Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 27.
Published in final edited form as: Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov 28;148(2):275–280. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.11.018

Clinicopathologic characteristics associated with long-term survival in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary data study

C A Hamilton a,*,+, A Miller b, Y Casablanca a,*, N S Horowitz c, B Rungruang d, T C Krivak e, S D Richard f, N Rodriguez g, MJ Birrer h, FJ Backes i, MA Geller j, M Quinn k, MJ Goodheart l, DG Mutch m, JJ Kavanagh n, G L Maxwell o, M A Bookman p
PMCID: PMC5918685  NIHMSID: NIHMS959497  PMID: 29195926

Abstract

Objective

To identify clinicopathologic factors associated with 10-year overall survival in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and primary peritoneal cancer (PPC), and to develop a predictive model identifying long-term survivors.

Methods

Demographic, surgical, and clinicopathologic data were abstracted from GOG 182 records. The association between clinical variables and long-term survival (LTS) (>10 years) was assessed using multivariable regression analysis. Bootstrap methods were used to develop predictive models from known prognostic clinical factors and predictive accuracy was quantified using optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

The analysis dataset included 3,010 evaluable patients, of whom 195 survived greater than ten years. These patients were more likely to have better performance status, endometrioid histology, stage III (rather than stage IV) disease, absence of ascites, less extensive preoperative disease distribution, microscopic disease residual following cyoreduction (R0), and decreased complexity of surgery (p<0.01). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that lower CA-125 levels, absence of ascites, stage, and R0 were significant independent predictors of LTS. A predictive model created using these variables had an AUC=0.729, which outperformed any of the individual predictors.

Conclusions

The absence of ascites, a low CA-125, stage, and R0 at the time of cytoreduction are factors associated with LTS when controlling for other confounders. An extensively annotated clinicopathologic prediction model for LTS fell short of clinical utility suggesting that prognostic molecular profiles are needed to better predict which patients are likely to be long-term survivors.

Keywords: Ovarian cancer, long-term survival

INTRODUCTION

Studies by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) and others describe multiple clinical and pathologic characteristics that are associated with recurrence and survival in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients [18]. In a retrospective analysis of a large group of EOC patients treated with primary cytoreduction and intravenous platinum and paclitaxel chemotherapy on one of six GOG trials, Winter and colleagues confirmed that increasing age, impaired performance status, mucinous or clear-cell histology, and gross residual disease were independent predictors of decreased progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Particularly noteworthy was the impact of residual disease volume in both stage III [6] and stage IV [7] disease. Patients with complete gross resection had a significant survival advantage over those patients with any volume of gross residual. Further studies from the GOG also revealed that patients who presented with diffuse intraperitoneal disease had worse outcomes compared to those with limited intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal spread even after resection to microscopic residual (R0) [2, 5].

The majority of advanced stage EOC recurs within the first two years following diagnosis and over half of deaths occur within five years of diagnosis. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommends subspecialty follow-up for patients every three months for the first two years following primary treatment and every 6 months for another three years [9]. This 5-year milestone, after which many patients return to their referring providers, may limit understanding of long-term outcomes and awareness of patients who experience late recurrences. Our recent analyses of GOG-182 revealed that progression and recurrence continued beyond 5 years in patients who had optimal cytoreduction, finally reaching a plateau approximately 7 years after diagnosis [35]. In addition, updated outcomes from GOG-111 for patients with sub-optimal cytoreduction show a continual decline in cancer related survival until at least 10 years (written correspondence with W.P. McGuire). These data mirror Sopik and colleagues’ report in which five-year case-fatality rates decreased by 7.5% form 1973-1999, but the 12-year rates decreased only 1.2% suggesting improvements in survival at five-years have not significantly impacted cancer specific mortality when viewed over a longer time horizon[10].

