 3 weekly intraperitoneal versus intravenous carboplatin in combination with intravenous weekly dose-dense paclitaxel for newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011;41:278-282.

53. Pignata S, Scambia G, Katsaros D, Gallo C, Pujade-Lauraine E, De Placido S, et al. Carboplatin plus paclitaxel once a week versus every 3 weeks in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (MITO-7): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:396-405.

54. Mohile SG, Hardt M, Tew W, Owusu C, Klepin H, Gross C, et al. Toxicity of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy in older patients. Oncologist 2013;18:408-414.

55. Kabbinavar FF, Hurwitz HI, Yi J, Sarkar S, Rosen O. Addition of bevacizumab to fuorouracil-based frst-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of cohorts of older patients from two randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:199-205.

56. Freyer G, Geay JF, Touzet S, Provencal J, Weber B, Jacquin JP, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment predicts tolerance to chemotherapy and survival in elderly patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a GINECO study. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1795-1800.

57. Trédan O, Geay JF, Touzet S, Delva R, Weber B, Cretin J, et al. Carboplatin/cyclophosphamide or carboplatin/paclitaxel in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer? Analysis of two consecutive trials from the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens. Ann Oncol 2007;18:256-262.

58. Lichtman SM, Hurria A, Cirrincione CT, Seidman AD, Winer E, Hudis C, et al. Paclitaxel efcacy and toxicity in older women with metastatic breast cancer: combined analysis of CALGB 9342 and 9840. Ann Oncol 2012;23:632-638.

59. Falandry C, Weber B, Savoye AM, Tinquaut F, Tredan O, Sevin E, et al. Development of a geriatric vulnerability score in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with frst-line carboplatin: a GINECO prospective trial. Ann Oncol 2013;24:2808-2813.

60. Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2519-2529.

61. Markman M, Liu PY, Wilczynski S, Monk B, Copeland LJ, Alvarez RD, et al. Phase III randomized trial of 12 versus 3 months of maintenance paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer afer complete response to platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2460-2465.

62. Markman M, Liu PY, Moon J, Monk BJ, Copeland L, Wilczynski S, et al. Impact on survival of 12 versus 3 monthly cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) administered to patients with advanced ovarian cancer who atained a complete response to primary platinum-paclitaxel: follow-up of a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group phase 3 trial. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:195-198.

63. Oza AM, Cook AD, Pfsterer J, Embleton A, Ledermann JA, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:928-936.

64. du Bois A, Floquet A, Kim JW, Rau J, del Campo JM, Friedlander M, et al. Incorporation of pazopanib in maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3374-3382.

65. Westin SN, Herzog TJ, Coleman RL. Investigational agents in development for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Invest New Drugs 2013;31:213-229.

66. Parmar MK, Ledermann JA, Colombo N, du Bois A, Delaloye JF, Kristensen GB, et al. Paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based chemotherapy in women with relapsed ovarian cancer: the ICON4/AGO-OVAR-2.2 trial. Lancet 2003;361:2099-2106.

67. Aghajanian C, Blank SV, Gof BA, Judson PL, Teneriello MG, Husain A, et al. OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2039-2045.

68. Pujade-Lauraine E, Wagner U, Aavall-Lundqvist E, Gebski V, Heywood M, Vasey PA, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in late relapse. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3323-3329.

69. O'Cearbhaill R, Zhou Q, Iasonos A, Hensley ML, Tew WP, Aghajanian C, et al. Te prophylactic conversion to an extended infusion schedule and use of premedication to prevent hypersensitivity reactions in ovarian cancer patients during carboplatin retreatment. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:326-331.

70. Joly F, Ray-Coquard I, Fabbro M, Donoghoe M, Boman K, Sugimoto A, et al. Decreased hypersensitivity reactions with carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel combination: analysis from the GCIG CALYPSO relapsing ovarian cancer trial. Gynecol Oncol 2011;122:226-232.

71. Pfsterer J, Plante M, Vergote I, du Bois A, Hirte H, Lacave AJ, et al. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin compared with carboplatin in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: an intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR, the NCIC CTG, and the EORTC GCG. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4699-4707.

72. Kurtz JE, Kaminsky MC, Floquet A, Veillard AS, Kimmig R, Dorum A, et al. Ovarian cancer in elderly patients: carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in late relapse: a Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) CALYPSO sub-study. Ann Oncol 2011;22:2417-2423.

73. Aghajanian C, Gof B, Nycum LR, Wang YV, Husain A, Blank SV. Final overall survival and safety analysis of OCEANS, a phase 3 trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015;139:10-16.

74. Burger R, Sill MW, Monk BJ, Greer BE, Sorosky JI. Phase II trial of bevacizumab in persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5165-5171.

75. Diaz JP, Tew WP, Zivanovic O, Konner J, Sabbatini PJ, dos Santos LA, et al. Incidence and management of bevacizumab-associated gastrointestinal perforations in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:335-339.

76. Pujade-Lauraine E, Hilpert F, Weber B, Reuss A, Poveda A, Kristensen G, et al. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: the AURELIA openlabel randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1302-1308.

Cite this article as: Troso-Sandoval TA, Lichtman SM. Chemotherapy of ovarian cancer in elderly patients. Cancer Biol Med 2015;12:292-301. doi: 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2015.0077

Stuart M. Lichtman

E-mail: lichtmas@mskcc.org

Received September 18, 2015; accepted December 18, 2015.

Available at www.cancerbiomed.org

Copyright © 2015 by Cancer Biology & Medicine