Phase I trial of carboplatin, paclitaxel, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide with granulocyte colony stimulating factor as first-line therapy for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

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.

Should Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Be Prescribed Antioxidants?

In September 2005, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published a warning by Gabriella D’Andrea, MD, against the concurrent use of antioxidants with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, several deficiencies of the CA article soon became apparent, not least the selective omission of prominent studies that contradicted the author’s conclusions. While acknowledging that only large-scale, randomized trials could provide a valid basis for therapeutic recommendations, the author sometimes relied on laboratory rather than clinical data to support her claim that harm resulted from the concurrent use of antioxidants and chemotherapy. She also sometimes extrapolated from chemoprevention studies rather than those on the concurrent use of antioxidants per se. The article overstated the degree to which the laboratory data diverged in regard to the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy: in fact, the preponderance of data suggests a synergistic or at least harmless effect with most high-dose dietary antioxidants and chemotherapy. The practical recommendations made in the article to avoid the general class of antioxidants during chemotherapy are inconsistent, in that if antioxidants were truly a threat to the efficacy of standard therapy, antioxidant-rich foods, especially fruits and vegetables, ought also be proscribed during treatment. Yet no such recommendation is made. Furthermore, the wide-scale use by both medical and radiation oncologists of synthetic antioxidants (eg, amifostine) to control the adverse effects of cytotoxic treatments is similarly overlooked. In sum, this CA article is incomplete: there is far more information available regarding antioxidant supplements as an appropriate adjunctive cancer therapy than is acknowledged. Patients would be well advised to seek the opinion of physicians who are adequately trained and experienced in the intersection of 2 complex fields, that is, chemotherapeutics and nutritional oncology. Physicians whose goal is comprehensive cancer therapy should refer their patients to qualified integrative practitioners who have such training and expertise to guide patients. A blanket rejection of the concurrent use of antioxidants with chemotherapy is not justified by the preponderance of evidence at this time and serves neither the scientific community nor cancer patients.

Phase I trial of docetaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with high-risk epithelial tumors of müllerian origin

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.