A chemoresponse assay for prediction of platinum resistance in primary ovarian cancer

Evaluation of in vitro chemoresponse profiles in women with Type I and Type II epithelial ovarian cancers: An observational study ancillary analysis

“…For Type II EOC, the median PFS was significantly worse for women with R versus S + I chemoresponse assay results for carboplatin (12.0 vs. 16.6 months, respectively; HR = 1.52 (95% CI: 1.09-2.12), log-rank test: p = 0.013) (Fig. 2C), similar to the results initially published by Krivak et al [14].…”

“…Women with gynecologic cancers whose cancer specimens were submitted for chemoresponse assay testing between 2006 and 2010 were prospectively accrued to an observational study [14]. The study population included 383 women with newly diagnosed chemo-naive FIGO stage III-IV Type I and Type II EOCs, fallopian tube (FTC) and peritoneal (PPC) cancers who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy.…”

“…Type II EOCs were classified as grade 2-3 serous and endometrioid cancers, and all undifferentiated cancers. The institutional review board (IRB) at each participating institution approved this study, and consent was obtained from all enrolled patients [14].…”

“…Details regarding the chemoresponse assay employed in this study (ChemoFx®, Helomics Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA) have been described elsewhere [14,15]. Briefly, the assay preparation included an immunocytochemistry step, using cytokeratin and vimentin antibodies to confirm that the cells were epithelial and not stromal cell types.…”

“…The primary goal of the initial study was to determine whether a chemoresponse assay can identify EOC patients who display platinum resistance prior to treatment [14]. We conducted an exploratory ancillary data analysis to compare pretreatment chemoresponse profiles in Type I versus II EOC specimens from women with advanced stage disease who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery.…”