Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE: To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined. RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.     

Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens. CONCLUSION: As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.     

Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.     

Phase II trial of low-dose paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has shown promising activity in gastric cancer and has synergism with cisplatin. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of low-dose paclitaxel (145 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin chemotherapy in metastatic or relapsed gastric cancer. METHODS: Chemotherapy-na?ve patients with metastatic or relapsed gastric cancer were enrolled. Paclitaxel 145 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously over 3 h, followed by cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on Day 1 every 3 weeks in the outpatient setting. RESULTS: Of 39 patients enrolled, 17 (44%) had partial responses. Twelve (31%) had stable disease and eight (21%) progressive disease. Two patients (5%) were not evaluable because of early drop-out. The median time to progression was 4.7 months and the median overall survival was 12.1 months. The most common hematologic toxicity was anemia (41%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia developed in 14 and 3%, respectively. The most common non-hematologic toxicities were peripheral neuropathy (43%) and emesis (43%). Grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities included emesis (11%), peripheral neuropathy (3%), diarrhea (3%) and hepatotoxicity (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose paclitaxel and cisplatin chemotherapy was active and well-tolerated in chemotherapy-na?ve gastric cancer patients. This regimen seems to have comparable efficacy to previously reported higher-dose paclitaxel plus cisplatin-containing regimens and fewer toxicities.     

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II). RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.     

Dose-dense cisplatin/paclitaxel. a well-tolerated and highly effective chemotherapeutic regimen in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

A randomised phase I/II trial with weekly cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, 43) in combination with escalating doses of paclitaxel either 4-weekly or weekly was conducted in 49 patients with ovarian cancer; patients were chemotherapy-nai;ve or had a first relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy. Paclitaxel could be safely escalated to 225 mg/m(2) 4-weekly or 100 mg/m(2) weekly, with fatigue as the major adverse event. Myelosuppression, renal toxicity and neurotoxicity were mild to moderate. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed an approximately 2-fold reduction of DNA-adduct formation in leucocytes compared with cisplatin without paclitaxel. No pharmacokinetic interaction was found between paclitaxel and cisplatin. After (re-)induction, additional chemotherapy consisted of conventional paclitaxel/cisplatin, paclitaxel/carboplatin, paclitaxel single agent or carboplatin/cyclophosphamide. The overall response rate was 94% in 17 evaluable chemotherapy-nai;ve patients and 84% in 25 patients with recurrent disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17 months (chemotherapy-nai;ve: 23 months, recurrent: 11 months) and median overall survival was 41 months (chemotherapy-nai;ve: 48 months, recurrent: 24 months). In conclusion, both cisplatin/paclitaxel regimens showed excellent activity with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.     

Cost-effectivenes of paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/cisplatin, compared with standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We obtained the primary survival and resource utilization data from a large three-arm randomized trial comparing: paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) by 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion + cisplatin; paclitaxel 250 mg m(-2) by 24-h i.v. infusion + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); and standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC. We also modelled the regimens with paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) + cisplatin administered as an outpatient by 3-h infusion, as clinical data suggest that this is equivalent to 24-h infusion. We collected costing data from the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre and applied it to the resources consumed in the randomized trial. We integrated these data into the Statistics Canada POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM), which generated hypothetical cohorts of patients treated with each regimen. The POHEM model assigned diagnostic work-up, treatment, disease progression and survival characteristics to each individual in these cohorts and tabulated the costs associated with each. We did sensitivity analyses around the costs of chemotherapy and its administration, and the survival differences between the two regimens. All costs are in 1997 Canadian dollars ($1.00 Canadian approximately Pound 0.39 sterling). The perspective is that of the Canadian health care system. In the trial, the two paclitaxel-containing arms had almost identical survival curves with a median survival of 9.7 months compared with 7.4 months for etoposide/cisplatin. As administered in the trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $76,370 per life-year gained (LYG) and paclitaxel/cisplatin/G-CSF $138,578 per LYG relative to etoposide/cisplatin. However, when modelled as an outpatient 3-h infusion, paclitaxel/cisplatin was moderately cost-effective at $30,619 per LYG. When compared with historical controls treated with best supportive care, this regimen of paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $4539 per LYG. Assuming a 3-h paclitaxel infusion yields the same survival advantage as the 24-h infusion did in the randomized trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin is a cost-effective improvement over standard etoposide/cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.     