Clinical features, biomarkers, and environmental factors that predict survival past ten years are not known and it remains unclear if the absence of poor prognostic factors or presence of positive characteristics, alone or in combination, predicts long-term survival or cure. Understanding what predicts ovarian cancer long-term survival offers the opportunity to provide improved personalized care. Physicians could direct patients likely to have long-term survival to conventional treatments, while those at higher risk could be channeled to trials of novel therapies. Such selection may enhance the ability of clinical trials to demonstrate clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and pathologic factors associated with long-term survival and to determine the accuracy of a prediction model using these variables.

METHODS

Eligible patients for this analysis were United States participants in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) evaluation of platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage EOC and primary peritoneal cancer (GOG182-ICON5). Patients with stage III or IV disease underwent primary cytoreductive surgery before randomization to 1 of 5 platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy regimens. The randomized study found no statistically significant treatment differences in PFS or OS [11].

Extensive demographic, clinical, and pathologic data were abstracted from study charts and databases. Operative notes and pathology reports were individually scrutinized to compute preoperative disease distribution scores (DS) [2, 4] and surgical complexity scores (CS) [12] as previously described. Briefly, preoperative disease score was defined as (1) DS-low, with pelvic and retroperitoneal spread; (2) DS-moderate (DS-mod), with additional spread to the abdomen, but sparing the upper abdomen; or (3) DS-high, with the presence of upper abdominal disease affecting the diaphragm, spleen, liver, pancreas, or porta-hepatis. Surgical complexity score was based on the complexity and number of surgical procedures. Patients were classified into groups based on the total CS: CS-low (score 1-3), CS-mod (score 4-7), or CS-high (score >8). Patients cytoreduced to R0 were compared to those with gross residual ≤1cm and >1cm. OS was defined as the number of months between study enrollment and any-cause death or last follow up.

The GOG182-ICON5 trial enrolled a total of 4,312 patients. 3,699 patients were enrolled by United States cooperative groups and had charts available for detailed abstraction of disease burden and residual disease status [11]. These patients comprised the final sample for this analysis. Patients with time to death or last follow up greater than 120 months were designated as long-term survivors based on the extended survival curves of GOG 182 and prior GOG trials described above. We excluded 689 patients who were alive with less than 120 months of follow-up at the time of analysis leaving 3010 evaluable subjects. The reference group contained patients who died from any cause within 120 months of enrollment. For this analysis specifically, long-term survival at ten years will be annotated as LTS. Baseline characteristics were summarized by outcome status. Differences between the LTS group and the reference cohort were tested using Wilcoxon and the Pearson Chi Square tests as appropriate. Clinically and statistically significant factors were used as covariates to develop models to predict LTS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to quantify associations between baseline factors and LTS status. Predictive accuracy of the models was described using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Using the entire dataset, bootstrap methods were used to specify a prediction model for LTS [13]. Backward selection of the full model was performed on 2000 bootstrapped datasets using a retention threshold of p<0.20. Main effects were retained to support significant interaction terms. The final model was specified to include covariates retained in at least 70% of the bootstrap samples. Predictive accuracy of the final model was assessed using AUC in which a random classifier would have an AUC of 0.5, while a perfect classifier equals one, or correctly stratifies 100% of the time. Optimism in the AUC estimates was assessed using methods described by Efron and Harrell [14, 15]. Specifically, coefficient estimates for the final model were obtained from bootstrap samples and applied to the original sample. The resulting AUC estimates gave bootstrap estimates of the prospective AUC and its 95% prediction interval. An AUC = 0.8 is considered to have some predictive utility, and the authors determined that this would be a minimum threshold to warrant validation as a potentially actionable predictor in this disease setting.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared between the 195 cancer patients with LTS and those with shorter survival. Patients with LTS were more likely to have better performance status, endometrioid histology, stage III (rather than stage IV) disease, absence of ascites, decreased surgical complexity, less extensive preoperative and postoperative disease and lower pretreatment CA-125(Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of Demographic and Clinicopathologic Factors Associated with Long-term Survival

OS > 10 Died <10 Overall P Value
Overall Count N 195 (7) 2,815 (94) 3,010 (100%)
Age(years) Median (Q1 - Q3) 58 (51 – 66) 60 (52 – 67) 59 (52 – 67) 0.10
Race White 180 (92%) 2,582 (92%) 2,762 (92%) 0.87
Black 8 (4%) 128 (5%) 136 (5%)
Asian 2 (0.1%) 47 (2%) 49 (2%)
Other 5 (3%) 58 (2%) 63 (2%)
BMI Under 10 (5%) 96 (3%) 106 (4%) 0.25
Normal 87 (44.6%) 1,132 (40.2%) 1,219 (40.5%)
Over 50 (25.6%) 796 (28.3%) 846 (28.1%)
Obese 37 (19.0%) 669 (23.8%) 706 (23.5%)
Missing 11 (5.6%) 122 (4.3%) 133 (4.4%)
Performance Status Asymptomatic 112 (57%) 1,293 (46%) 1,405 (47%) 0.02
Ambulatory 73 (37%) 1,302 (46%) 1,375 (46%)
in bed < 50% 10 (5%) 217 (8%) 227 (8%)
in bed > 50% 0 (0%) 3 (0.1%) 3 (0.1%)
Site Ovary 175 (90%) 2,416 (86%) 2,591 (86%) 0.13
Other 20 (10%) 399 (14%) 419 (14%)
Histology Adeno Unspecified 3 (2%) 27 (1%) 30 (1%) <.01
Clear 5 (3%) 93 (3%) 98 (3%)
Endometrioid 19 (10%) 110 (4%) 129 (4%)
Mucinous 1 (1%) 45 (2%) 46 (2%)
Mixed 13 (7%) 146 (5%) 159 (5%)
Undifferentiated 2 (1.0%) 39 (1%) 41 (1%)
Transitional 3 (2%) 10 (0.4%) 13 (0.4%)
Serous 149 (76%) 2,345 (83%) 2,494 (83%)
Grade 1 8 (5%) 81 (4%) 89 (3%) 0.11
2 45 (28%) 499 (22%) 544 (22%)
3 110 (68%) 1,732 (75%) 1,842 (74%)
Stage 3 185 (95%) 2,353 (84%) 2,538 (84%) <.01
4 10 (5%) 462 (16%) 472 (16%)
Ascites Yes 116 (60%) 2,267 (80%) 2,383 (79%) <.01
No 78 (40%) 545 (19%) 623 (22%)
Surgical Complexity Score CS-Low 31 (169%) 685 (24%) 716 (24%) <0.01
CS-Mod 144 (74%) 1,749 (62%) 1,893 (63%)
CS-High 20 (10%) 381 (14%) 401 (13%)
Residual Disease R0 89 (46%) 490 (17%) 579 (19%) <.01
≤1 cm 76 (39%) 1,448 (52%) 1,524 (51%)
>1 cm 30 (15%) 873 (31%) 903 (30%)
Preoperative Disease Score DS-Low 23 (12%) 112 (4%) 135 (5%) <.01
DS-Mod 74 (38%) 625 (22%) 699 (23%)
DS-High 98 (50%) 2,078 (74%) 2,176 (72%)
Pretreatment CA-125 Median (Q1 – Q3) 107 (50 – 271) 232 (100 – 595) 220 (93 – 568) <.01

The starting bootstrap model was specified to include main effects for age, performance status, ascites, preoperative disease score, surgical complexity, residual disease, stage, pretreatment CA-125, and all second-order interactions (a total of 36 covariates including 28 interaction terms). Each of the main effect terms was statistically significant in ≥ 93% of the bootstrapped samples. None of the interaction terms were retained in at least 70% of the samples. A second model was created consisting entirely of main effects. When this multivariable model was tested, age, performance status and disease score were not statistically significant. However, patients attaining R0 were significantly more likely to achieve LTS than those with gross residual. The surgical complexity of the primary surgery was also significant. Patients presenting with ascites, Stage IV disease, or elevated CA-125 were significantly less likely to achieve LTS. The final predictive model contained the seven main effect terms as shown in Table 2. Disease score was dropped from the model due to its high correlation with surgical effort. Although not significant, age and performance status are natural predictors of survival and had retention rates of 94% and 98% respectively in bootstrap models. In accordance with the statistical analysis plan which called for inclusion of covariates retained in at least 70% of bootstrap models, they were retained in the final model. Full-reduced model chi square tests showed no loss of fit between the full (36 variables) and main effects (7 variables) models (p=0.67)

Table 2.

Covariate Effects in the Final Multivariable Predictive Model OR (95% CI) is the estimated odds ratio for surviving at least 10 years. OR>1 indicates improved odds of LTS relative to the comparison group.

Covariate P value Comparison OR (95% CI)
Age 0.50 10 year increase 0.95 (0.83 to 1.10)
Ascites 0.02 Yes reference: No 0.66 (0.47 to 0.94)
log(CA-125) <0.01 Continuous 0.78 (0.69 to 0.89)
Residual Disease <0.01 R0 reference: (≤1cm + >1cm) 2.54 (1.80 to 3.58)
Performance Status 0.20 Asymptomatic reference: Symptomatic 0.81 (0.59 to 1.11)
Stage <0.01 4 ref: 3 0.35 (0.17 to 0.73)
Surgical Complexity 0.03 CS-High reference: CS-Mod 0.70 (0.42 to 1.16)
CS-Low vs CS-Mod 0.59 (0.38 to 0.91)

Predictive accuracy of the final model was assessed using the AUC. When fit to the data, the final model had AUC=0.729, as shown in Figure 1. The optimism-adjusted estimate was AUC = 0.724 (95% CI: 0.715 to 0.729). The other ROC curves in Figure 1 illustrate the influence of CA-125, residual disease and ascites on the predictive accuracy of the final model. Accuracy was strongly influenced by CA-125 and residual disease status. Although surgical complexity met the threshold for significance, its inclusion did not improve the ability to identify long-term survivors (AUC 0.729 versus 0.725). Given the performance of the exploratory prediction model, further diminished after optimism adjustment, which fell short of our actionable threshold, we did not pursue validation of these data.

Figure 1. ROC Curve of the final multivariate model compared to univariate predictors.

Figure 1

ROC curves of the final predictive model using 7 main effects, compared to predictive ability of pre-treatment Ca-125, residual disease after surgery and presence of ascites.

We performed a similar exploratory analysis as described above limiting the dataset to high grade serous histology acknowledging that the molecular and clinical biology may differ significantly from that of low grade serous and non-serous histologies. The backward selection model was retained but the loss of samples left this model under-powered for interaction terms. This did not materially affect the overall model fit and the AUC for long-term survivors in the high grade serous patients was statistically equivalent to the AUC in the full dataset.

DISCUSSION

Recent studies highlight a number pathologic and clinical variables associated with long-term survival among patients with EOC [1621], but these associations are inconsistent across studies and details regarding distribution of disease, complexity of surgery, volume of residual disease and types of adjuvant therapies are often unavailable for analysis. In the current study, all patients were treated similarly on a clinical trial and this extensively annotated data revealed significant associations between LTS and performance status, histology, stage, presence of ascites, preoperative extent of disease, postoperative residual disease and surgical complexity in univariable analyses.

Population-based studies consistently associate long-term survival with age and in some, race [1618]. These were not associated with LTS in our analysis, with age lacking independent significance perhaps due to its collinearity with performance status. Similarly, standardized treatment and follow-up may have limited the impact of race. Although our data did not identify an association of LTS with tumor grade, serous and clear cell histology as well as stage IV disease negatively impacted LTS. In addition, patients with ascites were less likely to have LTS. Recent investigations highlighted that distribution of disease is an important predictor of residual disease as well as a determinant of PFS and OS [2, 3]. Our current data showed that long-term survivors are less likely to have widespread disease involving the upper abdomen (DS-high) and more likely to have R0 at the completion of surgical cytoreduction. Surprisingly though, approximately 15% of patients that survived greater than 10 years had suboptimal residual disease after primary cytoreduction.

