Abstract
Objective
To investigate the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) related to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following primary or interval cytoreductive surgery for primary ovarian cancer.
Methods
Between 2010 and 2016, a total of 184 patients were randomly assigned to receive cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (n=92) or without HIPEC (n=92). Quality of life (QOL) assessment was evaluated at baseline (before surgery); on postoperative day 7; after the 3rd and 6th cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy; and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization. Patient-reported QOL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), ovarian cancer questionnaire modules (QLQ-OV28), and the MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI).
Results
Of the 184 patients enrolled, 165 (83/92 in the HIPEC group and 82/92 in the control group) participated in the baseline QOL assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional scales and symptom scales in QLQ-C30; symptom scales, including gastrointestinal symptoms QLQ-OV28; and severity and impact score in MDASI between the 2 treatment groups until 12 months after randomization.
Conclusion
HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery showed no statistically significant difference in HRQOL outcomes. Thus, implementation of HIPEC during either primary or interval cytoreductive surgery does not impair HRQOL.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01091636
Keywords: HIPEC, Ovarian Cancer, Quality of Life
Synopsis
Quality of life was assessed during a randomized phase III trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in stage III–IV ovarian cancer. HIPEC with primary or interval cytoreductive surgery demonstrated no statistically significant difference in health-related quality of life outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Ovarian cancer is one of the highest lethal diseases in gynecologic cancers [1,2,3]. Most patients with ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage with peritoneal carcinomatosis, followed by standard treatment of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy [4]. Although 75%–80% of patients respond to initial treatment, the recurrence rate is high at 80%, requiring additional active treatment modalities, including surgery and systemic treatment [5,6,7].
Three large, multicenter, randomized controlled studies conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) demonstrated that intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy confers improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with minimal residual tumor compared to intravenous chemotherapy [4,5,6]. However, IP chemotherapy has not been widely accepted as a front-line treatment for ovarian cancer owing to regimen toxicity and IP port-related complications, resulting in a low completion rate of planned chemotherapy [8,9]. As an alternative locoregional chemotherapy delivery method, hyperthermic IP chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been investigated in primary and recurrent ovarian cancers in recent years [10,11,12,13,14].
The current randomized phase III trial of HIPEC after primary and interval cytoreductive surgery in stage III–IV ovarian cancer (KOV-HIPEC-01) showed no OS benefit in terms of PFS and OS [15]. But, subgroup analysis of patients with HIPEC following interval cytoreductive surgery showed improvement in PFS and OS.
To date, the first study of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analysis after HIPEC was reported from a randomized trial of HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy [16]. With the concern of a higher frequency of grade 3 or worse late postoperative complications, particularly hematological complications, when HIPEC is added during cytoreductive surgery, as shown in the PRODIGE 7 trial [17], this study aimed to investigate HRQOL in patients after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC and compare it with patients without HIPEC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Study design and patients
The study was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial that compared the outcomes of cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC and cytoreductive surgery alone. Patients with stage III–IV epithelial ovarian cancer who achieved optimal cytoreduction were enrolled in this trial and randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The details of the trial have been reported in the previous article [15].
The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS. HRQOL was a secondary endpoint in the trial, which was analyzed using the same data cut-off as the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Written informed consent was obtained from all the enrolled patients. The Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center approved the trial protocol (NCCCTS-06-222) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01091636).
2. Quality of life assessment plan
HRQOL was assessed using 3 questionnaires: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), ovarian cancer questionnaire modules (QLQ-OV28), and the MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI). These self-administered questionnaires were assessed at the following 8 time points: before randomization, on postoperative day 7, after 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, after 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Questionnaires submitted after disease recurrence or after the data cut-off were excluded from the HRQOL analysis.
The QLQ-C30 comprises 15 questions on the global health scale, functional status (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), and symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). In addition, we calculated the summary score of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 from the 13 scales, excluding the financial impact scale and global health scale, according to the scoring manual (3rd edition) [18].
The QLQ-OV28 consists of 28 questions evaluating 6 categorized symptoms and 4 single-item symptoms (abdominal/GI symptoms, peripheral neuropathy, other chemotherapy side effects, hormonal symptoms, body image, attitudes to disease/treatment, and sexuality) [19].
