Search

Objective: To determine the activity and tolerability of weekly docetaxel in patients with platinum-resistant mullerian origin tumors., Methods: Patients with persistent disease, or those recurring less than 6 months after receiving platinum-containing therapy, were eligible for this phase II study. Docetaxel was initially administered at a dose of 40 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, with a cycle length of 28 days. This starting dose was subsequently reduced to 30 mg/m(2) due to toxicity. Dexamethasone prophylaxis was administered at a dose of 4 mg PO every 12 hours for 3 doses, starting 12 hours before each dose of docetaxel., Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled, with a median age of 59 years. The majority of patients received a median of 3 prior regimens, with 45% of the study group having received 4 or more prior regimens. The overall response rate in 29 evaluable patients was 6.9%, with no complete responses. Seventeen percent of patients experienced stable disease. Dose reduction or delay was required in 10 of the first 22 patients enrolled, prompting a reduction in the starting dose to 30 mg/m(2). Hematologic toxicity was generally tolerable, and no patient experienced febrile neutropenia. Non-hematologic toxicity was generally grade 1 in nature, although a combination of multiple low grade toxicities occurring in an individual patient oftentimes mandated dose reduction., Conclusions: Weekly docetaxel demonstrated modest activity in a heavily pre-treated, platinum-resistant population. A starting docetaxel dose of 30 mg/m(2) would be reasonable for future studies exploring the utility of weekly dosing in less heavily pre-treated patients.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of combining docetaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine (DoCaGem) as first-line treatment of ovarian and other müllerian origin tumors., Methods: Four dose levels were planned for this phase I trial. Treatment consisted of carboplatin on day 1 only, docetaxel on days 1 and 8, and gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, every 21 days., Results: Nineteen patients were enrolled, of whom 18 were evaluable for toxicity. The first 5 patients enrolled at dose level I (carboplatin AUC 5, 30 mg/m(2) docetaxel, 800 mg/m(2) gemcitabine) experienced no dose-limiting toxicity. At dose level II, 4/4 evaluable patients experienced significant bone marrow suppression that required dose reduction and/or dose delay. Further dose escalation was not attempted, and 9 additional patients were enrolled in dose level I. Of the 67 cycles administered on dose level I, day 8 treatment could not be administered due to bone marrow suppression in 16 cycles (24%), and prolongation of the cycle length from day 22 to day 29 was required in 13 cycles (19%). There were no episodes of febrile neutropenia in evaluable patients and no treatment-related deaths. Grade 3 nonhematologic toxicity (fatigue) occurred in 1 cycle. Response was determined in the 14 evaluable patients who tolerated 4 or more cycles of therapy, with 11 obtaining a complete clinical response and 3 obtaining a partial clinical response., Conclusions: The DoCaGem regimen is highly active, but myelosuppression at dose level I prevents full dose delivery. Other strategies to combine these three active agents are reasonable to explore.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the maximally tolerated doses (MTDs) of carboplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol), etoposide, and cyclophosphamide (CTEC) with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF, Filgrastim) support as first-line chemotherapy in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)., Methods: Newly diagnosed patients with either stage IV EOC, or stage III EOC and any amount of gross residual tumor after surgical debulking were eligible to receive six cycles of CTEC over five different dose levels in this phase I trial (planned 21-day cycle length). Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and cyclophosphamide were administered intravenously on Day 1, and oral etoposide was administered on Days 1, 2, and 3. G-CSF was administered beginning Day 4., Results: Twenty patients received a total of 98 cycles of CTEC over the five dose levels evaluated. Bone marrow suppression was the major toxic effect, with grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia being observed in 25 and 23% of cycles, respectively. The overall incidence of febrile neutropenia was 10%, and no toxic deaths occurred. No grade IV thrombocytopenia or febrile neutropenia was observed once the carboplatin dose was reduced from AUC of 7 to 5. Nonhematologic toxicity was generally mild (grade 2 or less). Dose-limiting toxicity was not observed at the highest dose level evaluated in this study, preventing assignment of the MTD. The clinical complete response rate was 92%, although 15 of 16 evaluable patients have progressed with a median progression-free interval of 4 months (range, 2-11 months). One patient remains disease-free 9 months from the completion of CTEC., Conclusions: The CTEC regimen is well tolerated and highly active. Although the MTD was not reached in this study, the short median progression-free interval suggests that this regimen is unlikely to be superior to standard treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Strategies to optimize the development of future combination chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer are discussed., (Copyright 2000 Academic Press.)

Ovarian cancer cells frequently metastasize by implanting onto the peritoneal mesothelial surface of the abdominal cavity. Although the CD44 molecule expressed by ovarian cancer cells is known to partly mediate this process, the role of other adhesion proteins such as beta1-integrins has been previously difficult to demonstrate using the 4B4 anti-beta1 neutralizing antibody. In view of the widespread expression of beta1-integrins in ovarian cancer, however, we have further examined the potential role of this class of molecules in ovarian cancer cell implantation through the use of an alternative anti-beta1 neutralizing antibody, MAB13. We now report that MAB13 is capable of inhibiting the binding of three separate human ovarian cancer cell lines (36M2, CAOV-3, SKOV-3) to mesothelium (mean 37 +/- 4% inhibition, n = 21, P < 0.001). An additive inhibitory effect was observed when MAB13 was combined with anti-CD44 antibody (clone 515) (mean 63 +/- 3% inhibition, n = 19, P < 0.001), suggesting that binding occurs through two independent pathways involving both beta1-integrins and CD44. Because fibronectin is an extracellular matrix ligand recognized by many types of integrins and is abundantly expressed on mesothelial cells, the inhibitory effects of MAB13 and 4B4 on ovarian cancer cell binding to fibronectin were directly compared. MAB13 inhibited ovarian cancer cell binding to fibronectin to a significantly greater degree than did 4B4, suggesting that the discordant effects of these two antibodies on mesothelial adhesion may be partly related to their differential ability to neutralizing fibronectin-mediated binding. Studies using anti-alpha5 neutralizing antibody demonstrated that the alpha5beta1 fibronectin receptor contributes to approximately 50% of integrin-mediated binding of 36M2 and CAOV-3 cells (which express the alpha5 chain in 54 and 58% of cells, respectively). Since the RGD sequence of fibronectin is a known recognition site for many types of integrins, including alpha5beta1 and alphanubeta3, we performed binding in the continued presence of both anti-alpha5 and RGD peptide in order to exclude other types of fibronectin-integrin interactions. The addition of RGD peptides at concentrations known to be capable of blocking fibronectin binding resulted in no additional inhibitory effect over that observed with anti-alpha5 antibody alone, suggesting that alpha5beta1 was the major receptor responsible for fibronectin-mediated ovarian cancer binding to mesothelium. These data demonstrate that ovarian cancer cell binding to peritoneal mesothelium is mediated by several adhesion pathways and that simultaneous inhibition of both beta1-integrin and CD44 function may be necessary in order to significantly limit the intraabdominal spread of this tumor in vivo., (Copyright 1999 Academic Press.)

Purpose: The presence of estrogen receptor (ER) and its therapeutic significance in ovarian borderline tumors (OBT) have not been established. We recently observed a response to tamoxifen therapy given empirically to a patient with unresectable, recurrent serous borderline tumor (SBT). In view of this observation the present study was undertaken to assess ER expression in 51 cases of OBT., Materials and Methods: ER expression was determined retrospectively, using an immunohistochemical method on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens, from 35 cases of SBTs, 6 cases of mucinous mullerian (MMBT), and 10 cases of mucinous intestinal borderline tumors (MIBT). ER was considered positive if > 5% of tumor epithelial cell nuclei were immunostained. Both SBTs and mucinous borderline tumors (MBTs) were included to determine the influence of histologic type on ER expression., Results: The patients ranged in age from 25 to 77 years (median 43 years for SBTs, 36 years for MMBTs, and 37 years for MIBTs). The stage distribution for the SBTs was stage I in 27 patients (77%), stage II in 4 patients (11.5%), and stage III in 4 patients (11.5%). All patients with MBTs were stage I. ER expression was observed in the majority of cases and correlated with histologic type: 94% (33/35) of SBTs and 100% (6/6) of MMBTs were ER positive compared to 0% (0/10) of MIBTs (P < 0.01). In the SBT category the presence of ER did not correlate significantly with stage or age. In addition, ER was positive in all four SBT implants (including one involved lymph node) and two recurrent SBTs analyzed., Conclusion: ER expression is a common feature of SBT and MMBT, but not MIBT. The relevance of ER expression in the pathogenesis and treatment of OBTs requires further investigation.

Ovarian cancer cells disseminate by implanting onto the peritoneal mesothelial cell surface of the abdominal cavity. A common feature of these peritoneal implants is the presence of tumor cell invasion into the submesothelial extracellular matrix (ECM). In view of the important role of integrins in ECM recognition and cell migration, we were interested in defining the pattern of integrin expression and function in ovarian cancer cell lines and primary tissue samples. The beta 1 integrin chain was expressed by CAOV-3, SKOV-3, OVCAR-3, and SW626 ovarian cancer cell lines, associated with expression of alpha 1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 chains. The alpha 4 chain was also expressed by two of the four lines. In addition to beta 1 integrins, the alpha v beta 3 integrin was also expressed, although there was no expression of beta 2, -4, and -7 chains. Immunoprecipitation of surface-labeled CAOV-3 cells with an anti-beta 1 antibody revealed a band at approximately 110-130 kDa consistent with the known molecular mass of the beta 1 chain, as well as several associated bands consistent with noncovalently linked integrin alpha chains. A similar pattern of beta 1 and alpha v beta 3 integrin expression was observed for primary ovarian cancer tissue samples. Ovarian cancer cell lines exhibited significant binding to collagen type I and laminin which was primarily mediated by beta 1 integrins. In contrast, ovarian cancer cell binding to fibronectin was mediated by both alpha 5 beta 1 and alpha v beta 3 integrins. Even though mesothelial cells were observed to express fibronectin mRNA and protein, binding of ovarian cancer cells to peritoneal mesothelium was not blocked by neutralizing antibodies to beta 1 or alpha v beta 3 integrins. These data suggest that functional integrins are commonly expressed by ovarian cancer cells, although they do not appear to mediate ovarian cancer cell implantation onto peritoneal mesothelium. The role that integrins play in the invasion of ovarian cancer cells into the submesothelial ECM deserves further investigation.