Phase I and pharmacological study of paclitaxel given over 3 h with cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: To establish the toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel given over 3 h in combination with cisplatin, to determine the pharmacokinetic profiles of these two drugs and to observe their antitumor activity, we conducted a combination phase I study in non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel doses of 150-210 mg/m2 given over 3 h and cisplatin doses of 60-80 mg/m2 as a 1 h infusion 2 h after the end of the paclitaxel infusion. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled. Granulocytopenia was the most frequent hematological toxicity and the most prominent non-hematological toxicity was sensory dominant neuropathy. Two of six patients experienced dose limiting toxicities (leukopenia, infection and neuropathy) at a dose of paclitaxel 210 mg/m2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2, which was considered the maximum tolerated dose. There were seven partial responses among 24 evaluable patients, for an overall response rate of 29%. The median survival time was 341 days and the 1 year survival rate was 45.8%. As the paclitaxel pharmacokinetic parameters in this study were consistent with those of our previous single agent study, we found no significant drug-drug interaction between the 3 h infusion paclitaxel and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: The recommended doses for further study are determined to be paclitaxel 180 mg/m2 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2. This is a well-tolerated and active regimen for non-small cell lung cancer. In view of the promising survival outcome, further evaluation in prospective randomized trials versus other regimens is warranted.     

Ifosfamide, paclitaxel and cisplatin first-line chemotherapy in advanced, suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel with a platinum analogue is the preferred chemotherapy regimen in the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The alkylating agent ifosfamide has shown activity in refractory or recurrent ovarian cancer. We conducted a Phase II study with the combination of ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and cisplatin for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with advanced, suboptimally debulked ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] Stage III or IV) and residual disease larger than 2 cm after staging laparotomy and cytoreductive surgery were treated with paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2), as a 3-hour intravenous infusion on Day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 hours on Day 2, and ifosfamide 1500 mg/m(2) intravenously over 1 hour on Days 1-3 (with sodium 2-mercaptoethane sulfonate [MESNA] uroprotection). Courses were administered every 3 weeks on an outpatient basis. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was given at a dose of 5 microg/kg/day on Days 7-11. RESULTS: Among 26 patients with measurable disease, 22 (85%) achieved an objective response including 15 complete and 7 partial responses. With a minimum follow-up of 46 months, the median overall survival was 52.8 months (range, 5.3-56.6+ mos), whereas the median time to progression for all patients was 22.2 months. The median remission duration for women with measurable disease who responded to treatment was 12.6 months. The treatment was tolerated relatively well without toxic deaths; the most common toxicity was Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia that occurred in 42% of patients. Significant peripheral neuropathy (Grade 2 or higher) developed in 35% of patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and cisplatin is a well-tolerated outpatient regimen with significant activity in the treatment of newly diagnosed FIGO Stage III or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Further evaluation is justified to clearly define the role of ifosfamide as an additional agent to the current platinum and paclitaxel regimens.     

A phase II study of paclitaxel and cisplatin combination chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

The taxanes are the most active new agents for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) since the discovery of cisplatin. Our aim was to define the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel and cisplatin combination therapy in patients with recurrent SCCHN. Patients with locally recurrent or metastatic SCCHN were enrolled in the study. Patients were required to be chemotherapy-naive, and should have completed radiation therapy at least 6 weeks prior to enrollment. A World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of less than 3 was required. Paclitaxel (Taxol, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) and cisplatin therapy (PC) consisted of prophylaxis with pheniramine 50 mg i.v., ranitidine 150 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. given prior to paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 as a 3-hour i.v. infusion, followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m2 as a 1-hour infusion with an additional 3000 cc of saline for hydration. This treatment was repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Patients were evaluated for response after the third and sixth cycles, or at the time of clinical progression. Fifty patients were enrolled in the study. The overall response rate was 32% with a 10% complete response rate. Forty-eight patients were assessable for toxicity. A total of 221 cycles of chemotherapy was given and the most common toxicity was myelosuppression; 7.7% of cycles had grade III-IV neutropenia. Severe neuropathy, nephropathy, mucositis, and emesis were uncommon (<10 %). At a median follow-up period of 25 months, the median overall survival was 10 months and the 1-year progression-free and overall survival rates were 16.7% and 35.2%, respectively. We conclude that patients with recurrent SCCHN have a moderate response to combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel. Given this moderate response rate, it is unlikely that this combination (PC) might ultimately prove to be superior to standard treatment regimens in terms of significant survival advantage.     