The MDASI comprises 2 scoring system categories: symptom severity and activity interference. The symptom severity score assesses the 13 symptoms at their worst in the last 24 hours with 0 to 10 numerical scales (pain, fatigue, nausea, disturbed sleep, distress or feeling upset, shortness of breath, difficulty remembering, lack of appetite, drowsiness, dry mouth, sadness, vomiting, numbness, or tingling) [20]. Symptom Interference scores 6 items that have interfered with daily activities (general activity, mood, work, relations with others, and enjoyment of life).
3. Statistical analysis
For baseline patient characteristics, the characteristics of the Intention to treat population and the quality of life (QOL) population were summarized, respectively. All QOL analyses were restricted to patients who completed the baseline QOL assessment. At each time point, the completion rate of the questionnaire was calculated. Demographic variables were compared between the intention-to-treat population and the HRQOL questionnaire participants.
A mixed-effects model with autoregressive (AR1) working correlation matrix was used in the analysis to include the case of no response at the time point, excluding the baseline. In addition, the mixed-effects model was used to compare changes in QOL over time according to the implementation of HIPEC. Additionally, HRQOL analyses were performed for the primary cytoreductive surgery and interval cytoreductive surgery subgroups.
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 version (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A 2-sided p-value less than 0.05 (2-sided) was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
1. Baseline characteristics
Between March 2010 and January 2019, 184 patients were randomly assigned to the HIPEC and control groups. Of these, 165 participated in the HRQOL questionnaire (Fig. 1). A total of 937 HRQOL questionnaires were collected, and 40 submitted forms were excluded because their time points were after recurrence or data cut-off.
Fig. 1. CONSORT diagram for HRQOL assessment in KOV-HIPEC-01 trial.
HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; HRQOL, health-related quality of life.
Clinicopathological characteristics are presented in Table 1. No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in age, stage, histology, performance status, prior use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and combined bowel resection. High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma was the most frequent histology (92.4% in the HIPEC group and 85.9% in control group), and bowel resection was performed in 79.4% and 73.9% of the HIPEC group and the control group, respectively.
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
| Variable | Intention to treat population | QOL population | Intention to treat population vs. QOL population | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-HIPEC (n=92) | HIPEC (n=92) | p-value | Non-HIPEC (n=82) | HIPEC (n=83) | p-value | p-value | ||
| Age (yr) | 0.336* | 0.447* | 0.908* | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 54.0±9.7 | 53.1±9.7 | 54.0±10.1 | 53.2±9.6 | ||||
| Median (Min–Max) | 53.5 (25.0–72.0) | 52.0 (28.0–74.0) | 53.5 (25.0–72.0) | 52.0 (28.0–74.0) | ||||
| Stage | 0.175† | 0.133† | 0.775† | |||||
| III | 51 (55.4) | 60 (65.2) | 46 (56.1) | 56 (67.5) | ||||
| IV | 41 (44.6) | 32 (34.8) | 36 (43.9) | 27 (32.5) | ||||
| Histology | 0.228‡ | 0.202‡ | 1.000‡ | |||||
| Serous | 79 (85.9) | 85 (92.4) | 70 (85.4) | 76 (91.6) | ||||
| Endometrioid | 5 (5.4) | 3 (3.3) | 5 (6.1) | 3 (3.6) | ||||
| Clear cell | 4 (4.4) | 0 (0) | 4 (4.9) | 0 (0) | ||||
| Others | 4 (4.4) | 4 (4.3) | 3 (3.7) | 4 (4.8) | ||||
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 0.179† | 0.483† | 0.561† | |||||
| No | 49 (53.3) | 58 (63.0) | 48 (58.5) | 53 (63.9) | ||||
| Yes | 43 (46.7) | 34 (37.0) | 34 (41.5) | 30 (36.1) | ||||
| Bowel resection | 0.384† | 0.447† | 0.651† | |||||
| No | 24 (26.1) | 19 (20.7) | 23 (28.0) | 19 (22.9) | ||||
| Yes | 68 (73.9) | 73 (79.4) | 59 (72.0) | 64 (77.1) | ||||
| ECOG performance | 0.294† | 0.129† | 0.337† | |||||
| 0 | 51 (55.4) | 58 (63.0) | 48 (58.5) | 58 (69.9) | ||||
| 1 | 41 (44.6) | 34 (37.0) | 34 (41.5) | 25 (30.1) | ||||
ECOG, European Cooperative Oncology Group; HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; QOL, quality of life; SD, standard deviation.
*Wilcoxon rank sum test; †Chi-squared test; ‡Fisher’s exact test.
2. Compliance
At each assessment point, the number of patients who answered with HRQOL questionnaire is shown in Table 2. The completion rate of HRQOL assessment at randomization was 89.1% (82 of 92 patients) in the control group and 90.2% (83 of 92 patients) in the HIPEC group. Four assessments until 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy were valid in 79.7% (51 of 64 patients) of the control group and 88.4% (61 of 69 patients) of the HIPEC group. At the last time point of completion of all 8 assessments, validity was maintained at 89.5% (34 of 38 patients) in the control group and 81.0% (34 of 42 patients).
Table 2. Summary of questionnaire compliance at each assessment point.
| Assessment point | No. of patients (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Non-HIPEC (valid/expected) | HIPEC (valid/expected) | |
| Patients enrolled | 92 | 92 |
| Before randomization | 82/92 (89.1) | 83/92 (90.2) |
| POD 7 | 81/82 (98.8) | 75/83 (90.4) |
| After 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy | 62/74 (83.8) | 68/76 (89.5) |
| After 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy | 51/64 (79.7) | 61/69 (88.4) |
| 3 mon after treatment | 50/60 (83.3) | 54/66 (81.8) |
| 6 mon after treatment | 41/51 (80.4) | 46/54 (85.2) |
| 9 mon after treatment | 38/47 (80.9) | 37/48 (75.5) |
| 12 mon after treatment | 34/38 (89.5) | 34/42 (81.0) |
HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; POD, postoperative day.
3. HRQOL outcomes
QLQ-C30
No statistically significant difference in the QLQ-C30 summary score was found between the HIPEC and control groups over time (p=0.56). The QLQ-C30 summary score declined perioperatively but improved shortly after 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (Fig. 2). Similarly, the global health status (p=0.82) and functional scales of the QLQ-C30 were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups. Physical and role function scores improved after surgery compared with baseline and declined until 12 months after treatment. On the other hand, emotional, cognitive and social functional scales declined more shortly after surgery than the baseline score 12 months after the end of adjuvant chemotherapy (Fig. S1A). The categories of symptom scales showed no statistical difference between the 2 groups, and their scores were highest on postoperative days 7 and declined throughout the time points (Fig. S1B).
Fig. 2. Overall plots of summary score and global health status of EORTC QLQ-C30.
EORTC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; QLQ-C30, quality of life questionnaire core 30.
QLQ-OV28
In the QLQ-OV28, patients showed higher scales of peripheral neuropathy and other chemotherapy side effects after 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy than in the perioperative period. For any scale of the QLQ-OV28, there was no statistically significant difference in the HRQOL (Fig. 3A).
Fig. 3. Overall plots of EORTC QLQ-OV28 and MDASI. (A) Overall plots of EORTC QLQ-OV28. (B) Overall plots of MDASI.
EORTC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; MDASI, MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory; QLQ-OV28, quality of life questionnaire ovarian cancer questionnaire modules.
MDASI
Both modules of symptom severity and impact were statistically insignificant between the 2 groups (Fig. 3B).
Detailed results including least square means and standard errors of 3 QOL values including QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28, and MDASI are described in Table S1. Additionally, results of subgroup analyses of HRQOL in primary cytoreductive surgery and interval cytoreductive surgery are shown in Fig. S2A and S2B respectively. Full details are described in Tables S2 and S3. Both subgroups showed no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences between the HIPEC and control groups.
DISCUSSION
The current trial showed improved PFS and OS with the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery compared to the control group [15]. As a secondary endpoint of the trial, we aimed to evaluate the impact of HIPEC administration during cytoreductive surgery on HRQOL. Subsequently, there was no difference in the overall HRQOL between the 2 treatment groups. Similarly, there was no difference in the subgroup analysis results between the primary cytoreductive surgery and interval cytoreductive surgery groups.
As the implementation of HIPEC requires surgical intervention similar to IP chemotherapy, there are concerns about additive postoperative toxicities and inferior HRQOL when HIPEC is applied [21,22,23]. In the case of a GOG randomized phase III trial (GOG 172) [8], treatment with IP cisplatin and paclitaxel plus intravenous paclitaxel in stage III epithelial ovarian cancer disrupted the overall physical and functional HRQOL until 6 months after IP chemotherapy. In particular, neurotoxicity-related symptoms persist for 12 months after IP chemotherapy [21]. However, HIPEC is a single-course treatment that lasts for 80–90 minutes, and there is no disadvantage in terms of port-related toxicities or inconvenience. Accordingly, even if HIPEC has a potential risk factor for hyperthermia with a high concentration of chemotherapy that can cause perioperative complications [14,24], there is no apparent exacerbation of HRQOL that lasts for 3–6 months after HIPEC. Notably, neurotoxicity-related and gastrointestinal symptoms had similar trajectories, irrespective of HIPEC.
Previous studies on HRQOL related to HIPEC consistently presented similar outcomes to the control group in several types of malignancies [16,25,26,27]. Koole et al. [16] reported that patients who were assigned to a phase III randomized controlled trial (OV-HIPEC-01) to receive interval cytoreductive surgery with or without HIPEC in stage III ovarian cancer had no significant statistical difference in HRQOL between treatment groups. Notably, physical and functional HRQOL fluctuated during cytoreductive surgery until 3 cycles after adjuvant chemotherapy but recovered back to the baseline HRQOL score.
The present study has several strengths. First, we investigated HRQOL, and subjects were randomly assigned to the trial groups. Second, this study investigated the difference between the interval cytoreductive surgery group that underwent 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the primary cytoreductive surgery group for the first time. However, this study had some limitations. First, as HRQOL questionnaire at the immediate postoperative period was not assessed, this study couldn't assess the short-term effect of HIPEC on HRQOL. Second, the study had erratic missing data at each time point, and it might have a potential bias in HRQOL trajectories because patients with severe comorbidities are less likely to submit questionnaires at a longer time point. However, the compliance rate of questionnaires in both groups were not different, so this fact might neutralize the bias. Moreover, the current study collected 3 types of questionnaires at each visit, which might increase the respondent burden, one of the disturbance factors of compliance [28].
In conclusion, HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery demonstrated no statistically significant difference in HRQOL outcomes when compared with that in the control group. Based on the results of this study, HIPEC implementation during interval cytoreductive surgery could be considered a primary treatment option.
Footnotes
Funding: The study was funded by grants NCC1010112, 1310312, 1610070, 2110790, and 2211771 from the National Cancer Center of Korea.
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
- Conceptualization: K.J.H., L.M.C.
- Data curation: K.J.H., L.D.E., L.Y.
- Formal analysis: K.J.H., L.D.E., C.Y.J., P.S.Y., L.M.C.
- Investigation: L.Y., H.H.I., C.Y.J., C.S.J., P.S.Y., L.M.C.
- Methodology: K.J.H., L.D.E.
- Resources: L.M.C.
- Supervision: C.S.J., P.S.Y., L.M.C.
- Visualization: K.J.H.
- Writing - original draft: K.J.H., H.H.I., L.M.C.
- Writing - review & editing: K.J.H., L.Y., H.H.I., C.Y.J., C.S.J., P.S.Y., L.M.C.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires in subgroup analysis of primary cytoreductive surgery (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires in subgroup analysis of interval cytoreductive surgery (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Functional and symptom scales of EORTC QLQ-C30.
Subgroup analyses of summary score of EORTC QLQ-C30, physical function score of EORTC QLQ-C30, and scores of peripheral neuropathy after HIPEC with primary cytoreductive surgery or interval cytoreductive surgery
References
- 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jung KW, Won YJ, Hong S, Kong HJ, Im JS, Seo HG. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2021. Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53:316–322. doi: 10.4143/crt.2021.290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ha HI, Chang HK, Park SJ, Lim J, Won YJ, Lim MC. The incidence and survival of cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer in Korea, 1999-2017: Korea Central Cancer Registry. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2021;64:444–453. doi: 10.5468/ogs.21116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wright JD, Chen L, Tergas AI, Patankar S, Burke WM, Hou JY, et al. Trends in relative survival for ovarian cancer from 1975 to 2011. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1345–1352. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, Fowler JM, Clarke-Pearson D, Burger RA, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3194–3200. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Shim SH, Lim MC, Lee D, Won YJ, Ha HI, Chang HK, et al. Cause-specific mortality rate of ovarian cancer in the presence of competing risks of death: a nationwide population-based cohort study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2022;33:e5. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Baek MH, Park EY, Ha HI, Park SY, Lim MC, Fotopoulou C, et al. Secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2022:JCO2102085. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:34–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gould N, Sill MW, Mannel RS, Thaker PH, Disilvestro P, Waggoner S, et al. A phase I study with an expanded cohort to assess the feasibility of intravenous paclitaxel, intraperitoneal carboplatin and intraperitoneal paclitaxel in patients with untreated ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sonke GS. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1363–1364. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1802033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zivanovic O, Chi DS, Zhou Q, Iasonos A, Konner JA, Makker V, et al. Secondary cytoreduction and carboplatin hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: an MSK team ovary phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2594–2604. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Petrillo M, De Iaco P, Cianci S, Perrone M, Costantini B, Ronsini C, et al. Long-term survival for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients treated with secondary cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1660–1665. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-5050-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Spiliotis J, Halkia E, Lianos E, Kalantzi N, Grivas A, Efstathiou E, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective randomized phase III study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1570–1575. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4157-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Casado-Adam A, Alderman R, Stuart OA, Chang D, Sugarbaker PH. Gastrointestinal complications in 147 consecutive patients with peritoneal surface malignancy treated by cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:468698. doi: 10.1155/2011/468698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lim MC, Chang SJ, Park B, Yoo HJ, Yoo CW, Nam BH, et al. Survival after hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and primary or interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2022:e220143. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Koole SN, Kieffer JM, Sikorska K, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Schreuder HW, Hermans RH, et al. Health-related quality of life after interval cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Quénet F, Elias D, Roca L, Goéré D, Ghouti L, Pocard M, et al. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:256–266. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30599-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:353–364. doi: 10.1007/BF00451727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Greimel E, Bottomley A, Cull A, Waldenstrom AC, Arraras J, Chauvenet L, et al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1402–1408. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00307-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sailors MH, Bodurka DC, Gning I, Ramondetta LM, Williams LA, Mendoza TR, et al. Validating the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) for use in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:323–328. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wenzel LB, Huang HQ, Armstrong DK, Walker JL, Cella D Gynecologic Oncology Group. Health-related quality of life during and after intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy for optimally debulked ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:437–443. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Landrum LM, Hyde J, Jr, Mannel RS, McMeekin DS, Moore KN, Walker JL. Phase II trial of intraperitoneal cisplatin combined with intravenous paclitaxel in patients with ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122:527–531. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Walker JL. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy requires expertise and should be the standard of care for optimally surgically resected epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 10):x41–x45. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Foster JM, Sleightholm R, Patel A, Shostrom V, Hall B, Neilsen B, et al. Morbidity and mortality rates following cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy compared with other high-risk surgical oncology procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e186847. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tan WJ, Wong JF, Chia CS, Tan GH, Soo KC, Teo MC. Quality of life after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: an Asian perspective. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4219–4223. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3133-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Chia CS, Tan WJ, Wong JF, Tan GH, Lim C, Wang W, et al. Quality of life in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:909–916. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.12.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Leimkühler M, Hentzen JE, Hemmer PH, Been LB, van Ginkel RJ, Kruijff S, et al. Systematic review of factors affecting quality of life after cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:3973–3983. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08379-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2011;14:1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires in subgroup analysis of primary cytoreductive surgery (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Results of least square mean and standard errors of quality of life questionnaires in subgroup analysis of interval cytoreductive surgery (EORTC QOL-C30, EORTC QOL-OV28, MSASI)
Functional and symptom scales of EORTC QLQ-C30.
Subgroup analyses of summary score of EORTC QLQ-C30, physical function score of EORTC QLQ-C30, and scores of peripheral neuropathy after HIPEC with primary cytoreductive surgery or interval cytoreductive surgery