Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> <p>Background There is no indicator to evaluate the “usefulness” of anticancer treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer in clinical practice. Methods To evaluate “usefulness,” we propose three indicators: “total,” “regimen,” and “each line contribution periods.” These indicators were applied to 183 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were classified as platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant and had received anticancer treatment. Results Many of the patients with platinum-sensitive recurrence received platinum-based drugs with long “regimen contribution periods,” which were further prolonged by adding molecularly targeted drugs. Patients with platinum-resistant recurrence had shorter “regimen contribution periods.” “Each line contribution period” follow-up revealed that in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrence, taxane and carboplatin were administered more frequently in the first to third lines of treatment, whereas nedaplatin was administered more frequently in the fourth to sixth lines of treatment. In patients with platinum-resistant recurrence, platinum-based agents were administered at a frequency comparable to that of non-platinum as first-line treatment. Because the histological type affected prognosis, the “regimen contribution period” was examined using three histological types. In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrence clear cell carcinoma, taxane+carboplatin+bevacizumab and gemcitabine had longer “regimen contribution period” than taxane+carboplatin. In patients with platinum-resistant recurrence high-grade serous carcinoma, taxane+carboplatin had a longer “regimen contribution period” than non-platinum agents. Conclusion Using these three indicators, the “usefulness” of regimens or treatments in clinical practice was able to be evaluated wonderfully. However, the “regimen” and “each line contribution periods” are not suitable for statistical analysis; thus, they are used for visual judgment using box-and-whisker plots.</p>