Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: When to Treat and How to Assess

  • Rene Roux
  • Ignacio Romero
  • Martin Zweifel
  • Gordon RustinEmail author
  • Robert C. BastJr.


Recurrent ovarian cancer is rarely curable. The primary goal in “platinum-sensitive” (PS) relapse is to prolong survival, whereas palliation is often the objective in managing “platinum-resistant” (PR) disease. Whether or not to monitor patients in complete clinical remission with CA125 in order to detect recurrence should be discussed with each patient as she enters into follow-up with a review of the available literature including the strengths and limitations of the one randomized trial. Some patients will choose to be monitored with CA125 to permit optimal planning of their lives following asymptomatic recurrence, to facilitate timely secondary cytoreduction, and to provide sufficient time to evaluate conventional and novel therapy. Others will prefer not to be monitored in the absence of evidence that earlier detection prolongs survival. When CA125 is used as an endpoint in randomized clinical trials, it is important to monitor biomarker levels at similar intervals on all arms. Aside from research protocols, physicians must be aware that frequent monitoring of CA125 will reduce progression-free survival (PFS) and may result in patients being judged “platinum resistant” when they still might benefit from the drug. If CA25 is used to monitor patients during maintenance therapy with antiangiogenic agents, disease recurrence should not be based on the biomarker alone, but should be confirmed by imaging before treatment is discontinued.


Overall Survival Ovarian Cancer Ovarian Cancer Patient Cytoreductive Surgery Recurrent Ovarian Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by funds from the M.D. Anderson SPORE in Ovarian Cancer NCI P50 CA83639, the M.D. Anderson CCSG NCI P30 CA16672, the National Foundation for Cancer Research, and The Zarrow Foundation and Stuart and Gaye Lynn Zarrow. IR was supported by the first Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO)-Jan Vermorken grant.

Each author contributed equally to this chapter.

Conflicts of Interest 

Robert C Bast receives royalties for the discovery of CA125 from Fujirebio Diagnostics Inc. and serves on scientific advisory boards for Vermillion.


  1. 1.
    Gardner GJ, Jewell EL. Current and future directions of clinical trials for ovarian cancer. Cancer Control. 2011;18:44–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hennessy BT, Coleman RL, Markman M. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2009;374:1371–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ledermann JA, Kristeleit RS. Optimal treatment for relapsing ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010;21 Suppl 7:vii218–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morgan Jr RJ, Alvarez RD, Armstrong DK, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, et al. Epithelial ovarian cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011;9:82–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombo N, Peiretti M, Parma G, et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010;21 Suppl 5:v23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115:1234–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armstrong D. Ovaries and fallopian tubes. In: Abeloff MD, Armitage JO, Niederhuber JE, et al., editors. Abeloff’s clinical oncology. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2008. p. 1827–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    du Bois A, Luck HJ, Meier W, et al. A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1320–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Group. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus standard chemotherapy with either single-agent carboplatin or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in women with ovarian cancer: the ICON3 randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:505–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bookman MA, Brady MF, McGuire WP, et al. Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1419–25.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Takahashi F, et al. Dose-dense paclitaxel once a week in combination with carboplatin every 3 weeks for advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1331–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Burg ME, Boere IA, Berns PM. Dose-dense therapy is of benefit in primary treatment of ovarian cancer: contra. Ann Oncol. 2011;22 Suppl 8:viii33–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J, et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2484–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2473–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roux R, Zweifel M, Rustin GJS. Biologicals in the upfront treatment of ovarian cancer: focus on bevacizumab and poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibitors. ASCO Educ Book. 2012:340–444.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harter P, du Bois A, Hahmann M, et al. Surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) DESKTOP OVAR trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1702–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harries M, Gore M. Part II: chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer-treatment of recurrent disease. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3:537–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfisterer J, Ledermann JA. Management of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol. 2006;33:S12–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parmar MK, Ledermann JA, Colombo N, et al. Paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based chemotherapy in women with relapsed ovarian cancer: the ICON4/AGO-OVAR-2.2 trial. Lancet. 2003;361:2099–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pujade-Lauraine E, Wagner U, Aavall-Lundqvist E, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in late relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3323–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chetrit A, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, Ben-David Y, et al. Effect of BRCA1/2 mutations on long-term survival of patients with invasive ovarian cancer: the national Israeli study of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tan DS, Rothermundt C, Thomas K, et al. “BRCAness” syndrome in ovarian cancer: a case-control study describing the clinical features and outcome of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5530–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nishio S, Katsumata N, Matsumoto K, et al. Usefulness of third-line chemotherapy for women with recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer who receive platinum/taxane regimens as first-line therapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2009;135:551–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Griffiths RW, Zee YK, Evans S, et al. Outcomes after multiple lines of chemotherapy for platinum-resistant epithelial cancers of the ovary, peritoneum, and fallopian tube. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:58–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russell BJ, Ward AM. Deciding what information is necessary: do patients with advanced cancer want to know all the details? Cancer Manag Res. 2011;3:191–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rustin GJ, van der Burg ME, Griffin CL, et al. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1155–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balogh EP, Ganz PA, Murphy SB, et al. Patient-centered cancer treatment planning: improving the quality of oncology care. Summary of an Institute of Medicine Workshop. Oncologist. 2011;16(12):1800–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bast Jr RC, Klug TL, St John E, et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:883–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schroder FH, Kurth KH, Fossa SD, et al. Early versus delayed endocrine treatment of T2-T3 pN1-3 M0 prostate cancer without local treatment of the primary tumour: final results of European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer protocol 30846 after 13 years of follow-up (a randomised controlled trial). Eur Urol. 2009;55:14–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Falk SJ, Girling DJ, White RJ, et al. Immediate versus delayed palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer and minimal thoracic symptoms: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;325:465.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ardeshna KM, Smith P, Norton A, et al. Long-term effect of a watch and wait policy versus immediate systemic treatment for asymptomatic advanced-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;362:516–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumor Adjuvant Therapy Group. Expectancy or primary chemotherapy in patients with advanced asymptomatic colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:904–11.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Brien ME, Watkins D, Ryan C, et al. A randomised trial in malignant mesothelioma (M) of early (E) versus delayed (D) chemotherapy in symptomatically stable patients: the MED trial. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:270–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA. 1993;270:943–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Northover J, Houghton J, Lennon T. CEA to detect recurrence of colon cancer. JAMA. 1994;272:31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Santillan A, Garg R, Zahurak ML, et al. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer recurrence in patients with rising serum CA-125 levels within the normal range. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9338–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tanner EJ, Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, et al. Surveillance for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: survival impact or lead-time bias? Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117:336–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilder JL, Pavlik E, Straughn JM, et al. Clinical implications of a rising serum CA-125 within the normal range in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a preliminary investigation. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89:233–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, Tuxen MK, et al. Defining progression of ovarian carcinoma during follow-up according to CA 125: a North Thames Ovary Group Study. Ann Oncol. 1996;7:361–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Burg ME, Lammes FB, Verweij J. The role of CA 125 in the early diagnosis of progressive disease in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol. 1990;1:301–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rustin GJ, Timmers P, Nelstrop A, et al. Comparison of CA-125 and standard definitions of progression of ovarian cancer in the intergroup trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus cisplatin and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:45–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Crawford SM, Peace J. Does the nadir CA125 concentration predict a long-term outcome after chemotherapy for carcinoma of the ovary? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:47–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niloff JM, Bast Jr RC, Schaetzl EM, et al. Predictive value of CA 125 antigen levels in second-look procedures for ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151:981–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bristow RE, Puri I, Chi DS. Cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:265–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tian WJ, Chi DS, Sehouli J, et al. A risk model for secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer: an evidence-based proposal for patient selection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):597–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chi DS, McCaughty K, Diaz JP, et al. Guidelines and selection criteria for secondary cytoreductive surgery in patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106:1933–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Salani R, Santillan A, Zahurak ML, et al. Secondary cytoreductive surgery for localized, recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of prognostic factors and survival outcome. Cancer. 2007;109:685–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harter P, Hahmann M, Lueck HJ, et al. Surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: role of peritoneal carcinomatosis: exploratory analysis of the DESKTOP I Trial about risk factors, surgical implications, and prognostic value of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1324–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tebes SJ, Sayer RA, Palmer JM, et al. Cytoreductive surgery for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:482–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fleming ND, Cass I, Walsh CS, et al. CA125 surveillance increases optimal resectability at secondary cytoreductive surgery for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:249–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Goto T, Takano M, Watanabe A, et al. Potential survival benefit of secondary cytoreductive surgery for recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:263–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Harter P, Sehouli J, Reuss A, et al. Prospective validation study of a predictive score for operability of recurrent ovarian cancer: the Multicenter Intergroup Study DESKTOP II. A project of the AGO Kommission OVAR, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO-Austria, and MITO. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:289–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bast Jr RC. CA 125 and the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: a reasonably accurate biomarker for a difficult disease. Cancer. 2010;116:2850–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gadducci A, Cosio S. Surveillance of patients after initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;71:43–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Forstner R, Sala E, Kinkel K, et al. ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2773–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chi DS, Barlin JN, Ramirez PT, et al. Follow-up study of the correlation between postoperative computed tomographic scan and primary surgeon assessment in patients with advanced ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinoma reported to have undergone primary surgical cytoreduction to residual disease of 1 cm or smaller. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:353–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ, et al. CA 125, PEt alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:164–74.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E, et al. Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:419–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Aghajanian C, Finkler NJ, Rutherford T, et al. OCEANS: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian (EOC), primary peritoneal (PPC), or fallopian tube cancer (FTC). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:abstr LBA5007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rene Roux
    • 1
  • Ignacio Romero
    • 2
  • Martin Zweifel
    • 3
  • Gordon Rustin
    • 4
    Email author
  • Robert C. BastJr.
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologyMount Vernon Cancer CentreNorthwoodUK
  2. 2.Area Clinica Oncologia Ginecologica (Clinical Area Gynecologic Oncology)Instituto Valenciano de OncologiaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Division of Medical OncologyBern University HospitalBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Medical OncologyMount Vernon Cancer CentreNorthwoodUK
  5. 5.Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Gynecologic Medical OncologyM.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations