Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer

Kenneth Jaaback; Nick Johnson; Theresa A Lawrie

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005340.pub4

. 2016 Jan 12;2016(1):CD005340. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005340.pub4

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer

Kenneth Jaaback ^1,^✉, Nick Johnson ², Theresa A Lawrie ³

Editor: Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancer Group

PMCID: PMC8602974 PMID: 26755441

Abstract

Background

Ovarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy.

Objectives

To determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression‐free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Search methods

We searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals up to May 2011.

Selection criteria

The analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration.

Data collection and analysis

We extracted data on overall survival, disease‐free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta‐analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time‐to‐event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software.

Main results

Nine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease‐free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route.

Authors' conclusions

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression‐free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta‐analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta‐analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.

Plain language summary

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy (administered into the peritoneal cavity) for advanced ovarian cancer improves both overall and disease‐free survival

Ovarian cancer commonly spreads through the peritoneal cavity and usually responds to intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. This review compared the effectiveness of IV chemotherapy to chemotherapy administered directly into the peritoneal cavity (intraperitoneal, or IP). The evidence suggests an improvement in survival if some of the chemotherapy is administered via the intraperitoneal route. The disadvantage is an increase in adverse effects principally relating to the presence of a peritoneal catheter, including pain, catheter blockage, gastrointestinal effects and infection.

Summary of findings

Background

Description of the condition

In the United States, epithelial ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and ranks fourth in female cancer deaths (ACS 2005). The main treatment for advanced disease includes a combination of surgical removal of all resectable disease, if possible, followed by intravenous chemotherapy, including a platinum‐based drug with or without a taxane. Based on a meta‐analysis of 6885 women (including 81 cohorts of women with stage III and IV ovarian cancer), Bristow and colleagues demonstrated that women with ≤ 25% maximal cytoreduction had a mean weighted median survival of 22.7 months; those with > 75% maximal cytoreduction had a mean weighted median survival of 33.9 months ‐ an increase of 50%. In addition, they showed that each 10% increase in maximal cytoreduction was associated with a 5.5% increase in median survival time (Bristow 2002). This has prompted large trials to evaluate the role of more aggressive surgery and alternative chemotherapy regimes. Further improvements are being sought to specifically target ovarian cancer cells within the peritoneal cavity. These include intraperitoneal antibodies, immunotherapy, radiotherapy and the administration of chemotherapeutic agents directly into the peritoneal cavity before, during or after surgery.

Description of the intervention

Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for intra‐abdominal cancer has its origins in the 1950s when nitrogen mustard was used intraperitoneally for malignant ascites (Weisberger 1955). This concept was developed in the 1970s when significantly greater concentrations of certain chemotherapeutic drugs were demonstrated in the peritoneal cavity than in the blood (Jones 1978).

Ovarian cancer remains confined to the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history, spreading by local extension and then by direct spread from the surface of the ovary through the peritoneal cavity. This IP spread is the most common and recognized characteristic of ovarian cancer and makes the disease an ideal candidate for such a drug delivery strategy. The rationale for IP chemotherapy is to eradicate residual disease by concentrating the cytotoxic effect, generating high drug concentrations directly into the peritoneal cavity, and reducing the systemic toxic effects associated with the standard method of intravenous administration.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has several foreseeable limitations:

Los 1990 injected radiolabelled cisplatin into the peritoneal cavity of rats; IP concentrations of cisplatin were 10 to 20 times higher than serum levels, but IP tumour penetration depth was limited to 1 to 2 mm. This suggests that the benefit of IP chemotherapy may be limited to women with microscopic or very small volume residual disease after debulking surgery.
Ovarian cancer spreads not only by the transperitoneal route, but also via the lymphatic and venous system and by direct invasion through the diaphragm: these sites may not be targeted as well using IP as IV chemotherapy. In Burghardt 1991, the incidence of positive nodes at primary surgery was reported to be as high as 24% in women with stage I disease, 50% in women with stage II disease, 74% in women with stage III disease, and 73% in women with stage IV disease. Therefore, concern arises as to the appropriateness of targeting the peritoneal cavity.
The peritoneal cavity in women with ovarian cancer is often distorted by adhesions and sanctuary sites may develop, limiting the access of cytotoxic drugs to tumour surfaces in these areas.
Complications of IP drug administration are well recognised and deterioration in QOL scores may be more significant with IP than with standard IV therapy.
Concentrations of IP platinum compounds are high after IV administration and IP instillation may not add therapeutic benefit.
IP chemotherapy administration requires more clinical space, more time, and a team of medical oncologists and nurses confident and experienced at both the technical aspects and management of complications.
Gynaecological oncologists need to be experienced and competent at maximal debulking surgery and insertion and removal of intraperitoneal catheters or intermittent direct transperitoneal infusions.

Why it is important to do this review

Since the 1970s there have been many phase I and phase II clinical trials evaluating the effects of IP chemotherapy, and several have been tested at phase III. In summary these phase I and II trials established the feasibility and safety of this approach (Howell 1982; Lopez 1985; Markman 1999) but did not establish the efficacy of the treatment. By taking a systematic approach to reviewing all relevant phase III studies, this review of available literature focuses on survival, adverse events and QOL comparing IP with IV chemotherapy. This is an updated version of our original review (Jaaback 2007).

Objectives

Primary objective  To determine the efficacy of active chemotherapy treatments administered into the peritoneal cavity in the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Specifically, we addressed the following questions:

Is administering some of the chemotherapy IP more effective than a pure IV regime in improving survival from ovarian cancer?
Is administering some of the chemotherapy IP more effective than a pure IV regime in delaying recurrence of ovarian cancer?

Secondary objectives

To determine if there are some women with epithelial ovarian cancer who are more or less likely to benefit from this treatment.
To determine if there is any difference in QOL for women treated with chemotherapy involving IP administration versus IV chemotherapy.
Is administering some of the chemotherapy IP safer than an IV regime?

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Only RCTs regardless of other co‐morbidity were considered for this review. Trials where the method of randomisation was not specified in detail were included but were considered of low quality (see Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity).

Types of participants

Women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. No age limit was applied.

Types of interventions

Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration. We accepted trials comparing regimes which included IP treatment with similar regimes that excluded IP treatment. Where interventions differed significantly between studies this was clearly stated and the implications were discussed.

The review excluded the following:

radio colloids;
gene therapy;
biologic therapy;
radio‐isotopes;
vascular growth factors;
immunomodulating drugs;
matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors;
radiolabelled monoclonal antibodies.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Progression‐free survival (time to recurrence).
Overall survival (time to death).

The definitions used in the trials to describe what constitutes recurrence are noted in Characteristics of included studies where possible.

Secondary outcomes

Adverse effects as measured by any recognised and validated scoring system. It is acknowledged that the frequency of important long‐term adverse effects may not be adequately captured by information in (small) RCTs.
QOL as measured by any scale recognised and validated for cancer care.

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

See: Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Collaborative Review Group search strategy.

The original search was conducted to March 2005 with updated searches conducted on the following databases in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. We searched the following databases:

Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2015
MEDLINE (1951 to week 4, Aug 2015)
EMBASE (1974 to week 36, 2015)

The search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL are listed in Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 respectively.

Searching other resources

Handsearching

The following journals were handsearched:

Gynecologic Oncology from 1998 to May 2011;
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer from 1998 to May 2011.

We also contacted authors who were active in the field. The "first generation" reference lists of all eligible trials were searched for additional studies. We searched grey literature, in particular conference proceedings and abstracts through ZETOC and Dissertation Abstracts.

We searched for all relevant studies irrespective of language. A French trial (Zylberberg 1986) was translated, with the assistance of a native speaker, and was included in the review.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

For the updated review, Kenneth Jaaback (KJ) and Tess Lawrie (TL) scanned the searches and selected potentially relevant studies. All three authors obtained the full text of potentially relevant studies for independent assessment of eligibility. For the original review, KJ selected potentially relevant studies from the searches and KJ and Nick Johnson (NJ) assessed the full text papers. NJ looked at a random sample of search results to check that nothing relevant had been discarded.

Data extraction and management

For the original review, two review authors independently extracted the data using a specifically designed form (KJ and NJ). For the 2011 updated review, only one new trial was eligible (Yen 2009). As the relevant data from this trial were unpublished, we sent the data extraction form to the trial authors (Dr CM Juang, see Acknowledgements) who completed the form. Additional reports of the GOG 172 trial rendered data on QOL and adverse effects and these were extracted independently by two review authors (KJ, TL). No new studies were identified for inclusion 2015. We resolved any disagreement by discussion. We entered data into Review Manager software (RevMan 2008) and checked for accuracy. When information regarding results, outcomes or methods was unclear, or where data were missing, we attempted to contact authors of the original reports to provide further details. Data extracted included:

participant characteristics (age, stage and postoperative residuum of malignancy);
numbers of participants in each arm of the trial;
length of follow‐up;
withdrawal from treatment protocol;
number of participants who received all, part or none of the planned treatment, or who experienced delays during treatment will be recorded for each treatment arm;
type of intervention and control (chemotherapy agents administered in each arm of the trial and timing of administration in relation to surgery);
data relating to methodological quality ‐ see above;
log(HR) and its variance summarising (i) risk of recurrence of ovarian cancer and (ii) survival;
adverse effects where toxicity was classified as Grade 3 or 4;
QOL data from reliable and validated tools ‐ changes (either improvement or worsening) in symptoms were summarised;
catheter‐related complications.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

NJ and KJ independently assessed the risk of bias for each eligible study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2009). We resolved any disagreement by discussion.

(1) Random sequence generation (checking for possible selection bias)

We described for each included study the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups. We assessed the method as:

low risk of bias (any truly random process, e.g. random number table;computer random number generator);
high risk of bias (any non‐random process, e.g. odd or even date of birth;hospital or clinic record number) or;
unclear risk of bias.

(2) Allocation concealment (checking for possible selection bias)

We described for each included study the method used to conceal allocation to interventions prior to assignment and assessed whether intervention allocation could have been foreseen in advance of, or during recruitment, or changed after assignment. We assessed the methods as:

low risk of bias (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes);
high risk of bias (open random allocation; unsealed or non‐opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth);
unclear risk of bias.

(3) Blinding of outcome assessment (checking for possible detection bias)

We described for each included study the methods used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We assessed methods used to blind outcome assessment as:

low, high or unclear risk of bias.

(4) Incomplete outcome data (checking for possible attrition bias due to the amount, nature and handling of incomplete outcome data)

We described for each included study, and for each outcome or class of outcomes, the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. We stated whether attrition and exclusions were reported and the numbers included in the analysis at each stage (compared with the total randomised participants), reasons for attrition or exclusion, where reported, and whether missing data were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where sufficient information was reported, or could be supplied by the trial authors, we re‐included missing data in the analyses we undertook. We assessed methods as:

low risk of bias (e.g. no missing outcome data; missing outcome data balanced across groups);
high risk of bias (e.g. numbers or reasons for missing data imbalanced across groups; ‘as treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of intervention received from that assigned at randomisation);
unclear risk of bias.

(5) Selective reporting (checking for reporting bias)

We described for each included study how we investigated the possibility of selective outcome reporting bias and what we found. We assessed the methods as:

low risk of bias (where it is clear that all of the study’s pre‐specified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported);
high risk of bias (where not all the study’s pre‐specified outcomes have been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes were not prespecified; outcomes of interest were reported incompletely and so cannot be used; study fails to include results of a key outcome that would have been expected to have been reported);
unclear risk of bias.

(6) Other bias (checking for bias due to problems not covered by 1 to 5 above)

We described for each included study any important concerns we had about other possible sources of bias. We assessed whether each study was free of other problems that could put it at risk of bias:

low risk of other bias;
high risk of other bias;
unclear whether there is risk of other bias.

(7) Overall risk of bias

We made explicit judgements about whether studies were at high risk of bias, according to the criteria given in the Handbook (Higgins 2009). With reference to (1) to (6) above, we assessed the likely magnitude and direction of the bias and whether we considered it likely to impact on the findings. We explored the impact of the level of bias through undertaking sensitivity analyses.

Measures of treatment effect

Dichotomous data

The following outcomes were presented as dichotomous data:

adverse effects grade 3 to 4 including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, gastrointestinal effects, neurologic, renal, pulmonary, cardiovascular, fever, fatigue, infection, metabolic, pain and hearing loss.

For this type of data, we presented results as a summary risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

Time‐to‐event data

For time‐to‐event outcomes, we combined hazard ratios (HR) and their associated variances using the generic inverse‐variance method (RevMan 2008). We used this method for:

time to death;
time to recurrence.

Dealing with missing data

For included studies, we noted levels of attrition. We explored the impact of including studies with high levels of missing data in the overall assessment of treatment effect by using sensitivity analysis. For all outcomes, we carried out analyses, as far as possible, on an intention‐to‐treat basis, i.e. we attempted to include all participants randomised to each group in the analyses, and all participants were analysed in the group to which they were allocated, regardless of whether or not they received the allocated intervention. The denominator for each outcome in each trial was the number randomised minus any participants whose outcomes were known to be missing.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed statistical heterogeneity in each meta‐analysis using the T², I² and Chi² statistics. We regarded heterogeneity as substantial if I² was greater than 30% and either T² was greater than zero, or there was a low P value (< 0.10) in the Chi² test for heterogeneity.

Assessment of reporting biases

If there were 10 or more studies in the meta‐analysis we planned to investigate reporting biases (such as publication bias) using funnel plots. We planned to assess funnel plot asymmetry visually, and if asymmetry was suggested by a visual assessment, we would perform exploratory analyses to investigate it. However, the largest meta‐analysis in this review consisted of eight studies.

Data synthesis

We carried out statistical analyses using the Review Manager software (RevMan 2008). We used fixed‐effect meta‐analysis for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect, i.e. where trials were examining similar populations and used similar methods. If survival methods were used but HRs not reported, we estimated HRs using Parmar's methods (Parmar 1998).

Where necessary, we combined different categories of toxicity within trials in order to facilitate pooling of data from different trials. If there was clinical heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differed between trials, or if substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected, we used random‐effects meta‐analysis to produce an overall summary if an average treatment effect across trials was considered clinically meaningful. The random‐effects summary was treated as the average range of possible treatment effects and we discuss the clinical implications of treatment effects differing between trials. Where we used random‐effects analyses, the results are presented as the average treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals, and the estimates of T² and I².

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Where we identified substantial heterogeneity, we investigated it using subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. For exploratory purposes, we subgrouped trials according to quality for all outcomes. We assessed the difference between subgroups by interaction tests.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses were performed where there was a risk of bias associated with the quality of some of the included trials.

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

See Characteristics of included studies and Characteristics of excluded studies.

Ten potentially relevant studies were identified from the search strategy described above. The full text for all of these was obtained. These were then assessed for inclusion/exclusion by two reviewers (KJ, NJ) using the stated criteria.

Included studies

Nine trials consisting of 2119 women, representing 100% of eligible women from known randomised trials, contributed data. Patient accrual varied from 20 to 546.

Three United States trials were inter‐group studies with more than 40 participating institutions in each (Alberts 1996; GOG 172; Markman 2001). The Gadducci 2000 study involved the Gruppo Oncologico Nord‐Ovest in Italy and it was unclear how many centres participated. The Zylberberg 1986 study involved three participating centres. In the Kirmani 1994 trial an unclear number of community hospitals participated in the San Diego area of California. In the remaining three trials one centre participated (Polyzos 1999; Yen 2001; Yen 2009).

Zylberberg 1986 is the earliest RCT on IP chemotherapy for the initial management of epithelial ovarian cancer. They randomised 20 women with stage III disease to receive either IV chemotherapy including doxorubicin, fluorouracil, bleomycin, cisplatin, vinorelbine and ifosfamide, or a combination of IV doxorubicin, fluorouracil, bleomycin, cisplatin, vinorelbine, ifosfamide and IP bleomycin, cisplatin, fluorouracil and doxorubicin. Both groups received maintenance intramuscular chemotherapy with 12 monthly courses of ifosfamide, fluorouracil, and methotrexate. Ten women were randomised to each arm and the outcome of each patient was reported. They described a statistically significant increase in the number of women alive and free of disease in the IP group (P < 0.05) but no further statistics were provided. In the IV group, of the 10 randomised, there were five deaths after 11, 18, 24, 38 and 62 months and five free of relapse after 31, 40, 42, 64 and 72 months. In the IP group there was one death after 29 months, two with residual disease resected at second look laparotomy, free of disease after 23 and 54 months, and the other seven were free of disease after 23, 23, 27, 28, 34, 58 and 59 months. More mature data are unfortunately not available and our attempts to contact the lead author were unsuccessful. We were able to construct a Kaplan‐Meier curve for time to death and these data have been included in the survival meta‐analysis.

Kirmani 1994 randomised 87 women with stage IIC‐IV disease over four years to receive IV cisplatin 100 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² or IP cisplatin 200 mg/m² and etoposide 350 mg/m². Of these, 68 were evaluable for toxicity, 62 for survival (33 IV and 29 IP), and 46 for response. Ten were excluded from participation after review of the pathology. Seven women refused their assigned treatment arm (4 IP and 3 IV). For various reasons another eight women were not evaluable for response. The two groups were well balanced with respect to age, stage and residual disease, but more in the IV group had an ECOG performance status of 0 (14 versus 5) and fewer had a status of 2 (3 versus 6). This was the only trial comparing direct IV to IP (without additional IV) chemotherapy. Kaplan‐Meier curves show non‐significantly better overall survival in the IV arm. Disease‐free survival included only those with no clinical evidence of disease at the end of treatment, and also showed no significant difference between the two groups. However, only 25 IV and 21 IP women were evaluable for this assessment. There was also no detectable difference in either haematological or non‐haematological toxicity between the high‐dose IP regime and the standard‐dose IV regime.

The North West Oncology Group trial (Gadducci 2000) was run over 7½ years, and randomised 113 women with 100 evaluable (54 IV and 46 IP) participants. They considered stage II‐IV disease with < 2 cm residual disease after debulking surgery. The chemotherapy arms included IV or IP cisplatin 50 mg/m². Both groups also received IV epidoxorubicin 60 mg/m² + IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². Twenty‐two women did not complete the assigned treatment (2 IV and 20 IP). Significant reasons for treatment change in the IP arm included patient refusal (6), bowel perforation (3) and abdominal pain (2). Patient characteristics were well balanced in the two groups except histotype. Seven women with clear cell histology were randomly allocated to the IV arm. Median disease free survival was 25 and 42 months for the IV and IP arms (P = 0.13) and median overall survival was 51 and 67 months (P = 0.14). Similar survival curves were obtained after exclusion of the women with clear cell histology. The only significant toxicity difference was more grade 3‐4 myelotoxicity in the IP group (52% versus 34%).

Polyzos 1999 randomised 90 women (46 IV and 44 IP) with stage III disease randomised to receive either IV or IP carboplatin 350 mg/m² all of whom were eligible for analysis. Both groups also received IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of characteristics of the women between the two chemotherapy groups. There was no maximum tumour diameter permitted for entry into this trial. A residual tumour volume ≥ 2 cm was found in 43% of women. There were no significant differences in time to progression or overall survival in the two groups, even after adjusting for residual tumour volume but we were unable to obtain the survival curves to include data in the meta‐analysis. Significantly more women in the IV group had grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (P < 0.01) and non‐significantly more grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (P < 0.09). However, 10% of women receiving IP chemotherapy were reported to have major catheter‐related morbidity, including three cases of chemotherapy infused directly into the large bowel with ensuing massive diarrhoea, and two cases where fluid was infused between layers of the abdominal wall. Weaknesses in this study include the poor statistical power with the low number randomised. Fewer women had tumour volumes < 2 cm (25 IV and 26 IP). The randomisation technique and allocation concealment was unclear, and analysis by intention‐to‐treat was not described.