Preoperative CA-125 was noted to be much lower among LTS patients (median 107, Q1 50 – Q3 271) compared to women with less than 10-year survival (median 232, Q1 100 – Q3 595). Limited data (serial CA-125s was not required in the original protocol) prevented an assessment of time to normalization and correlations with LTS. A previous meta-analysis by the GOG inclusive of protocols 111, 114, 132, 152, 158, 162, and 172 found pre-treatment CA-125 was associated with PFS and OS [22]. Higher pretreatment CA-125 levels were associated with greater risk for disease progression. Until levels >1,000, there was a 71% increased risk of disease progression compared to normal levels. Although our data was limited by lack of routine reporting of patient BRCA mutational status, recent data indicates that while BRCA status appears to impact platinum sensitivity and short-term survival, it is not associated with long-term survival [20, 23].

Multivariable modelling in our study revealed that a lower CA-125, absence of ascites, stage, and R0 cytoreduction remained significant predictors of LTS when controlling for other influences. Unfortunately the model’s predictive ability (AUC of 0.729) was insufficient for clinical utility as defined by the ability to discriminate long-term survivors sufficiently to alter patient management in ways that might ultimately improve outcomes [24]. Researchers from a multi-center research consortium investigating 10-year long-term survival highlighted the lack of predictability of clinical factors finding that 14% of long-term survival patients had suboptimal cytoreduction, 11% had an initial platinum free interval less than 12 months, and 53% had recurrent disease [19]. Though not evaluated in this analysis, successful prediction of long-term survivorship will likely depend on factors beyond currently recognized clinicopathologic characteristics.

Initial studies by Berchuck and colleagues demonstrated unique transcript expression patterns associated with ovarian cancer patients with greater than seven year survival compared to short-term (<3 year) survival [25]. Barlin and colleagues, using their institutional data and The Cancer Genome Atlas identified distinct transcriptional elements in advanced serous EOC patients they considered likely cured by standard therapy. This population was defined by recurrence-free survival of greater than 5 years and was compared to long-term recurrent patients who survived greater than five years [26]. In the largest and potentially most provocative study of its kind to date, Riester and colleagues published a gene expression signature predicting survival in advanced-stage serous ovarian cancer. These investigators created the new gene signatures using a meta-analytic development approach consisting of gene expression most associated with overall survival across major public datasets. The validated novel signatures consistently outperformed other gene signatures to date and took important steps toward clinical utility [24]. As GOG 182 and other more recent reports imply, further impacting survival by altering the route, timing, and dose of the platinum and taxane backbone is unlikely [11,27,28]. Integration of clinicopathologic factors with these novel molecular signatures in the context of newly identified molecular subtypes and proteogenomic analyses may be a logical next step. We believe such composite predictive modeling and biomarkers hold promise to achieve significant impact [2931].

In addition to limitations noted previously, it is important to emphasize that this analysis was based on the retrospective review of a single prospective study to abstract key data elements and that the use of a single trial ultimately limited power in some subset analyses. Additionally, the study was accomplished during a time of transition to more aggressive surgery with a goal of achieving complete gross resection. Finally, tissue acquisition for translational research was not required by the protocol and therefore we were unable to integrate molecular characteristics into this investigation. Participating institutions were encouraged to submit tissue and blood from protocol patients through a separate GOG banking protocol. A long term survival consortium was recently established and this group identified tissues associated with a subset of patients on GOG 182 as well as other trials. This consortium is actively collaborating to identify promising biomarkers for future reports.

