It's always good to try something new or different, but not for most ovarian cancer patients.
Latest study found that a treatment for ovarian cancer that was introduced nearly a decade ago is being underused despite its promising effects.
The study, which was published online on Aug. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, discusses the use and effectiveness of an abdominal treatment for ovarian cancer, called intraperitoneal (IP) treatment.
During IP treatment, a patient's abdominal wall is surgically implanted with a port through which drugs can be infused. In many cancer centers, patients are rolled back and forth on beds to make sure chemotherapy is spread throughout their abdomens. Highly concentrated drugs kill cancer cells that remain after surgery.
Chemotherapy, which directly targets the abdomen, accompanied by the usual intravenous method, can add around 16 months more to ovarian cancer patients' lives.
In 2006, a "clinical announcement" regarding abdominal chemotherapy was made by the National Cancer Institute, urging health care providers to immediately change their medical practices.
However, almost 10 years later, only less than half of ovarian cancer patients in American hospitals have been found to be receiving abdominal chemotherapy.
"It's very unfortunate, but it's the real world. The word 'tragic' would be fair," said Dr. Maurie Markman, president of medicine and science at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
In the study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers looked at IP treatment and women's survival rates in six hospitals — all of which are National Comprehensive Cancer Network members — between 2003 and 2012.
From 2003 to 2006, the overall use of IP went from zero to 33 percent in patients. That was during a time when research had started to show its benefits. The number of IP users then climbed up to 50 percent between 2007 and 2008, after a major study and the National Cancer Institute's "clinical announcement."
Since 2008, the use of abdominal chemotherapy has increased; however, it has not shown significant numbers. Results vary in different hospitals, and rates have gone from four to 67 percent. According to researchers, smaller hospitals show even worse rates.
There could be a couple of reasons why IP treatment is underutilized, experts say. The procedure is both physically and financially draining. It is more toxic and more difficult to administer, compared with intravenous therapy. Also, some doctors may still doubt the effectiveness of the treatment.
According to the study, earlier findings based on data gathered among 500 women showed that 81 percent who underwent IP treatment were still alive three years later. For women who only received intravenous therapy, the findings showed a smaller 71 percent.
Dr. Alexi Wright, the study's first author and a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center in Boston said that they suspected low rates of IP treatment use even at the best centers but emphasized how surprised they were to see that rates were low even at academic centers.
Dr. Wright added: "It's the best data we have for improving survival among patients with this cancer."
