Dataset Information

Addition of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide to first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: a randomised, phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:We assessed the efficacy of adding intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy to standard first-line intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. METHODS:Patients with stage IIIC-IV EOC who underwent optimal debulking surgery were randomly assigned to four cycles of weekly IP chemotherapy with cisplatin (50 mg/m2) and etoposide (100 mg/m2) followed by six cycles of IV chemotherapy every 3 weeks (IP/IV arm), or were administered IV chemotherapy alone (IV arm). The primary endpoint for this study was the 12-month non-progression rate (NPR). RESULTS:Between 4/2009 and 9/2015, 218 patients were randomised, of whom 215 initiated treatment. In the IP/IV arm, 90.6% of patients completed 4 cycles of IP chemotherapy. The 12-month NPRs were 81.9% and 64.2% in the IP/IV and IV groups, respectively (HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.82)). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was increased in the IP/IV arm compared with that in the IV arm (22.4 vs. 16.8 months; HR 0.66 (0.48-0.91)) and in a subgroup with no gross cytoreduction (31.1 vs. 16.8 months; HR 0.46 (0.26-0.82)). Similar findings were detected with regard to time to first subsequent anticancer therapy (TFST) (25.9 vs. 18.0 months; P = 0.009) and time to second subsequent anticancer therapy (TSST) (40.8 vs. 30.1 months; P = 0.042). Grade 3/4 leukopenia, anaemia and gastrointestinal events were more common in the IP/IV arm, but the treatment burden was considered acceptable. CONCLUSIONS:IP chemotherapy prior to IV chemotherapy was associated with an increased 12-month NPR and a longer TSST than IV alone in patients with EOC, albeit with acceptable toxic effects. Long-term follow-up is warranted to identify the effects of IP therapy on overall survival.

SUBMITTER: Shi T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6035193 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP)and intravenous chemotherapy (IP)for primary advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched using multiple terms for primary advanced ovarian cancer, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies in both Chinese and English (up to date 15 August 2022). Outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. The data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to assess the risk of bias in the included comparative study. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomized controlled trials.ResultsIn total, 32 studies, including 6347 patients and 8 different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis results showed that HIPEC2 (carboplatin with area under the curve 10) exhibited a statistically significant OS benefit compared to IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1 (cisplatin with 75/100 mg/m2). Intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significantly better likelihood of overall survival compared to IV. For progression-free survival, our statistical results only suggest a better progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC1 compared with weekly dose-dense chemotherapy. No evidence of difference was observed between the other comparison groups. Compared with the non-HIPEC group, HIPEC may had a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3).ConclusionOur statistical analysis suggests that the groups receiving HIPEC2 had a better OS than the groups receiving IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1. For PFS, our analysis only showed HIPEC1 is better than IV. Moreover, HIPEC may lead to a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3). HIPEC therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is currently controversial.

Project description:BackgroundIn the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448.Findings1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3-29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4-30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87-1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0-12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1-13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82-1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5-27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5-24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5-31·7).InterpretationThis trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended.FundingCancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.

Dataset Information

Addition of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide to first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer: a randomised, phase 2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets