Comparison of differences between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and conventional chemotherapy for ovarian cancer in application, CA125 and prognosis

Objective: To compare the application of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and conventional chemotherapy in the treatment of ovarian cancer and the changes of CA125 and the prognosis in patients after treatments. Methods: A retrospective analysis was made on 384 cases of ovarian cancer patients in the department of gynaecology and oncology in Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital Affiliated to Qingdao University from April 2008 to September 2013. Patients were randomized to the test group (192 patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and the control group (192 patients receiving conventional chemotherapy) according to the way of treatments. The clinical efficacy in two groups of patients and the detection results of CA125 were compared, and all patients were followed up for a period of three years. Results: The response rate of the test group was 94.79%, which was prominently higher than that of the control group (77.09%, P<0.01). The incidence of adverse reactions in the test group was 16.15%, remarkably better than that in the control group (42.70%, P<0.01). There was no noted difference in bone marrow suppression between the two groups (18.23% and 23.96%, P=0.17) and no notable difference in serum concentration of CA125 between the two groups before chemotherapy was observed (P=0.541). The concentration of CA125 in the test group decreased markedly after three weeks and five weeks of chemotherapy, which was obviously lower than that in the control group (all P<0.01). The rates of survival at first, second and third years in the test group were 94.69%, 84.35%, 67.64%, respectively, while those in the control group were 81.43%, 66.05%, 49.60% respectively. Marked differences in the survival rates between the two groups were noted (P<0.05). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can effectively improve the survival rate of ovarian cancer patients and reduce the incidence of different reactions during the treatment. Hence, it is worth generalization and application in clinical practice.