Predicting which patients are likely, or not likely, to have long-term survival with conventional treatments would have the benefit of tailoring clinical trials and novel therapies to high risk and lower risk populations. Such stratification could be a particularly useful adjunct to novel trial designs such as biomarker enriched or stratified trials as well as randomized umbrella trials. By selecting out a high-risk subgroup, clinical trials may better identify clinically relevant advances. Additionally, patients who are likely to do well with conventional therapy could avoid lengthy consolidation or maintenance therapy or the investment of time, energy, logistical inconveniences, or perhaps invasive procedures associated with some clinical trials and current surveillance algorithms. We believe that personalized treatment of patients at low and high risk for recurrence in this way is economically sound given the restricted resources available for funding large multi-institutional trials.

In conclusion, we were unable to achieve an AUC threshold warranting further development of this model into a clinically useful calculator or nomogram. Despite this, it does represent a benchmark (based on most “knowable” clinic-pathologic data) for development of more accurate predictive models that include molecular features alone or in combination with those we have described.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Administrative Office (CA 27469), the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical Office (CA 37517), NRG Oncology (1U10 CA180822) and NRG Operations (U10CA180868). The following Gynecologic Oncology Group member institutions participated in the primary treatment studies: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Oregon Health Sciences University, Duke University Medical Center, Abington Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Wayne State University, University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Southern California at Los Angeles, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Colorado Gynecologic Oncology Group P.C., University of California at Los Angeles, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, University of Miami School of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Georgetown University Hospital, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Indiana University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Albany Medical College, University of California Medical Center at Irvine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Eastern Virginia Medical School, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Eastern Pennsylvania GYN/ONC Center, P.C., Southwestern Oncology Group, Washington University School of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Columbus Cancer Council, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Women’s Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, University of Chicago, University of Arizona Health Science Center, Tacoma General Hospital, Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Case Western Reserve University, and Tampa Bay Cancer Consortium.

Footnotes

Presented in part at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, March 22-25, 2014, Tampa, Florida

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of Defense.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose with the exception of Dr. Michael Bookman who reports personal fees from McKesson Specialty Health and USOR, personal fees from Genentech-Roche, personal fees from Mateon, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Endocyte, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work.