Randomized trial of 3-hour versus 24-hour infusion of high-dose paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-26.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is an active drug for the treatment of breast cancer; however, the appropriate duration of administration is unknown. We assessed and compared the response rate, event-free survival, survival, and toxicity of paclitaxel 250 mg/m(2) delivered every 3 weeks as a 3-hour or 24-hour infusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 563 women with stage IV or IIIB breast cancer were randomized into one of two groups: 279 received 3-hour paclitaxel and 284 received 24-hour paclitaxel. Patients were stratified by age, stage of disease, and prior therapy. RESULTS: A significantly higher rate of tumor response occurred in the first four cycles of therapy in patients who received the 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel (51% v 41%, respectively; P =.025). Tumor response over all cycles was also significantly higher in the group that received 24-hour infusion (54% v 44%, respectively; P =.023). There were no significant differences in event-free survival or survival between the two arms of the study (P =.9 and.8, respectively). No treatment by stage or by age interactions were observed. During the first four cycles of therapy, at least one episode of >/= grade 3 toxicity (excluding nadir hematologic values, alopecia, and weight change) occurred in 45% of patients who received the 3-hour paclitaxel infusion and in 50% of those who received the 24-hour paclitaxel infusion. Febrile neutropenia, >/= grade 3 infection, and >/= grade 3 stomatitis were less frequent, and severe neurosensory toxicity was more frequent in those who received the 3-hour paclitaxel infusion. Ten treatment-related deaths occurred in the first four cycles. Age, stage, and prior chemotherapy did not influence the effect of treatment. CONCLUSION: When administered as a continuous 24-hour infusion, high-dose paclitaxel results in a higher tumor response rate than when administered as a 3-hour infusion but does not significantly improve event-free survival or survival. Paclitaxel as a 24-hour infusion results in increased hematologic toxicity and decreased neurosensory toxicity.     

Liposomal cisplatin combined with paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III multicenter trial

BackgroundLiposomal cisplatin is a new formulation developed to reduce the systemic toxicity of cisplatin while simultaneously improving the targeting of the drug to the primary tumor and to metastases by increasing circulation time in the body fluids and tissues. The primary objectives were to determine nephrotoxicity, gastrointestinal side-effects, peripheral neuropathy and hematological toxicity and secondary objectives were to determine the response rate, time to tumor progression (TTP) and survival.Patients and methodsTwo hundred and thirty-six chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly allocated to receive either 200 mg/m² of liposomal cisplatin and 135 mg/m² paclitaxel (arm A) or 75 mg/m² cisplatin and 135 mg/m² paclitaxel (arm B), once every 2 weeks on an outpatient basis. Two hundred and twenty-nine patients were assessable for toxicity, response rate and survival. Nine treatment cycles were planned.ResultsArm A patients showed statistically significant lower nephrotoxicity, grade 3 and 4 leucopenia, grade 2 and 3 neuropathy, nausea, vomiting and fatigue. There was no significant difference in median and overall survival and TTP between the two arms; median survival was 9 and 10 months in arms A and B, respectively, and TTP was 6.5 and 6 months in arms A and B, respectively.ConclusionsLiposomal cisplatin in combination with paclitaxel has been shown to be much less toxic than the original cisplatin combined with paclitaxel. Nephrotoxicity in particular was negligible after liposomal cisplatin administration. TTP and survival were similar in both treatment arms.     

A prospective randomized trial comparing high-dose cisplatin with low-dose cisplatin and chlorambucil in advanced ovarian carcinoma

Sixty-one patients with FIGO stage III ovarian carcinoma and 30 patients with stage IV ovarian carcinoma were randomized to receive either high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m2) or low-dose cisplatin (20 mg/m2) and chlorambucil. Overall response rates were similar in both arms, with 68% and 49% of stage III patients and 61% and 72% of stage IV patients responding to high-dose cisplatin and the combination, respectively. There was a strong trend for better survival in stage III (P less than .05) but not in stage IV patients treated with cisplatin alone. The toxicity suffered by patients treated with high-dose cisplatin was severe, and in 15 patients cisplatin therapy was stopped because of unacceptable toxicity.     

Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the progression-free and overall survival in small-volume residual ovarian cancer after treatment with intravenous (IV) cisplatin and paclitaxel or an experimental regimen of IV carboplatin followed by IV paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by IV cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses or IV carboplatin (area under curve 9) every 28 days for two courses, then IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses. RESULTS: Of the 523 patients who entered this trial, 462 were determined to be assessable, with prognostic factors well balanced between the treatments. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicities were greater in the experimental arm. As a result, 18% of the patients received < or = two courses of IP therapy. Progression-free survival was superior for patients randomized to the experimental treatment arm (median, 28 v 22 months; relative risk, 0.78; log-rank P =.01, one-tail). There was a borderline improvement in overall survival associated with this regimen (median, 63 v 52 months; relative risk, 0.81; P =.05, one-tail). CONCLUSION: An experimental regimen including moderately high-dose IV carboplatin followed by IP paclitaxel and IV cisplatin yielded a significant improvement in progression-free survival when compared with a standard regimen of IV cisplatin and paclitaxel. Because the improvement in overall survival was of borderline statistical significance and toxicity was greater, the experimental arm is not recommended for routine use. However, the results provide direction for further clinical investigation in small-volume ovarian cancer.     

Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether 24-h paclitaxel plus doxorubicin and filgrastim was superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin in patients with endometrial cancer with respect to response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible chemotherapy-na?ve patients were randomly assigned to doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) followed by cisplatin 50 mg/m2 i.v. (arm 1, n=157) or doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. followed 4 h later by paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 i.v. over 24 h plus filgrastim 5 microg/kg on days 3-12 (arm 2, n=160). Starting doses were reduced for prior pelvic radiotherapy and age > 65 years. Both regimens were to be repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of seven cycles. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rate (40% versus 43%), PFS (median 7.2 versus 6 months) or OS (median 12.6 versus 13.6 months) for arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Toxicities were primarily hematological, with 54% (arm 1) and 50% (arm 2) of patients experiencing grade 4 granulocytopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicities were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Doxorubicin and 24-h paclitaxel plus filgrastim was not superior to doxorubicin and cisplatin in terms of response, PFS or survival in advanced endometrial cancer.     

Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the side effects and feasibility of cisplatin and carboplatin each in combination with paclitaxel as front-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) intravenously as a 3-hour infusion followed by either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 5), both on day 1. The schedule was repeated every 3 weeks for at least six cycles. Women allocated to paclitaxel-cisplatin were admitted to the hospital, whereas the carboplatin regimen was administered to outpatients. RESULTS: A total of 208 eligible patients were randomized. Both regimens could be delivered in an optimal dose and without significant delay. Paclitaxel-carboplatin produced significantly less nausea and vomiting (P: <.01) and less peripheral neurotoxicity (P: =.04) but more granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (P: <.01). The overall response rate in 132 patients with measurable disease was 64% (84 of 132 patients), and in patients with elevated CA 125 levels at start, it was 74% (132 of 178 patients). With a median follow-up time of 37 months, the median progression-free survival time of all patients was 16 months and the median overall survival time was 31 months. The small number of patients entered onto the study caused wide confidence intervals (CIs) around the hazards ratio for progression-free survival of paclitaxel-carboplatin compared with paclitaxel-cisplatin (hazards ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.48) and did not allow conclusions about efficacy. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel-carboplatin is a feasible regimen for outpatients with ovarian cancer and has a better toxicity profile than paclitaxel-cisplatin.     

紫杉醇联合顺铂治疗晚期食管鳞癌

目的研究紫杉醇联合顺铂治疗晚期食管癌的疗效和毒副反应。方法30例晚期食管磷癌患者中,27例为初次化疗患者,3例患者曾接受术后辅助化疗。中位年龄58岁。紫杉醇175mg／m^2,d1,静脉滴注3h;顺铂40mg/m^2,d2,d3;21d为1个周期。结果30例患者共完成89个化疗周期。在可评价疗效的27例患者中,完全缓解5例(18．5％),部分缓解11例(40．7％),有效率为59．3％。中位疾病进展时间为5．0个月,中位生存时间9．7个月。可评价毒副反应28例,其主要的毒副反应为脱发,有5例(17．9％)患者出现Ⅲ-Ⅳ度中性粒细胞降低。结论紫杉醇联合顺铂对晚期食管癌疗效肯定,可以考虑作为治疗晚期食管癌的主要治疗方案。     

Phase II study of biweekly paclitaxel and cisplatin combination chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: Korea Japan Collaborative Study Group Trial

BACKGROUND: Benefits of chemotherapy have generally been modest in gastric cancer, although those regimens developed more recently have produced higher response rates. Paclitaxel plus cisplatin is one such regimen and divided administration of paclitaxel has been suggested to be associated with lower neurological and hematologic toxicities and be able to achieve higher paclitaxel dose intensities than paclitaxel administration at 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. This study was undertaked to assess the efficacy and toxicity of a biweekly paclitaxel and cisplatin combination treatment in advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Twenty-five patients from Japan and Korea, 50 patients in total, were entered into this trial which was conducted from October 2004 to June 2005. Median age of the patients was 57 years (range: 26-78). Paclitaxel 140 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 4-week cycle. Cisplatin 30 mg/m2 was also administered on days 1 and 15 with standard hydration. A total of 278 courses of treatment (two treatment courses per cycle) were conducted for 50 patients. The median number of treatment cycles per patient was two with a range of one to six. RESULTS: Nine of the 50 patients responded to the treatment, with an overall objective response rate of 18% (95% CI, 12-41), which included one complete response. Two patients were not evaluable and 14 patients had stable disease as best response. The median survival duration of the 50 patients was 333 days (range: 52-637+ days). The main toxicity was neutropenia. Significant toxicity (NCI-CTC grade 3 or 4) included neutropenia in 19 patients (38%), anorexia in four (8%), infection in three (6%), anemia in three (6%), and abdominal pain in three (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Biweekly paclitaxel and cisplatin combination chemotherapy showed modest activity in advanced gastric carcinoma with a favorable toxicity pattern.     

Phase II study of bi-weekly administration of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer

In a phase I study we demonstrated the feasibility of a bi-weekly combination of paclitaxel 180 mg x m(-2) with cisplatin 60 mg x m(-2). In this study we further assessed toxicity and efficacy of this schedule in the treatment of advanced cancer of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction. Patients received paclitaxel 180 mg x m(-2) administered over 3 h followed by a 3-h infusion of cisplatin 60 mg x m(-2). Patients were retreated every 2 weeks unless granulocytes were <0.75x10(9) or platelets <75x10(9). Patients were evaluated after three and six cycles and responding patients received a maximum of eight cycles. Fifty-one patients were enrolled into the study. The median age was 56 years (range 32-78). WHO performance status were: 0 (19 patients); 1 (29 patients); 2 (three patients). All patients received at least three cycles of chemotherapy and all were evaluable for toxicity and response. Haematological toxicity consisted of uncomplicated neutropenia grade 3 in 39% and grade 4 in 31% of patients. Five patients (10%) were hospitalised, three patients because of treatment related complications and two patients because of infections without neutropenia. Sensory neurotoxicity was the predominant non-haematological toxicity; grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity was observed in 43 and 20% of patients, respectively. Response evaluation in 51 patients with measurable disease: complete response 4%, partial response 39%, stable disease 43% and progressive disease in 14% of the patients. The median duration of response was 8 months. The median survival for all patients was 9 (range 2-29+) months and the one-year survival rate was 43%. Four patients who received additional local treatment (two patients surgery and two patients radiotherapy) are still disease free after a follow-up of 20-29 months. This bi-weekly treatment of paclitaxel and cisplatin is well tolerated by patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. The toxicity profile of this regimen compares favourable to that of previously used cisplatin- and paclitaxel-based regimens. Trials are underway evaluating this bi-weekly regimen in a neo-adjuvant setting.