Download Free Medical Ovarian Cancer PowerPoint Presentation

Ovarian Cancer PowerPoint Presentation

DOWNLOAD MEDICAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

About This Presentation

Description : Check out this medical PowerPoint presentation titled "Ovarian cancer” by Siew wei wong.

This medical PowerPoint presentation is about ovarian cancer, a type of cancer that occurs in the ovaries, which are the female reproductive organs that produce eggs. It is the fifth most common cause of cancer deaths in women and often goes undetected until it has spread to other parts of the body.

The exact causes of ovarian cancer are not known, but factors that may increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer include a family history of ovarian or breast cancer, certain genetic mutations, older age, and hormone therapy after menopause.

Symptoms of ovarian cancer can be vague and may include bloating, abdominal pain, feeling full quickly when eating, and changes in bowel or bladder habits. These symptoms can be caused by many other conditions, so it is important to see a healthcare provider if they persist for several weeks.

Treatment for ovarian cancer may include surgery to remove the tumor and chemotherapy to kill cancer cells. Radiation therapy may also be used in some cases. The choice of treatment depends on several factors, including the stage of the cancer and the womans overall health.

Early detection of ovarian cancer is difficult, as there are currently no recommended screening tests for women who are not at high risk. However, if you have a family history of ovarian or breast cancer or other risk factors, talk to your healthcare provider about your options for screening or prevention.

Tags : Ovarian cancer, ovaries, female reproductive organs, Gynecologic Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology PowerPoint presentation

Published on : May 29, 2023 | Views : 1468 | Downloads : 2

Shareable Url :

Embed Code :

Comment

Transcript

Slide 1-

Ovarian cancer Siew wei wong Oncology registrar
Slide 2-

Epidemiology 225000 new incidence annually worldwide. Incidence stable since 1970s 1600 new cases in Australia in 2010 Median age at diagnosis 63 Fourth commonest cause of cancer death in women in developed countries >60% of women diagnosed with Stage III/IV symptoms of abdo pain, bloating, distension, constipation, back pain usually happen in advanced stage To date, no mortality benefit demonstrated with CA125 and TVUS screening.
Slide 3-

Stage at diagnosis and 5-yr survival Stage I Confined to the Ovary 20% 85% IA Growth limited to one ovary, no ascites, capsule intact, no surface tumor extension IB Same as IA but involves both ovaries IC IA or IB but with positive washings or ruptured capsule Stage II Extends to True Pelvis 5% 60% IIA Involves fallopian tube or uterus IIB Extension to other pelvic tissues IIC Either IIA or IIB but with positive washings or ruptured capsule Stage III Extends Beyond the True Pelvis 58% 26% IIIA Tumor limited to true pelvis but microscopic positive biopsy outside the pelvis IIIB Abdominal implants up to 2 cm IIIC Positive lymph nodes or abdominal implants > 2 cm Stage IV Distant Disease 17% 12% Stage at diagnosis 5-yr OS
Slide 4-

Subtypes Epithelial High grade serous 75% Mucinous 10% Endometrioid 10% Clear cell Low grade serous Germ cell/small cell/Krukenberg
Slide 5-

Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors 50 years of age or older Familial factors Family history of breast, ovarian, or colon cancer ?3x baseline risk Personal history of breast or colon cancer Familial cancer syndrome (10%) BRCA (breast cancer) gene mutation Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) Other potential risk factors Early menarche (younger than 12 years of age) Late menopause (older than 52 years of age) Hormone replacement therapy First pregnancy at older than 30 years of age Infertility, endometriosis (fertility Rx does not increase risk)
Slide 6-

Ovarian Cancer and Early Detection Certain factors may reduce a woman's risk of developing ovarian cancer : Taking birth control pills for more than 5 years Breastfeeding Pregnancy A hysterectomy or a tubal ligation
Slide 7-

Lifetime Risk of Cancers Associated With Specific Genes *MMR (mismatch repair) = HNPCC. Chen S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2007:25:1329-1333. Aarnio M, et al. Int J Cancer. 1999:81:214-218.
Slide 8-

Red Flags for Cancer Susceptibility: BRCA1/BRCA2 Multiple family members with ovarian or breast cancer Age of onset of breast cancer Younger than 50 years of age (premenopausal) Bilateral breast cancer Both breast and ovarian cancer in same patient Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry (2% chance of BRCA) Male breast cancer
Slide 9-

Natural History Precise natural history is poorly understood There is no direct evidence for a premalignant lesion in ovarian cancer. The entire peritoneum is at risk because peritoneal carcinomatosis may develop after an oophorectomy
Slide 10-

Ovarian Ca Screening for general population: PLCO trial 68557 participants 55-74yo w/o prior hx of oophorectomy annual Ca125 for 6 years and TVUS for 4 years in intervention grp Median f/u:12.4 years Results: Similar detection rate (5.7 v 4.7 per 10000 person-yrs), HR 1.21 CI:0.99-1.48 <60% of ovarian ca detected were high grade serous subtype. No difference in ovarian ca mortality (3.1 v 2.6 per 10000 person-years) HR 1.18 CI:0.82-1.71. Harm from false-positive screen: 3285 cases with 15% major complication rate from surgical intervention! JAMA 2011:305 (22):2295-2303
Slide 11-

Ovarian Ca screening in ‘high risk grp’ UKFOCCS Phase 1: annual Ca125 and TVUS Sensitivity >80%, NPV 99%, PPV 25% (ie 4 operations for 1 case of ca) Only 30% of screen detected ca were stage 1-2 89% of screen detected ca were in BRCA carriers. Only 4/2960 cases of screen detected ca in women with +FH! UKFOCCS Phase 2: 4mthly Ca125 and annual TVUS plus ROCA (change in algorithmic scale of Ca125) Breast or ovarian ca family, BRCA?proportion, HNPCC or Ashkenazi 4531 women median age 45 (35-84), only 1/3 >50yo sens: 75% (or lower!) spec 96% PPV 13% 12 cases of screen-detected cancer, with 42% of cases in stage 1/2 11/12 underwent optimal cytoreduction (does not translate to cure) 14.4% underwent RRSO, 3.3% underwent RRSO due to false+, 4/653 had incidental ca (? Even higher number if proper serial sectioning method) JCO 2013;31:49-57 ASCO 2013 abstr 5502
Slide 12-

Ovarian Ca screening Major organisations do not recommend ovarian cancer screening: Poor understanding of natural history Poor performance of current test in detecting early stage disease No survival benefit demonstrated even in ‘high risk grp” Potential for harm RRBSO remains the standard of care for BRCA carriers and reduces risk of OC by 75-96% Current estimated uptake of RRBSO in BRCA carriers by countries: Australia 38% UK 40% France 70% Canada 57%
Slide 13-

Management of Ovarian Cancer Surgical staging and debulking
Slide 14-

Initial Surgical management Surgery is usually performed upfront regardless of stage: Obtain tissue diagnosis Perform surgical staging Optimal debulking of tumour: improves response to chemo, decreases disease related symptoms and potentially improves immune response Exception: poor ECOG, disease ‘too bulky’ or other primary not able to be excluded. Consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy Engage experienced gynaeonc surgeon for optimal primary debulking (GOG: <1cm residual disease, but ?less is even better) Minimal benefit in interval debulking after ‘suboptimal primary debulking’ Benefit mainly lies with pts who received poor surgery upfront. EORTC v GOG152 trial
Slide 15-

Steps in Surgical Staging
Slide 16-

ppt slide no 16 content not found
Slide 17-

Stage I And II OC: role of adjuvant chemotherapy 8% 5 year improvement in OS was shown from a metaanalyses of 13 trials in stage 1 disease. However 90% of pts did not receive proper surgical staging/lymph node sampling. Another metaanalyses showed adjuvant chemo significantly improved PFS and OS Subgrp analyses showed benefit only in early stage disease that was incompletely resected One trial showed benefit only in high risk disease. ACTION trial showed improvement in RFS but only trend towards OS benefit. In pts who had complete surgical staging, there was no RFS or OS benefit
Slide 18-

Adjuvant Rx for early stage Ovarian Ca NCCN guideline suggests adjuvant chemo in stage 1C or stage II, clear cell OC (any stage), and grade 3 OC No consensus on optimal chemotherapy agent and duration of treatment: ?carboplatin and paclitaxel 3 cycles vs 6 cycles of adjuvant Rx: GOG 157 showed non-significant trend towards less relapse but similar OS and more toxicity with 6 cycles.
Slide 19-

Postop Management of advanced ovarian cancer
Slide 20-

Standard: ?Carbo AUC6 + Pacli GOG 111 and OV10: Cisp/Paclitaxel v Cisp/Cyclo showed 11% ARR favouring taxane NEJM 1996;334(1):1-6, JNCI 2000;92(9):699-708. Carboplatin is at least as effective as Cisplatin Ann Oncol 1999;10 supp1:35-41 SCOTROC: Docetaxel is as effective as Paclitaxel but more myelosuppressive JNCI 2004;96(22):1682 No additional benefit of continuing chemo beyond 6 cycles. 2006 metaanalysis of 60 trials with 15609 women: Platinum monotherapy v Platinum-based combi: HR 1.16 CI:0.86-1.58) Platinum-non taxane v Platinum-taxane: HR 1.28 CI:1.07-1.53)
Slide 21-

Improving outcome beyond Carbo/Paclitaxel First line Carbo/Paclitaxel showed RR 70-80% with more than 50% achieving CR after optimal cytoreduction However, up to 70% relapse within 1-3 years.
Slide 22-

Better schedule for Carbo/Pacli JCOG 3016 trial Lancet 2009;374:1331-1338 637 pts stage II to IV (65% SIII, 15% SIV) Carbo AUC6 + Pacli180mg/m2 D1 q3/52 v Carbo AUC6 D1 + Pacli 80mg/m2 D1,8,15 q3/52 Improved PFS 17.2m v 28m HR 0.71 CI: 0.58-0.88 Improved 3-yr OS 65.1% v 72.1% HR 0.75 CI 0.57-0.98 Improved OS at 6.4-yr fu: 62m v not reached HR 0.79 CI 0.63-0.99 (ASCO 2012) Greater toxicity with dose dense strategy: Neutropenia 88% v 92%, G3 or 4 anaemia 44% v 69%, Less treatment completion 61% v 73% Similar rate of neurotox and febrile neut (9%)
Slide 23-

Better carbo/taxol schedule MITO-7 JCO 2013;31 suppl;abstr LBA5501 822 pts stage IC to IV (66% SIII, 18% SIV) Carbo AUC2 +Pacli 80mg/m2 both D1,8,15 q3/52 v C AUC6+P 180mg/m2 q3/52 v 20m f/u: Similar PFS (18.8m v 16.5m HR 0.88 CI 0.72-1.06). OS immature Better tolerated with less neuropathy (6% v16%), neutropenia, renal dysfunction (0% v 2%). Better QOL Upcoming trials: ICON-8
Slide 24-

ADDING THIRD CYTOTOXIC Rationale: addition of non-cross resistant drug to platinum/paclitaxel combi may improve OS Multiple trials. Biggest is GOG182-ICON5: JCO 2009;27(9):1419-1425 5 arms study of adding either Gemcitabine, Topotecan or Caelyx to backbone of Carbo/pacli Study closed after 4312 pts accrued due to no PFS and OS benefit over CP
Slide 25-

Role of targeted agents: pazopanib AGO-OVAR16: Pazopanib (24m) v placebo in pts who do not have progression after surgery and completion of >4 cycles of platinum-taxane chemo (940pts, FIGO II-IV, 85% in CR at entry). Improved PFS from 12.3m to 17.9m. OS immature ASCO 2013. JCO 2013;31 sup:abstr LBA5503
Slide 26-

Role of Bevacizumab GOG 218: carbo/paclitaxel v CP+Bev 15mg/kg v CP+Bev->Bev 12m maintenance only managed to show improved PFS from 10.3m to 11.2m to 14.1m. 2.3% risk of GI perf. No OS benefit: 39m in both arms. Note: crossover to Bev allowed at progression. ICON-7: carbo/pacli v carbo/pacli+BevBev 36 wks at 7.5mg/kg Bev. Include 9% high risk stage early stage. Improved PFS at 42m (22m v 24m) but no difference in OS. In pts at high risk of progression (stage IV or stage III or residual tumour >1cm) there is improved PFS 14m v 18m, and OS 29m v 37m (posthoc analysis). 2013 QOL update showed no benefit with addition of Bev. Final OS pending BOOST will re-examine 15m v 30m of Bev (if we believe final OS data from ICON-7
Slide 27-

Role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy Rationale: direct delivery of drug into peritoneal cavity increase the dose intensity without increasing plasma drug levels and potentially decrease systemic SEs. Only use in optimally debulked pts GOG104: IV Cyclo +IV or IP Cisp100mg/m2 q3/52. Improved OS with IP group 49m v 41m but at the cost of abdominal pain GOG114: 6 cycles IV Cisp 75mg/m2+Pacli135mg/m2 q3/52 v 2 cycles of IV Carbo AUC9 q4/52 followed by 6 cycles of IP Cisp 100mg/m2+IV Paclitaxel 135mg/m2 q3/52 Improved OS with IP 63m v 52m, but only 18% received >2 IP cycles GOG172: IV Cisp 75mg/m2 +Pacli 135mg/m2 q3/52 v IV Pacli 135mg/m2+ IP Cisp 100mg/m2 + IP pacli 60mg/m2 d8 Improved OS with IP 65.6m v 49.7m. More haem toxicities ?benefit from additional dose of paclitaxel Poor uptake: concern re tox and logistics issues
Slide 28-

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Slide 29-

Consider in women with extensive disease and poor ECOG. No consensus on who should receive NACT. ?all pts need preop laporoscopy for diagnostic and staging Advantage in responders: less extensive surgery and less morbidity from surgery EORTC 55971 Gynecol Oncol 2010;119(1):1-3 670 pts w potentially operable stage III and IV ovarian ca Primary debulking surgery, then 6 cycles of chemo or 3 cycles of neoadjuvant carbo/paclitaxel with interval debulking surgery, then more chemo. Improved optimal debulking rate (residual <1cm) 41.6% v 80.6%. (cw 75% optimal primary debulking rate in experienced centres) Less periop complications: death 0.7% v 2.5%, infection 2 v 8&, haemorrhage 4 v 7% Similar PFS (12m) and (OS 29 v 30m). Pts who had primary surgery had improved OS if no residual disease (45 v 38m) or <1cm disease (32 v 27m)! Nb: 3% did not have met ovarian ca at laparotomy! 25% did not receive standard C/P
Slide 30-

Neoadjuvant chemo: MRC CHORUS 550 Pts stage III to IV. 72 centres in UK and 2 in NZ Non-inferiority trial with similar design to EORTC 55971 Exclude >6% decrease in 3-yr estimated OS of 50% Results: non-inferior PFS and OS PFS: 11.3m v 10.7m OS: 24.5m v 22.8m Less postop morbidity/mortality with NACT G3 or 4 complications: 14% v 24% D/c within 2/52: 92% v 74% Death within 28 days: 5.6% v 0.5% Criticism of ‘suboptimal surgery’: av duration of debulking surgery of 2 hrs, Rate of residual disease >1cm in primary surgery arm of 61% v 25% High rate of mortality Nonetheless, both EORTC and CHORUS showed similar results Neoadjuvant chemo is an alternative esp in women who are deemed unlikely to have residual microscopic disease post primary debulking.
Slide 31-

Recurrent ovarian cancer
Slide 32-

Current Questions in Recurrent Disease How do you define recurrence? Physical exam Imaging Chemical When do you treat? Symptoms Imaged lesions Chemical
Slide 33-

264 236 203 167 129 103 69 53 38 31 19 265 247 211 165 131 94 72 51 38 31 22 Rustin G, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 1. Reprinted with permission from the author. Delayed Early Patients at Risk, n Mos Since Randomization Proportion Surviving 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 HR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.82-1.22; P = .98) Abs diff at 2 yrs: -0.1% (95% CI diff: -6.8, 6.3%) Early Delayed 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0 Overall Survival
Slide 34-

Pros & Cons of TreatingCA-125 Increase Cons Potential Rx of false positives No improvement in OS Exhaust treatment options Toxicity Impaired QoL Cost No ideal agent available May be homeopathic only Pros Stay ahead of disease Improve survival? Prevent symptoms Maximize QoL “Active approach” to care Intuitive to do something Minimize patient anxiety Avoids patient “relocating” Shortens visit time
Slide 35-

Primary Treatment End of Frontline Therapy 0 Mos 6 Mos 12 Mos Refractory Resistant Sensitive Platinum Sensitivity
Slide 36-

Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Effect of Platinum-Free Interval and Survival Days Percentage Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. ASCO 2002. Abstract 829. 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Slide 37-

1978 Cisplatin Carboplatin Altretamine Paclitaxel Topotecan Liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) (accelerated) Liposomal doxorubicin (full) Gemcitabine (with carboplatin) 2006 1989 1990 1992 1996 1999 2005 2009 Trabectedin; EU only (with PLD) FDA-Approved Drugsin Ovarian Cancer 1964 Melphalan Doxorubicin 1974
Slide 38-

Positive Trials in RecurrentOvarian Cancer Paclitaxel vs topotecan[1,2] Topotecan vs pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)[3,4] Platinum vs platinum + paclitaxel[5] Carboplatin vs carboplatin + gemcitabine[6] Carboplatin + PLD vs carboplatin + paclitaxel[7] PLD vs PLD + trabectedin[8] 1. ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2183-2193. 2. ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:100-103. 3. Gordon AN, et al J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3312-3322. 4. Gordon AN, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:1-8. 5. Parmar MK, et al. Lancet. 2003;361:2099-2106. 6. Pfisterer J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4699-4707. 7. Vasey P, et al. ECCO ESMO 2009. Abstract 18LBA. 8. Monk BJ, et al. ESMO 2008. Abstract LBA4
Slide 39-

Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ICON-4 CALYPSO: Intergroup OCEANS: CarboAUC4/Gem (up to 10 cycles)+/-Bev 15mg/kg in platinum sensitive OC, followed by Bev maintenance. Improved PFS 8.4m v 12.4m, RR 57.4% v 78.5%. No OS benefit at second interim analysis! ?crossover 33.3m v 35.2m JCO 2012;17:2039-2045