Paclitaxel, cisplatin, and epirubicin first-line chemotherapy in stage III and IV ovarian carcinoma: long-term results of a phase II study

Chemotherapy Resistance in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common gynaecologic malignancy seen in women. Majority of the patients with ovarian cancer are diagnosed at the advanced stage making prognosis poor. The standard management of advanced ovarian cancer includes tumour debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. Various types of chemotherapeutic regimens have been used to treat advanced ovarian cancer, but the most promising and the currently used standard first-line treatment is carboplatin and paclitaxel. Despite improved clinical response and survival to this combination of chemotherapy, numerous patients either undergo relapse or succumb to the disease as a result of chemotherapy resistance. To understand this phenomenon at a cellular level, various macromolecules such as DNA, messenger RNA and proteins have been developed as biomarkers for chemotherapy response. This review comprehensively summarizes the problem that pertains to chemotherapy resistance in advanced ovarian cancer and provides a good overview of the various biomarkers that have been developed in this field.

A phase II randomised clinical trial comparing cisplatin, paclitaxel and ifosfamide with cisplatin, paclitaxel and epirubicin in newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: long-term survival analysis

To test the feasibility and efficacy of epirubicin and ifosfamide added to first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel in a phase II randomised clinical trial. Patients with histologically proven epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive first-line polychemotherapy with cisplatin/paclitaxel/epirubicin (CEP) or cisplatin/paclitaxel/ifosfamide (CIP) for six cycles every 21 days. Two hundred and eight patients were randomised between the two treatment arms and the median number of cycles per patient was six. Toxicity was predominantly haematological with both regimens; however, anaemia, leucopaenia, neutropaenic fever and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and transfusion were significantly more frequent in the CIP treatment arm. Response rates were 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77-93%) in the CIP arm and 90% (95% CI 84-96%) in the CEP arm; complete response rates were 48 and 52%. After a median follow-up of 82 months, median overall survival (OS) was 51 and 65 months; 5-year survival rates were respectively 43 and 50%. In this clinical trial, both regimens showed good efficacy, but toxicity was heavier with the CIP regimen. Considering that more than 50% of patients were suboptimally debulked after the first surgery, OS seems to be longer than is commonly reported. This unexpected finding might be a consequence of the close surgical surveillance and aggressive chemotherapeutic approach.

Paclitaxel, carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma: a phase I study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group

PURPOSE

Based on the activity and tolerability of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum- and paclitaxel-resistant ovarian carcinoma, we conducted a phase I trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel and carboplatin to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in chemotherapy naive ovarian, peritoneal and tubal carcinoma patients.

METHODS

Three schedules were studied: paclitaxel, carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin every 28 days; paclitaxel and carboplatin every 21 days with liposomal doxorubicin every 42 days; and weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin (AUC=5) every 21 days and liposomal doxorubicin every 42 days. The paclitaxel dose was 175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on an every 3-4 week schedule and 60 mg/m(2) when administered weekly. Based on the frequency of neutropenic sepsis, grade 4 thrombocytopenia and > or =grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity, the starting dose of liposomal doxorubicin of 20 mg/m(2) was escalated to determine the MTD.

RESULTS

A total of 210 (21-day) cycles were administered to 37 patients. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred when liposomal doxorubicin was administered at 40 mg/m(2). Because of treatment-related delays resulting in decreased paclitaxel/carboplatin dose intensity, administration was modified to be given every 21 days, with liposomal doxorubicin given every 42 days. Since neutropenia was the DLT of this schedule, the schema was further modified to administer paclitaxel weekly; however, weekly administration was inconsistent because of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), carboplatin (AUC=5) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2) are tolerable without supportive therapy. The usual dose intensity of paclitaxel/carboplatin was maintained by administering liposomal doxorubicin every other cycle.

Escalating doses of paclitaxel and epirubicin in combination with cisplatin in advanced ovarian epithelial carcinoma: a phase I-II study

Our objective was to identify a new active three-drug combination regimen consisting of paclitaxel (PTX), epirubicin (EPI) and cisplatin as first-line line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma. A phase I study was carried out to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of PXT and EPI in combination with a fixed dose of cisplatin every 4 weeks. Side-effects were recorded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. Patients were treated in cohorts of three with fixed-dose cisplatin 80 mg/m2 and EPI 80-->100 mg/m2 and PXT 100-->160 mg/m2 until DLT was reached. Once MTD was identified, a single-step phase II study was therefore carried out to test the clinical activity and panel of toxicity of such regimen. Objective responses were recorded according to the WHO criteria. Time to progression and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. The DLT was myelosuppression and, in more detail, febrile neutropenia, which occurred at the fifth dose level (PTX 140 mg/m2, EPI 100 mg/m2 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2) in two out of three patients. Other side-effects were grade 3 mucositis in two out of three patients and grade 3 anemia in one case. The combination of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 plus EPI 80 mg/m2 and PCT 140 mg/m2 every 4 weeks was considered as the MTD. In the phase II study a complete response was observed in six patients (33%) and a partial response in nine cases (50%) for an overall response rate of 83% [95% confidence limits (CL) 59-96%]. Median time to progression of patients with measurable disease was 16.4 months. Median OS was not reached after a follow-up of 42 months. This study demonstrated that PTX and EPI can be safely administered in combination with cisplatin to fit patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The three-drug regimen of cisplatin 80 mg/m2, EPI 80 mg/m2 and PTX 140 mg/m2 every 4 weeks is very active, at least in terms of objective response rate. This level of activity overlaps with the 95% CL of the activity of cisplatin alone; however, it does encourage future trials of the combination.

First-line chemotherapy with epidoxorubicin, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

A combination of carboplatin (CBDCA) and paclitaxel (TAX) is the standard treatment in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) patients. Epidoxorubicin (EDX) is an active treatment in AOC and exhibits nonoverlapping toxicities with CBDCA and TAX; moreover, when added to platinum-based chemotherapy, it improves long-term survival. We have therefore conducted a phase II study to evaluate the tolerability and antitumor activity of an EDX/TAX/CBDCA (ETC) triplet in AOC patients.

METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed suboptimal stage III-IV ovarian cancer who had not previously received cytotoxic drugs were treated with TAX (175 mg/m(2) in a 3-h iv infusion), CBDCA (AUC 6, Calvert formula), and EDX (75 mg/m(2) iv bolus) all given on day 1 every 28 days for a maximum of six courses on an outpatient basis. EDX dosage was chosen after a pilot phase I study.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were registered, of whom 5 were determined ineligible bacause of age. Forty-two of the 50 are evaluable for response; 27 (64%) achieved a clinical complete response (CR) and 9 (21%) a partial response (PR) for a response rate of 86% (95% CI 71-94%). Thirty-three patients underwent a secondary debulking procedure after a median of 6 courses (range 2-6). Pathological CR and PR were observed in 9 (27.3%) and 21 (63.6%), respectively; among patients with persistent disease a successful cytoreduction (<1 cm) was obtained in 53.8% of patients. At a median follow up of 35.6 months (range 0-55.5) median progression-free survival is 19.5 months and median overall survival is 36 months. The most common adverse effects were G3-4 leukopenia and thrombocytopenia which occurred in 59 and 37% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ETC combination given according to the outlined doses and schedule is highly active in AOC patients with poor prognostic factors and deserves further study.

Phase I study of carboplatin, doxorubicin and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Doxorubicin is an active compound in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), but adding it to carboplatin-paclitaxel causes toxicity. Toxicity can be reduced by weekly administration. We examined the tolerability of weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin and doxorubicin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy naïve patients with EOC were treated with doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2) day 1), carboplatin (AUC 6 day 1) and paclitaxel (days 1, 8, 15, 21), 28-day cycle. Three patients were treated at each paclitaxel dose level, starting at 60, 75 and 90 mg/m(2)/week. If more than two patients in a cohort experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) three more patients were treated at the dose level below.

RESULTS

Twelve patients with advanced EOC received a median of six cycles (range 2-6) of the three-drug combination. DLT occurred at dose level 3: prolonged grade 4 febrile neutropenia, 1 patient; grade 3 peripheral neuropathy, 1 patient. All six patients treated at dose level 2 experienced short-lived grade 4 neutropenia, which led to dose modifications resulting in an actual delivered dose of paclitaxel of 64 mg/m(2)/week. Eight out of 12 patients had measurable disease on CT scan: four obtained a partial remission; three had stable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of carboplatin, doxorubicin and paclitaxel in patients with EOC is active and its main toxicity is myelosuppression. Dose intensity of paclitaxel can be maintained in a three-drug combination through weekly administration (65 mg/m(2)).

Natural product inhibitors of ovarian neoplasia

The present work constitutes a review of the literature on natural products with potential antitumor activity against ovarian neoplasias. The review refers to five plant extracts and sixty-nine compounds isolated from higher plants and microorganisms, which are classified in appropriate chemical groups and model tested, and cites their activity. Some aspects of recent research with natural products directed to ward producing drugs which are inhibitors of ovarian neoplasia are discussed.

Transport of paclitaxel (Taxol) across the blood-brain barrier in vitro and in vivo

Paclitaxel concentrations in the brain are very low after intravenous injection. Since paclitaxel is excluded from some tumors by p-glycoprotein (p-gp), the same mechanism may prevent entry into the brain. In vitro, paclitaxel transport was examined in capillaries from rat brains by confocal microscopy using BODIPY Fl-paclitaxel. Western blots and immunostaining demonstrated apical expression of p-gp in isolated endothelial cells, vessels, and tissue. Secretion of BODIPY Fl-paclitaxel into capillary lumens was specific and energy-dependent. Steady state luminal fluorescence significantly exceeded cellular fluorescence and was reduced by NaCN, paclitaxel, and SDZ PSC-833 (valspodar), a p-gp blocker. Leukotriene C(4) (LTC(4)), an Mrp2-substrate, had no effect. Luminal accumulation of NBDL-cyclosporin, a p-gp substrate, was inhibited by paclitaxel. In vivo, paclitaxel levels in the brain, liver, kidney, and plasma of nude mice were determined after intravenous injection. Co-administration of valspodar led to increased paclitaxel levels in brains compared to monotherapy. Therapeutic relevance was proven for nude mice with implanted intracerebral human U-118 MG glioblastoma. Whereas paclitaxel did not affect tumor volume, co-administration of paclitaxel (intravenous) and PSC833 (peroral) reduced tumor volume by 90%. Thus, p-gp is an important obstacle preventing paclitaxel entry into the brain, and inhibition of this transporter allows the drug to reach sensitive tumors within the CNS.

A dose-escalating study of weekly bolus topotecan in previously treated ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Topotecan is an established topoisomerase I inhibitor for the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer. Myelotoxicity and suboptimal patient convenience associated with daily topotecan, however, have prompted investigators to explore alternate regimens, including a weekly regimen of topotecan. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of topotecan given as a weekly bolus in previously treated ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

Second- and third-line ovarian cancer patients with measurable disease or elevated cancer antigen 125 received weekly bolus topotecan intravenously starting at 1.5 mg/m(2). Topotecan was escalated in dose increments of 0.5 mg/m(2) every 21 days as tolerability allowed. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia.

RESULTS

Thirty-two of 35 patients were evaluable for safety and tolerability. No notable toxicity was observed with weekly topotecan doses < 4 mg/m(2). Additionally, there was an absence of dose-limiting myelotoxicity and thrombocytopenia with weekly topotecan. The MTD of weekly topotecan without the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support was 4 mg/m(2), with grade 2 anemia, chronic fatigue, and grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity limiting further dose escalation. Weekly topotecan also demonstrated antitumor activity at doses >2 mg/m(2).

CONCLUSIONS

The establishment of a well-tolerated, weekly regimen of topotecan (4 mg/m(2), with a maximum recommended dose of 6 mg/m(2)) provides the basis for further investigation in phase II studies of single-agent and combination regimens in previously treated ovarian cancer patients.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in women in the United States. Studies from this year's American Society of Clinical Oncology more clearly defined the role of chemotherapy in women with early stage disease and now suggest that essentially all women with invasive disease should receive chemotherapy that contains carboplatin. Studies in women with advanced disease continue to support the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel in the treatment of women with newly diagnosed disease although early data suggest that carboplatin and docetaxel might be an acceptable alternative. Platinum-resistant disease remains a therapeutic challenge. Small molecules that inhibit the function of the epidermal growth factor receptor, such as OSI-774, and novel classes of chemotherapeutic agents, including the acylfulvene MGI-114 and epothilone B and its analogue, BMS247550, all warrant further study in this disease.

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.

Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of ovarian cancer

Paclitaxel belongs to the group of antitumour agents called the taxanes. Its efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer has been established in large, randomised phase III clinical trials. When used in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, it is superior to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin, with gains in median survival of around 1 year. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin has similar efficacy to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. There is now consensus that paclitaxel plus either carboplatin or cisplatin is the recommended first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The particular combination employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions, although paclitaxel plus carboplatin is generally better tolerated (i.e. lower incidence of non-haematological adverse events) than paclitaxel plus cisplatin and is widely used in many countries. Paclitaxel is also used as monotherapy in second-line (salvage) treatment of ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomic analyses performed to date have primarily focused on first-line therapy comparing the combination of paclitaxel/cisplatin with cyclophosphamide/cisplatin. All studies incorporated clinical outcomes data, most commonly from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 111 trial, showing a survival advantage for paclitaxel/cisplatin. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $US 6395 per additional life-year gained (LYG) in Spain (1995/96 values) to $US 44,690 per additional progression-free LYG in France (year of costs not reported). Five studies were based in the US and Canada and these reported very similar ICERs of $US 13,135 (year of costs not reported) to $US 25,131 (1993 costs) per additional LYG. In all of these studies the incremental costs of paclitaxel/cisplatin therapy fall well within the commonly cited threshold limit of $US 50,000 for new therapies and compare well with incremental costs reported for other oncological and life-saving therapies. Patient preferences and quality of life are important issues due to the short survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Two cost-utility studies reported similar incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). In the study based on US costs, the ICUR of paclitaxel/cisplatin treatment was US $18,200 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [1995 drug costs]. In a Canadian study the ICUR ranged from 11,600 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can 24,200 (1996 costs) per additional progression-free QALY depending on the choice of second-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Paclitaxel used in combination with cisplatin offers survival and utility gains versus cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin, when used as first-line treatment in patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer. The incremental cost for these gains is within the accepted range for healthcare interventions. However, pharmacoeconomic analyses of paclitaxel plus carboplatin--a combination widely accepted for use in women with advanced ovarian cancer and with clinical advantages over paclitaxel plus cisplatin in terms of ease of administration and tolerability profile--are currently lacking. Nevertheless, results of available pharmacoeconomic data support the clinical use of paclitaxel/platinum combinations, particularly paclitaxel plus cisplatin, as a first-line chemotherapy treatment option in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.