Yen 2001 randomised 132 women with stage III disease to receive either IV cisplatin 50 mg/m² or IP cisplatin 100 mg/m² and of these 118 were eligible (55 IV and 63 IP). Both groups also received IV adriamycin or epirubicin 50 mg/m² and IV cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m². There were no significant differences between the two study groups with regard to important prognostic factors. All women initially had optimal debulking surgery with residual disease of ≤ 1 cm. The median survival rates were 43 months for the IP group and 48 months for the IV group (P = 0.469). Significantly more women in the IV group had grade 3 or 4 leukopenia but there was no significant increase in thrombocytopenia or anaemia. Catheter‐related complications in the IP group included pain (41.8%) and obstruction (25.5%).

Alberts 1996 coordinated the first large study incorporating investigators from the SWOG and GOG, randomising 654 women with residual disease of ≤ 2 cm to either IP or IV cisplatin (100 mg/m²); 546 women were finally eligible. Both groups also received IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². The trial investigators included a subgroup analysis in January 1991, four and a half years after the study commenced accrual, after consensus emerged that women with a residual tumour size of ≤ 0.5 cm would be most likely to benefit from IP chemotherapy. The study was then extended for an additional year to achieve an adequate (powered) sample size for analysis of this subgroup. There were no significant differences between the two study groups with respect to important prognostic factors. The IP arm had significantly less myelotoxicity and tinnitus but there were no major differences between the two arms in terms of severe toxicity, treatment‐related deaths and removal of women from the study due to adverse events.

Markman 2001 randomised 532 women with 462 evaluable (227 IV and 235 IP) and compared an IV paclitaxel plus cisplatin regime with an experimental combination of two courses of high dose IV carboplatin followed by six courses of IV paclitaxel plus IP cisplatin. The maximum tumour diameter permitted for entry into this trial was 1 cm. Women in the IP arm had a median disease‐free survival of 28 months and a median overall survival of 63 months, both of which were superior to the median 22‐month progression‐free survival and median 52‐month overall survival associated with IV‐administered drugs (P = 0.02 and P = 0.05, respectively). Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicities were significantly greater in the IP group such that 18% of these women actually received ≤ 2 cycles of intraperitoneal cisplatin. This was thought to be a consequence of the two initial high dose IV carboplatin treatments (AUC 9), designed to minimize the residual volume of disease prior to IP treatment.

GOG 172 was a similar trial for women with stage III, optimally de‐bulked ovarian cancer. In this trial 429 women were randomised and 14 were ineligible. This left 210 in the IV arm to receive paclitaxel 135 mg/m² plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² and 205 in the IP arm to receive IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² plus IP cisplatin 100 mg/m² plus IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m² on day 8, with each regime delivered every 21 days for 6 cycles. The principal endpoint was progression‐free interval, with secondary endpoints being overall survival and toxicity and quality of life scores. Data provided by the study chair from the GOG meeting in January 2005 revealed the following: 429 women had entered, well balanced for prognostic factors and completion of treatment in each arm. There were significantly more grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the IP arm, including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal, renal, neurologic, fatigue, infection, metabolic and pain scores. This may be expected due to the use of a higher IV cisplatin dose (100 mg/m² v 75 mg/m²) and the addition of IP paclitaxel on day eight. Nevertheless, the median progression‐free interval and time to death for the IP group was prolonged, with the RR of recurrence 0.79 and a RR of death 0.75, suggesting a therapeutic advantage for IP therapy. These data have since been published (Armstrong 2006).

Yen 2009 randomised Stage III ovarian cancer patients to IP versus IV cisplatin or carboplatin after giving all IV paclitaxel. The objective of the trial and published manuscript was to construct a prognostic nomogram addressing the following risk factors: age, CA‐125, IP/IV delivery, stage, histology, and upper abdominal metastases. Out of 367 women recruited, 298 were analysed (152 in IV group and 146 in IP group). Chemotherapy consisted of a three hour infusion of paclitaxel (175mg/m²) on day one to all women. On day two, platinum (either 100 mg/m² cisplatin or 300 mg/m² carboplatin) was administered by either the IP or IV route. This was repeated every three weeks for six cycles provided serum creatinine was less than or equal to 2 mg/dl, WCC > 3000/mm³, and platelet count was > 80,000/mm³. IP therapy was discontinued and shifted to IV chemotherapy if catheter problems occurred. Published data consisted of a nomogram to predict survival, including an odds ratio (OR) for IV versus IP of 2.14 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.41) in favour of IP therapy. The investigators also showed that they could identify the subset of women who are least likely to benefit from IP chemotherapy, i.e. age > 80 years or with baseline CA 125 > 3000 U/ml or Stage IIIc disease or clear cell carcinoma or upper abdominal tumour metastases or colon resection, and may, therefore, be spared the potential complications. We obtained additional methodological information and unpublished data, including survival data and adverse effects (Grade 3/4), from the trial investigators.

Overall survival data were extracted from the reports and unpublished data of all but one of the trials (Polyzos 1999). Five trials provided HRs and covariates in Cox regression analysis (Alberts 1996; GOG 172; Markman 2001; Yen 2001; Yen 2009[unpublished data]). Most included age, tumour type and grade, performance status and residual disease as covariates prior to commencing chemotherapy. Six trials displayed Kaplan‐Meier survival curves (Alberts 1996; Gadducci 2000; GOG 172; Kirmani 1994; Markman 2001; Yen 2001) and we were able to construct a survival curve for the Zylberberg 1986 trial from individual patient data presented. One of these presented sufficient data to allow calculation of the HR using Parmar's methods (Gadducci 2000). The HR of death for Kirmani 1994 and Zylberberg 1986 was estimated from the Kaplan‐Meier survival curves. Only one of the trials (Alberts 1996) included subgroup analysis data, and so meta‐analysis on subgroup data could not be performed.

Disease‐free survival data and Kaplan‐Meier disease‐free survival curves were available from five trials (including unpublished data from Yen 2009). Two presented the calculated HRs (GOG 172; Markman 2001), two trials presented sufficient data to allow calculation of the HR using Parmar's methods (Gadducci 2000; Yen 2009) and the HR of recurrence for Kirmani 1994 was estimated from the Kaplan‐Meier diease‐free survival curves. The definitions of recurrence varied amongst these trials. For example, Kirmani 1994 used the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group definition, Markman 2001 used date of entry to date of appearance of disease (clinical or radiological) or equated it to survival, Gadducci 2000 used date of entry to date of first progression and GOG 172 used date of randomisation to progression, death, or the date of last contact, whichever came first.

Eight of the nine included trials reported adverse effects with the exception of Zylberberg 1986. We obtained unpublished data from Yen 2009. Toxicity criteria included SWOG, Common toxicity criteria and WHO, all of which were comparable for the toxicities described. Gadducci 2000 used the WHO criteria but included 4 grades of alopecia and these data, therefore, could not be assimilated because the WHO criteria divide alopecia into only 3 grades.

QOL scores were reported in the GOG 172 trial using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale with General, Neurotoxicity, Pain and Ovarian cancer sub‐scales (Wenzel 2004; Wenzel 2007).

Only GOG 172 assessed the effect of chemotherapy on QOL issues. Women receiving the higher dose IP therapy experienced more QOL disruption, pain and neurotoxicity when compared with those who received more conventional IV therapy. No other studies addressed this issue and, therefore, no meta‐analysis could be performed.

Median length of follow‐up was reported in eight of the nine trials: Alberts 1996 > 60 months; Gadducci 2000 60 months; GOG 172 > 60 months; Kirmani 1994 46 months; Markman 2001 > 60 months; Yen 2001 74 months; Yen 2009 62 months; and Zylberberg 1986 50 months. Polyzos 1999 did not provide data on length of follow‐up.

Excluded studies

Piccart 2003 compared four doses of maintenance IP chemotherapy compared to observation in 153 women who had had a complete response to conventional platinum‐based intravenous chemotherapy. After a median follow‐up of 8 years, 80 women (52%) had progressed with no difference in the pattern of relapse between the two groups. The respective hazard ratios for PFS and OS with 95% CI were 0.89 (0.59 to 1.33) and 0.82 (0.52 to 1.29). The authors concluded that this was suggestive of a treatment benefit. However, as maintenance therapy did not fit this review's eligibility criteria we excluded this trial.

Risk of bias in included studies

See Risk of Bias Tables in Characteristics of included studies and Figure 1.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

We made attempts to contact lead investigators of trials (Gadducci 2000; Kirmani 1994; Polyzos 1999; Yen 2001; Yen 2009; Zylberberg 1986) where necessary to obtain missing details relating to methodological quality.

Allocation

Three United States multicentre trials (Alberts 1996; GOG 172; Markman 2001) followed guidelines for the conduct of inter‐group trials with adequate randomisation and allocation concealment. Randomisation and allocation concealment was also adequate for the Gadducci 2000 study. Yen 2001 described the use of random number tables but did not confirm a method of allocation concealment. Yen 2009 randomised women using a computer generated table but did not describe allocation concealment. Both randomisation and concealment of allocation were unclear in Kirmani 1994; Polyzos 1999 and Zylberberg 1986.

Blinding

Personnel and patient blinding after allocation was not possible because of the nature of the trials. Therefore, both recipients of care and care providers were aware of their assigned intervention. Assessor blinding was performed in Alberts 1996; GOG 172 and Markman 2001.

Selective reporting

Six studies reported intention‐to‐treat analyses (Alberts 1996; Gadducci 2000; GOG 172; Markman 2001; Yen 2001; Yen 2009). Most trials reported expected outcomes except for Yen 2009 where the stated objective was to construct a nomogram for survival, but additional data was provided by the investigators for the purposes of this review. Zylberberg 1986 did not report adverse effects.

Other potential sources of bias

We sub‐grouped the Alberts 1996; Gadducci 2000; GOG 172; Markman 2001; Yen 2001 and Yen 2009 trials as high quality, and the Kirmani 1994; Polyzos 1999 and Zylberberg 1986 trials as low quality and data from all are included in the meta‐analysis. It was not possible to comprehensively document the numbers of, or reasons for, withdrawal from treatment protocol. The number who received all, part or none of the planned treatment is recorded for each treatment arm in Table 3.

1. Courses of chemotherapy administered.

Courses of chemotherapy administered
	No. (%) women received all assigned chemotherapy		No. (%) women received part of assigned chemotherapy		No. (%) women received no assigned chemotherapy
Trial	IP	IV	IP	IV	IP	IV
Alberts 1996	155/267 (58)	162/279 (58)	93/267 (35)	114/279 (41)	19/267 (7)	3/279 (1)
GOG 172	86/205 (42)	174/210 (83)	103/205 (50)	34/210 (16)	16/205 (8)	2/210 (1)
Gadducci 2000	26/46 (57)	52/54 (96)	13/46 (28)	2/54 (4)	7/46 (15)	0 (0)
Kirmani 1994	25/33 (76)	21/35 (60)	8/33 (24)	14/35 (40)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Markman 2001			52/235 (22)	27/227 (13)	16/235 (7)	4/227 (2)
Yen 2001			41/55 (75)	43/63 (68)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Yen 2009	72/146 (49)		74/146 (51)		0 (0)
Polyzos 1999	No data
Zylberberg 1986	No data

IP component therapy compared with IV therapy for initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer
Patient or population: Women with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer Settings: Hospital setting Intervention: Intraperitoneal component therapy Comparison: Intravenous therapy
Outcomes	Relative effect  (95% CI)	No of Participants  (studies)	Quality of the evidence  (GRADE)	Comments
Overall survival	HR 0.81 (0.72 to 0.90)	2026 women (8 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	Homogeneous data. When only the six high quality trials were considered HR = 0.80 (0.72 to 0.90) .
Progression‐free survival	HR 0.78 (0.70 to 0.86)	1311 women   (5 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	Homogeneous data.
CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard Ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence  High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.  Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.  Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.  Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

IP component therapy compared with IV therapy for initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer
Patient or population: Women with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer Settings: Hospital setting Intervention: Intraperitoneal component therapy Comparison: Intravenous therapy
Severe adverse effects (G3/4) outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect  (95% CI)	No of participants  (studies)	Quality of the evidence  (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	IV	IP
fever	46 per 1000	75 per 1000   (52 to 109)	RR 1.64 (1.13 to 2.38)	1797 women (5 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	High quality trials only.
fatigue	75 per 1000	174 per 1000   (80 to 380)	RR 2.32 (1.06 to 5.07)	1171 women (3 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	High quality trials only.
gastrointestinal AEs	193 per 1000	330 per 1000   (247 to 436)	RR 1.71 (1.28 to 2.26)	1339 women   (5 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	I² = 48%. When only the four high quality trials were considered, data were homogeneous and RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.30. Corresponding risk = 355 per 1000 (294 to 430)
infection	34 per 1000	114 per 1000   (70 to 185)	RR 3.34 (2.06 to 5.43)	1171 women (3 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	High quality trials only.
metabolic AEs	21 per 1000	93 per 1000   (57 to 152)	RR 4.45 (2.72 to 7.26)	873 women   (2 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	High quality trials only.
pain	24 per 1000	179 per 1000   (106 to 304)	RR 7.47 (4.41 to 12.67)	1235 women  (3 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	High quality trials only.
hearing loss	113 per 1000	76 per 1000   (52 to 112)	RR 0.67 (0.46 to 0.99)	1009 women  (3 trials)	⊕⊕⊕⊕  high	When only the two high quality trials were considered, the RR (CI) was similar.
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).  CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio; AEs: Adverse effects
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence  High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.  Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.  Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.  Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

GOG 0252
Arm 1	Carboplatin AUC 6 IV for 6 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 80 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8, and 15 + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV on day 1 in cycles 2‐6, then bevacizumab alone for cycles 7‐22
Arm 2	Carboplatin AUC 6 IP for 6 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 80 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8, and 15 + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV on day 1 in cycles 2‐6, then bevacizumab alone for cycles 7‐22
Arm 3	Cisplatin 75 mg/m² IP on day 2 for 6 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 135 mg/m² IV on day 1 + paclitaxel 60 mg/m² IP on day 8 + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV on day 1 in cycles 2‐6, then bevacizumab alone for cycles 7‐22
NCIC CTG OV21 3 ‐ 4 cycles of neoadjuvant platinum‐based chemotherapy after histologically confirmed initial diagnosis of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, serous type peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, followed by optimal cytoreduction (< 1 cm residual) then randomisation
Phase II portion of trial evaluating two IP regimes and one IV regime
Arm 1	Carboplatin AUC 5‐6 IV for 3 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 135 mg/m² IV on day 1, and 60 mg/m² on day 8
Arm 2	Cisplatin 75 mg/m² IP for 3 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 135 mg/m² IV on day 1, and 60 mg/m² on day 8
Arm 3	Carboplatin AUC 5‐6 IP for 3 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 135 mg/m² IV on day 1, and 60 mg/m² on day 8
Phase III portion of trial comparing Arm 1 to either Arm 2 or Arm 3
GOTIC‐001/JGOG 3019
Arm 1	Carboplatin AUC 6 IV for 6‐8 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 80 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8, and 15
Arm 2	Carboplatin AUC 6 IP for 6‐8 cycles, given every 21 days + paclitaxel 80 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8, and 15

Date	Event	Description
17 December 2015	New citation required but conclusions have not changed	No new studies identified for inclusion.
17 December 2015	New search has been performed	Searches updated.
26 September 2011	New search has been performed	Search updated: one new trial (Yen 2009), five additional publications related to the GOG 172 trial and three ongoing trials (GOG 0252; GOTIC‐001/JGOG‐3019; NCIC CTG OV.21) were identified.
26 September 2011	New citation required but conclusions have not changed	Review content updated: one new trial and three ongoing studies added. New author added.
17 August 2010	New search has been performed	Search updated
9 September 2008	Amended	Converted to new review format.
1 May 2007	New search has been performed	Minor update: 01/05/07 The literature search as described in the search strategy sections was updated on 23 February 2007. No new relevant studies were identified.
15 November 2005	New citation required and conclusions have changed	Substantive amendment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to death	8		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.72, 0.90]
1.1 High quality trials	6		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.72, 0.90]
1.2 Low quality trials	2		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.57, 2.11]
2 Time to death restricted to same dose trials	3		Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.67, 0.92]
2.1 High quality trials	3		Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.67, 0.92]
3 Time to recurrence	5		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.70, 0.86]
3.1 High quality trials	4		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.77 [0.70, 0.85]
3.2 Low quality trials	1		Hazard ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)	1.26 [0.57, 2.78]
4 Adverse effects ‐ anaemia (G3‐4)	5	1110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.78, 1.24]
4.1 High quality trials	4	1042	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.80, 1.28]
4.2 Low quality trials	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.14, 1.71]
5 Adverse effects ‐ thrombocytopenia (G3‐4)	8	2073	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.18 [0.43, 3.20]
5.1 High quality trials	6	1915	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.80 [0.59, 5.49]
5.2 Low quality trials	2	158	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.09, 0.81]
6 Adverse effects ‐ leukopenia (G3‐4)	8	2073	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.76, 1.16]
6.1 High quality trials	6	1915	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.80, 1.23]
6.2 Low quality trials	2	158	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.58 [0.15, 2.19]
7 Adverse effects ‐ renal (G3‐4)	5	1339	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.52 [0.58, 4.00]
7.1 High quality trials	4	1271	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.81 [0.68, 4.84]
7.2 Low quality trials	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.22 [0.01, 4.50]
8 Adverse effects ‐ pulmonary (G3‐4)	3	1220	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.18, 8.26]
8.1 High quality trials	3	1220	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.18, 8.26]
9 Adverse effects ‐ cardiovascular (G3‐4)	3	1152	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [0.85, 2.45]
9.1 High quality trials	3	1152	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [0.85, 2.45]
10 Adverse effects ‐ fever (G3‐4)	5	1797	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.64 [1.13, 2.38]
10.1 High quality trials	5	1797	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.64 [1.13, 2.38]
11 Adverse effects ‐ fatigue (G3‐4)	3	1171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.32 [1.06, 5.07]
11.1 High quality trials	3	1171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.32 [1.06, 5.07]
12 Adverse effects ‐ gastrointestinal (G3‐4)	5	1339	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.70 [1.28, 2.26]
12.1 High quality trials	4	1271	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.90 [1.57, 2.30]
12.2 Low quality trials	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.61 [0.26, 1.47]
13 Adverse effects ‐ infection (G3‐4)	3	1171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.34 [2.06, 5.43]
13.1 High quality trials	3	1171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.34 [2.06, 5.43]
14 Adverse effects ‐ metabolic (G3‐4)	2	873	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.45 [2.72, 7.26]
14.1 High quality trials	2	873	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.45 [2.72, 7.26]
15 Adverse effects ‐ neurologic (G3‐4)	6	1865	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.15 [0.67, 1.97]
15.1 High quality trials	5	1797	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.70, 2.14]
15.2 Low quality trials	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.04, 3.43]
16 Adverse effects ‐ pain (G3‐4)	3	1235	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.47 [4.41, 12.67]
16.1 High quality trials	3	1235	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.47 [4.41, 12.67]
17 Adverse effects ‐ hearing loss (G3‐4)	3	1009	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.46, 0.99]
17.1 High quality trials	2	941	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.66 [0.44, 1.00]
17.2 Low quality trials	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.23, 2.42]

Methods	Study duration: 06/1986 ‐ 07/1992  Type of trial: Multicentre RCT, intention‐to‐treat basis  Number ineligible: 108
Participants	Stage III  Residual disease status ≤ 2cm  Performance status: SWOG 0‐2  Number randomised: 654  Number evaluable: 546
Interventions	Arm 1: IV cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) + IV cisplatin (100 mg/m²). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IV cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) + IP cisplatin (100 mg/m²). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Pathological CR   Adverse effects: Anaemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, abdominal pain, fever, tinnitus, hearing loss, neuromuscular effects, pulmonary effects
Notes	Survival = time from randomisation to death (any cause)  Protocol change in Jan 1991, extending accrual for an additional year, to achieve large enough sample ≤ 0.5cm  Methodological quality = high
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Multicentre RCT
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Assessor blinding performed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Analysis by ITT; all expected outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	High quality trial

Methods	Study duration: 04/1989 ‐ 12/1996  Type of trial: multicentre RCT, intention‐to‐treat  Number ineligible: 5  Co‐interventions and other potential confounders: 7 clear cell cancer patients randomly allocated to systemic treatment were excluded from analyses
Participants	Stage: II ‐ IV  Residual disease status: < 2cm  Performance status: ECOG < 2  Number randomised: 113  Number evaluable: 100
Interventions	Arm 1: IV epidox 60 mg/m² + IV CTX 600 mg/m² + IV cisplatin 50 mg/m². Repeated every four weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IV epidox 60 mg/m² + IV CTX 600 mg/m² + IP cisplatin 50 mg/m². Repeated every four weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Disease‐free survival  Adverse effects
Notes	Survival = time from randomisation to death (any cause) or Sept 1998
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Multicentre RCT
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	< 20% attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Analysis by ITT; all expected outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	Methodological quality = high

Methods	Study duration: 03/1998 ‐ 01/2001  Type of trial: Multicentre RCT, intention‐to‐treat basis  Number ineligible: 14
Participants	Stage: III  Residual disease status: ≤ 1cm  Performance status: GOG 0‐2  Number randomised: 429  Number evaluable: 415
Interventions	Arm 1: IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² over 24 h (day 1) + IV cisplatin 75 mg/m² (day 2). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² over 24 h (day 1) + IP cisplatin 100 mg/m² (day 2) + IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m² (day 8). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Disease‐free survival  Adverse effects: Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, GI, GU/renal, pulmonary, cardiovascular, neurologic, fever, alopecia, fatigue, infection, metabolic, pain, lymphatic, hepatic, renal, tinnitus  QOL: Functional assessment of cancer therapy Biochemical measures: serum CA 125
Notes	Methodological quality = high
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Multicentre RCT
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Not strictly blinded but pathology reports, operative notes and eligibility information were collected before registration
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	415/429 evaluated; baseline characteristics similar; 11/205 vs 5/210 lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Analysis by ITT; all expected outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	High quality trial

Methods	Study duration: 01/1988 ‐ 02/1992  Includes data to 15 Sept 1993  Type of trial: Single centre RCT  Number ineligible: 10 (pathology review) + 7 (refused assigned treatment, 4 IP, 3 IV) + 8 (not evaluable) = 25
Participants	Stage: IIC to IV  Residual disease status: ≤ 1 cm or > 1 cm  Performance status: ECOG 1‐2  Number randomised: 87  Number evaluable: 62 evaluable for survival data, 67 evaluable for toxicity
Interventions	Arm 1: IV cisplatin 100 mg/m² + IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IP cisplatin 200 mg/m² + IP etoposide 350 mg/m². Repeated every four weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Disease‐free survival  Adverse effects: leukopenia, GI, neurologic, renal, IP catheter‐related complications
Notes	Survival = time from randomisation to death (any cause) or last follow‐up  Methodological quality = low
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	High risk	> 20% incomplete data for disease‐free survival and response to treatment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Expected outcomes reported; ITT not described
Other bias	Unclear risk	More women in the IV group had ECOG performance status of 0 (14 vs 5)

Methods	Study duration: 08/1992 ‐ 04/1995  Type of trial: multicentre RCT, intention‐to‐treat   Number ineligible: 61
Participants	Stage: III  Residual disease status: ≤ 1 cm  Time from surgery to chemotherapy: 6 weeks  Performance status: GOG < 3  Number randomised: 523  Number evaluable: 462
Interventions	Arm 1: IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² over 24 hours (day 1) + IV cisplatin 75 mg/m² (day 2). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IV carboplatin (AUC 9) for two courses every 28 days, followed 4 weeks later by IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 over 24 hours (day 1) + IP cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (day 2). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles.
Outcomes	Overall survival  Progression‐free survival  Adverse effects: Leukopenia, GI, creatinine clearance, cardiovascular, neurologic, fever, allergic, fatigue, infection, metabolic
Notes	Survival = time from randomisation to death (any cause) or date of last contact  PFS = time from randomisation to date of appearance of disease (clinically or radiologically detected)  2 deaths in each arm from chemo toxicity  Methodological quality = high
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Multicentre RCT
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Assessor blinding performed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	< 20% attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Analyses by ITT; all expected outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	High quality trial

Methods	Study duration: 1990 ‐ 1996  Type of trial: single centre RCT
Participants	Stage: III  Residual disease status: < or > 2cm  Time from surgery to chemotherapy: unclear  Performance status: ECOG < 4  Number randomised: 90  Number evaluable: 90 (46 IV and 44 IP)
Interventions	Arm 1: IV carboplatin 350 mg/m² + IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². Repeated every three to four weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IP carboplatin 350 mg/m² + IV cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m². Repeated every three to four weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Disease‐free survival  Adverse effects: Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, IP administration complications
Notes	No salvage chemotherapy offered to any patient after recurrence  Methodological quality = low
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information for assessment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Expected outcomes reported; ITT not described
Other bias	Unclear risk	Low quality trial

Methods	Study duration: 04/1990 ‐ 03/1995  Type of trial: single centre RCT; intention‐to‐treat  Number ineligible: 14
Participants	Stage: III  Residual disease status: ≤ 1 cm  Performance status: SWOG < 3  Number randomised: 132  Number evaluable: 118
Interventions	Arm 1: IV cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) over 1 hour (day 1)+ IV adriamycin or epirubicin (50 mg/m²) over 60‐min (day 1) + IV cisplatin (50 mg/m²) over 1 hour (day 1). Repeated every three weeks for a total of six cycles  Arm 2: IV cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) over 1 hour (day 1) + IV adriamycin or epirubicin (50 mg/m²) over 60‐min (day 1) + IP cisplatin (100 mg/m²) (day 1). Repeated every 3 weeks for a total of six cycles
Outcomes	Overall survival  Adverse effects: Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, IP catheter‐related complications
Notes	Methodological quality = high
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number tables
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Analyses by ITT; all expected outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	High quality trial

Methods	RCT conducted in Taiwan. Patients randomized postoperatively between Jan 2001 and Dec 2007. Overall survival duration was calculated from cytoreductive surgery to disease‐specific death or last follow‐up.
Participants	367 women with Stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery.
Interventions	IP versus IV chemotherapy following standard cytoreductive surgery. Chemotherapy consisted of paclitaxel on day 1 combined with cisplatin or carboplatin administered IP or IV on day 2. This was repeated every 3 weeks for 6 cycles provided serum creatinine was < or equal to 2 mg/dl, WCC > 3000/mm3, and platelet count was > 80,000/mm3. IP therapy was discontinued and shifted to IV chemo if tube problems occurred.
Outcomes	Nomogram construction/model for survival using age, CA‐125, IV/IP, Stage, histology, upper abdominal metastases
Notes	Patients who had a sub‐optimal cytoreductive status (tumour greater than 1 cm) or incomplete clinicopathological data or were operated on by a non‐sub specialist were excluded from the analysis. Patients lost to follow‐up were 'censored'. 298 included in final analyses (152 in IV group and 146 in IP group). Baseline characteristics similar. Analyzed the impact of delivered IP cycles on survival and found that 5 or more IP cycles were needed to achieve better survival. Authors provided additional unpublished data (including survival data and adverse effect data) and methodological details.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated random numbers (additional unpublished information)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not possible
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Group sizes were similar, as were baseline characteristics. Unpublished data was complete for survival outcomes and adverse effects.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Objective was to construct a nomogram for survival. Analyses by ITT (unpublished information).
Other bias	Low risk	Considered a high quality trial

Methods	Study duration: 01/1980 ‐ 03/1984  Type of trial: single centre RCT
Participants	Stage: III  Residual disease status: as little as possible  Number randomised: 20  Number evaluable: 20
Interventions	Arm 1: IV adriamycin 35 mg x 2 + fluorouracil 750 mg x 2 + bleomycin 15 mg + cisplatin 100 mg + vincaleucoblastine 10 mg + ifosfamide 1 g x 2  Arm 2: IV adriamycin 20 mg x 2 + fluorouracil 500 mg x 2 + cisplatin 50 mg + vincaleucoblastine 10 mg + ifosfamide 1 g x 2  + IP bleomycin 15 mg + cisplatin 50 mg + fluorouracil 500 mg + adriamycin 30 mg
Outcomes	Overall survival  Disease‐free survival
Notes	Study translated from French  Methodological quality = low
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information for assessment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	ITT not described; did not report adverse events/toxicity
Other bias	Unclear risk	Small study, low quality trial

Trial name or title	GOG 0252
Methods	Study duration: projected to complete in 2016 Type of trial: US multicentre RCT Planned follow‐up duration: 5 years Patients are stratified according to disease stage and size of residual disease after initial staging/debulking surgery
Participants	Patients with FIGO stage II ‐ IV (no gross residual disease vs gross residual disease with lesion ≤ 1 cm vs any gross residual disease with lesion > 1 cm). Number to be randomised: 1500
Interventions	Patients are randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms. See Table 4.
Outcomes	PFS, OS, adverse events and QOL
Starting date	Aug 2009
Contact information	Joan Walker USA 405‐271‐8707
Notes

Trial name or title	GOTIC‐001/JGOG‐3019
Methods	Study duration: projected to take 3 years to complete accrual Type of trial: multicentre RCT Planned follow‐up duration of 3 years
Participants	Stage: II‐IV newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer  Residual disease status: Includes women with optimal and sub‐optimal residual disease  Performance status: 0‐2  Number to be randomised: 746  Number evaluable: (to be determined)
Interventions	Arm 1: IV dose‐dense paclitaxel plus IP carboplatin Arm 2: IV dose‐dense paclitaxel plus IV carboplatin IV paclitaxel will be infused on days 1, 8 and 15 at 80 mg/m². Carboplatin at AUC 6 given on day 1, either IP or IV. Repeated every three weeks for six cycles
Outcomes	PFS, OS, QOL and cost/benefit
Starting date	June 2010
Contact information	fujiwara@saitama‐med.ac.jp
Notes	The first 120 will be evaluated for the feasibility of the intraperitoneal arm

Trial name or title	Secondary Debulking Surgery +/‐ Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Stage III Ovarian Cancer (NCT00426257)
Methods	This phase III randomised, open‐label trial compares a single intraperitoneal perfusion of chemotherapy under hyperthermic conditions immediately after interval debulking surgery (OVHIPEC) versus no intraperitoneal therapy
Participants	Women with stage III ovarian, peritoneal or tubal carcinoma who are eligible for interval debulking surgery either following primary chemotherapy or following incomplete primary debulking and chemotherapy. Participants must be between 18 and 76 yr old and not have had relevant competing previous malignancies. Estimated enrolment = 280 women
Interventions	Arm 1: Secondary debulking surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 at the end of surgery) Arm 2: Secondary debulking surgery
Outcomes	Primary: duration of recurrence free survival following completion of treatment. Secondary: toxicity and morbidity, quality of life, tumour response following treatment and overall survival
Starting date	Feb 2007
Contact information	Willemien J van Driel, MD Ph: +31 20 512 2975 Email: w.v.driel@nki.nl
Notes	Estimated completion date 2013

Trial name or title	NCIC CTG OV.21
Methods	Study duration: Projected to take 4.5 years to complete accrual Type of trial: Multicentre RCT with collaborating institutions in Canada, UK, Spain and the USA No. ineligible: (to be determined)
Participants	Women with EOC and optimal tumour debulking after 3‐4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy Stage: IIb‐IIIa  Residual disease status: ≤ 1 cm  Performance status: ≤ 2  Number to be randomised: 150 (Phase II trial) and 630 (Phase III trial)  Number evaluable: (to be determined)
Interventions	Arm 1: IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² plus IV carboplatin on day 1; IV paclitaxel 60 mg/m² on day 8 Arm 2: IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² plus IP carboplatin or cisplatin* on day 1; IP paclitaxel on day 8 Repeated every 21 days for 3 cycles
Outcomes	PFS, OS, toxic effects, QOL, cost/benefit and correlative biology studies
Starting date	2011
Contact information	Helen.Mackay@uhn.on.ca
Notes	Phase III trial to be preceded by a Phase II trial with three arms: IV only, cisplatin IP component therapy and carboplatin IP component therapy. 50 women will be recruited to each arm. *Arm 2 IP chemo agent to be determined by the outcome of the Phase II part of the trial

PERMALINK

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer

Kenneth Jaaback

Nick Johnson

Theresa A Lawrie

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Search methods

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Main results

Authors' conclusions

Plain language summary

Summary of findings

Background

Description of the condition

Description of the intervention

Why it is important to do this review

Objectives

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Types of participants

Types of interventions

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

Searching other resources

Handsearching

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Data extraction and management

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

(1) Random sequence generation (checking for possible selection bias)

(2) Allocation concealment (checking for possible selection bias)

(3) Blinding of outcome assessment (checking for possible detection bias)

(4) Incomplete outcome data (checking for possible attrition bias due to the amount, nature and handling of incomplete outcome data)

(5) Selective reporting (checking for reporting bias)

(6) Other bias (checking for bias due to problems not covered by 1 to 5 above)

(7) Overall risk of bias

Measures of treatment effect

Dichotomous data

Time‐to‐event data

Dealing with missing data

Assessment of heterogeneity

Assessment of reporting biases

Data synthesis

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Sensitivity analysis

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

Included studies

Excluded studies

Risk of bias in included studies

1.

Allocation

Blinding

Selective reporting

Other potential sources of bias

1. Courses of chemotherapy administered.

Effects of interventions

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of survival outcomes.

Summary of findings 2. Summary of severe adverse effects.

Overall survival (time to death)

1.1. Analysis.

2.

1.2. Analysis.

Progression‐free survival (time to recurrence)

1.3. Analysis.

3.

Severe adverse effects

1.10. Analysis.

4.

1.11. Analysis.

1.12. Analysis.

5.