References

  • 1.Farley JH, Tian C, Rose GS, Brown CL, Birrer M, Maxwell GL. Race does not impact outcome for advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with cisplatin/paclitaxel: an analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group trials. Cancer. 2009;115:4210–7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hamilton CA, Miller A, Miller C, Krivak TC, Farley JH, Chernofsky MR, et al. The impact of disease distribution on survival in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer cytoreduced to microscopic residual: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic oncology. 2011;122:521–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Horowitz NS, Miller A, Rungruang B, Richard SD, Rodriguez N, Bookman MA, et al. Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33:937–43. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rodriguez N, Miller A, Richard SD, Rungruang B, Hamilton CA, Bookman MA, et al. Upper abdominal procedures in advanced stage ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma patients with minimal or no gross residual disease: an analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 182. Gynecologic oncology. 2013;130:487–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rungruang B, Miller A, Richard SD, Hamilton CA, Rodriguez N, Bookman MA, et al. Should stage IIIC ovarian cancer be further stratified by intraperitoneal vs. retroperitoneal only disease?: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic oncology. 2012;124:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Winter WE, 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C, Carlson JW, Ozols RF, Rose PG, et al. Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25:3621–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.2517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Winter WE, 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C, Sundborg MJ, Rose GS, Rose PG, et al. Tumor residual after surgical cytoreduction in prediction of clinical outcome in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2008;26:83–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chi DS, Liao JB, Leon LF, Venkatraman ES, Hensley ML, Bhaskaran D, et al. Identification of prognostic factors in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic oncology. 2001;82:532–7. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Salani R, Backes FJ, Fung MF, Holschneider CH, Parker LP, Bristow RE, et al. Posttreatment surveillance and diagnosis of recurrence in women with gynecologic malignancies: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists recommendations. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;204:466–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sopik V, Iqbal J, Rosen B, Narod SA. Why have ovarian cancer mortality rates declined? Part II. Case-fatality. Gynecologic oncology. 2015;138:750–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.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. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27:1419–25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.1684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aletti GD, Santillan A, Eisenhauer EL, Hu J, Aletti G, Podratz KC, et al. A new frontier for quality of care in gynecologic oncology surgery: multi-institutional assessment of short-term outcomes for ovarian cancer using a risk-adjusted model. Gynecologic oncology. 2007;107:99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.05.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Austin PC, Tu JV. Bootstrap methods for developing predictive models. The American Statistician. 2004;58:131–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Efron B. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1983;78:316–331. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in medicine. 1996;15:361–87. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Akeson M, Jakobsen AM, Zetterqvist BM, Holmberg E, Brannstrom M, Horvath G. A population-based 5-year cohort study including all cases of epithelial ovarian cancer in western Sweden: 10-year survival and prognostic factors. International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2009;19:116–23. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181991b13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Baldwin LA, Huang B, Miller RW, Tucker T, Goodrich ST, Podzielinski I, et al. Ten-year relative survival for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2012;120:612–8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318264f794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cress RD, Chen YS, Morris CR, Petersen M, Leiserowitz GS. Characteristics of Long-Term Survivors of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2015;126:491–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dao F, Schlappe BA, Tseng J, Lester J, Nick AM, Lutgendorf SK, et al. Characteristics of 10-year survivors of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic oncology. 2016;141:260–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kotsopoulos J, Rosen B, Fan I, Moody J, McLaughlin JR, Risch H, et al. Ten-year survival after epithelial ovarian cancer is not associated with BRCA mutation status. Gynecologic oncology. 2016;140:42–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Milam MR, Harrell R, Bassett R, Parker LP, Metzinger DS, Ramirez PT. Clinical characteristics of patients with prolonged disease-free survival after primary treatment in advanced ovarian cancer: a brief report. International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2011;21:475–7. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31820bf251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zorn KK, Tian C, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Markman M, Muggia FM, et al. The prognostic value of pretreatment CA 125 in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2009;115:1028–35. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Candido-dos-Reis FJ, Song H, Goode EL, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Larson MC, et al. Germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and ten-year survival for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2015;21:652–7. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Riester M, Wei W, Waldron L, Culhane AC, Trippa L, Oliva E, et al. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014;106 doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Berchuck A, Iversen ES, Lancaster JM, Pittman J, Luo J, Lee P, et al. Patterns of gene expression that characterize long-term survival in advanced stage serous ovarian cancers. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2005;11:3686–96. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Barlin JN, Jelinic P, Olvera N, Bogomolniy F, Bisogna M, Dao F, et al. Validated gene targets associated with curatively treated advanced serous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic oncology. 2013;128:512–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chan JK, Brady MF, Penson RT, Huang H, Birrer MJ, Walker JL, et al. Weekly vs every-3-week paclitaxel and carboplatin for ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:738–748. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Clamp AR, McNeish I, Dean A, Gallardo D, Weon-Kim J, O’Donnell D, et al. ICON8: A GCIG Phase III randomised trial evaluating weekly dose- dense chemotherapy integration in first-line Epithelial Ovarian/Fallopian Tube/Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma (EOC) treatment: Results of Primary Progression-Free Survival (PFS) analysis; Presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2017 Congress; September 8, 2017; Madrid, Spain. Abstract 929O. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011;474:609–615. doi: 10.1038/nature10166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Konecny GE, Wang C, Hamidi H, Winterhoff B, Kalli KR, et al. Prognostic and therapeutic relevance of molecular subtypes in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106 doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju249. dju249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang H, Liu T, Zhang Z, Payne SH, Zhang B, McDermott JE, et al. Integrated Proteogenomic Characterization of Human High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. Cell. 2016;155(3):755–765. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES