Chemosensitivity and outcome of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated ovarian cancer patients after first-line chemotherapy compared with sporadic ovarian cancer patients
Background: Because it is insufficiently clear whether BRCA-associated epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is more chemosensitive than sporadic EOC, we examined response to chemotherapy, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated versus sporadic EOC patients. Methods: Data about patient characteristics, response to and outcome after primary therapy, including chemotherapy, were collected from 99 BRCA1, 13 BRCA2 and 222 sporadic patients. Analyses were carried out using a chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Results: Complete response (CR) or no evidence of disease (NED) was observed in 87% of the BRCA1 patients, progressive disease (PD) in 2%, being 71% and 15%, respectively, in sporadic EOC patients (P = 0.002). In BRCA2 patients, 92% had CR/NED, and none PD (P = 0.27). Median PFS in BRCA1, BRCA2 and sporadic patients was 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-2.5] years (P = 0.006), 5.6 (95% CI 0.0-11.5) years (P = 0.008) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1- 1.5) years, respectively. Median OS in the three groups was 5.9 (95% CI 4.7-7.0) years (P < 0.001), >10 years (P = 0.008), and 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.5) years, respectively. A trend for a longer PFS and OS in BRCA2 compared with BRCA1 patients was observed. Conclusion: Compared with sporadic EOC patients, both BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated patients have improved outcomes after primary therapy, including chemotherapy.
|Keywords||BRCA, Chemotherapy, Ovarian Cancer, Response, Survival|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq628, hdl.handle.net/1765/25694|
Vencken, P.M.L.H., Kriege, M., Hoogwerf, D., Beugelink, S., van der Burg, M.E.L., Hooning, M.J., … Seynaeve, C.M.. (2011). Chemosensitivity and outcome of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated ovarian cancer patients after first-line chemotherapy compared with sporadic ovarian cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 22(6), 1346–1352. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq628