Search

Purpose: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is considered standard treatment for advanced/recurrent cervical carcinoma; however, the majority of patients do not respond. This study was undertaken to identify the prognostic factors and develop a model predictive of (non-) response to chemotherapy., Methods: Four-hundred twenty-eight patients with advanced cervical cancer who received a cisplatin-containing combination in three Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols (110, 169 and 179) were evaluated for baseline clinical characteristics and multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors independently prognostic predictive of response using a Logistic regression model. A predictive model was developed and externally validated using an independent GOG protocol (149) data., Results: Multivariate analysis identified five factors (African-American, performance status [PS] >0, pelvic disease, prior radiosensitizer and time interval from diagnosis to first recurrence <1 year) independently prognostic of poor response. A simple prognostic index was derived based on the total number of risk factors. When patients were classified into three risk groups (low risk: 0-1 factor; mid risk: 2-3 factors; high risk: 4-5 factors), patients with 4-5 risk factors were estimated to have a response rate of only 13%, and median progression-free and overall survival of 2.8 months and 5.5 months, respectively. The accuracy of the index was supported by both internal and external datasets., Conclusions: A simple index based on five prognostic factors may have utility in clinical practice to identify the women who are not likely to respond to the cisplatin-containing regimens. This subgroup of patients should be considered for non-cisplatin chemotherapy or investigational trials.

Purpose: To determine if increasing the dose of paclitaxel increases the probability of clinical response, progression-free survival, or overall survival in women who have persistent or recurrent ovarian cancer, and whether doubling the dose of prophylactic filgrastim accompanying the higher paclitaxel dose decreases the frequency of neutropenic fever., Patients and Methods: Consenting patients with persistent, recurrent, or progressing ovarian cancer, despite first-line platinum therapy (but no prior taxane), were randomly assigned to paclitaxel 135 mg/m2, 175 mg/m2, or 250 mg/m2 over 24 hours every 3 weeks. Patients receiving paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 were also randomly assigned to 5 or 10 microg/kg of filgrastim per day subcutaneously., Results: Accession to the paclitaxel 135-mg/m2 arm was closed early. Among the 271 patients on the other regimens with measurable disease, partial and complete response on paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (36%) was significantly higher than on 175 mg/m2 (27%, P =.027). This difference was more evident among patients who never responded to prior platinum. However, progression-free and overall survival results were similar. The median durations of overall survival were 13.1 and 12.3 months for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and 250 mg/m2, respectively. Thrombocytopenia, neuropathy, and myalgia were greater with paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (P <.05). The incidence of neutropenic fever after the first cycle of paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 was 19% and 18% on the 5-microg/kg and 10-microg/kg filgrastim dose, respectively (22% for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 without filgrastim)., Conclusion: Paclitaxel exhibits a dose effect with regard to response rate, but there is more toxicity and no survival benefit to justify paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 plus filgrastim. Doubling the filgrastim dose from 5 to 10 microg/kg did not reduce the probability of neutropenic fever after high-dose paclitaxel.

Purpose: A meta-analysis of randomized trials in advanced ovarian cancer showed a longer survival with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (CAP) than with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin (CP; P =.009). In contrast, the results of the large International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm Study (ICON2) showed no survival difference between CAP and carboplatin (P =.98). In this article, we show how these discrepant results can be reconciled through the estimation of expected survival curves., Materials and Methods: A proportional hazards model, fitted to the meta-analysis data, was used to construct the expected survival curve for each treatment arm of the ICON2 trial. Expected survival curves were compared with observed survival curves in the ICON2 trial at all time points using a nonparametric test., Results: The prognostic model for survival obtained in the meta-analysis included extent of residual disease, age, histologic grade, and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage. When this model was applied to the ICON2 data, there was no difference between the expected and observed curves in the CAP arm. In contrast, the observed survival curve for carboplatin was far superior to the expected survival curve for CP (P <.01)., Conclusion: These analyses provide indirect evidence that better results are achieved with carboplatin alone at an optimally tolerated dose, compared with the CP combination at a cisplatin dose of 50 to 60 mg/m2. The expected survival may provide valuable insight when direct comparisons between randomized groups yield discrepant results across different studies.

Over the past few decades, we have gained a better understanding of the risk factors associated with the recurrence of endometrial cancer. Adjuvant postoperative radiotherapy in an intermediate-risk group of endometrial cancer patients resulted in improvement in local control, but survival was not improved significantly. Postoperative management of uterine sarcomas remains investigational. The management of ovarian cancer has notably advanced during the 1990s. Platinum- and paclitaxel-based combination chemotherapy set a new standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. During the late 1990s, a trend emerged favoring the use of carboplatin over cisplatin for first-line management of advanced ovarian cancer because of its more favorable safety profile. Adjuvant therapy for early-stage high-risk ovarian cancer continues to be actively investigated.