A phase II study of gemcitabine plus carboplatin in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma

Insights into ovarian cancer: chemo-diversity, dose depended toxicities and survival responses

Ovarian cancer has been one of the serious concerns for female health and medicinal practitioner all over the world. The wellness of over cancer patient is associated with survival responses which depends on many factors including chemotherapeutic diversity; treatment protocol; dose-dependent toxicity such as hematological toxicity and non-hematological toxicity. We found that the studied treatment regimens (TRs) (1-9) showed varying degree of hematological toxicities like moderate neutropenia (< 20%) critical neutropenia (> 20%), negligible leucopenia, critical leucopenia (> 20%), moderate thrombocytopenia (< 20%), critical thrombocytopenia (> 20%), moderate anemia (< 20%) and critical anemia (> 20%). The studied TRs showed varying degree of non-hematological toxicities like moderate nausea-vomiting (< 20%), critical nausea-vomiting (> 20%), moderate alopecia (< 20%), critical alopecia (> 20%), moderate fatigue (< 20%), critical fatigue (> 20%), moderate neurotoxicity (< 20%), critical neurotoxicity (> 20%), moderate diarrheas (< 20%). The studied TRs showed varying degree of survival responses like critical partial response (> 35%), remarkable overall responses (> 60%), critical overall responses (< 60%), remarkable stable disease (> 20%), critical stable disease (< 20%) and moderate progressive disease (< 20%). Out of the studied TRs 1-9, in case of TR 6, moderate non-hematological toxicity (NHT) and effective survival response (SR) is being diluted by critical hematological toxicity (HT). On the other hand, TR 8, 9 is showing critical HT, NHT and SR. Our analysis revealed that the toxicity of the existing therapeutic agents can be controlled through judicious decision of drug administration cycles and combination therapies.

Genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 screen determines factors modulating sensitivity to ProTide NUC-1031

Gemcitabine is a fluoropyrimidine analogue that is used as a mainstay of chemotherapy treatment for pancreatic and ovarian cancers, amongst others. Despite its widespread use, gemcitabine achieves responses in less than 10% of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and has a very limited impact on overall survival due to intrinsic and acquired resistance. NUC-1031 (Acelarin), a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine, was the first anti-cancer ProTide to enter the clinic. We find it displays important in vitro cytotoxicity differences to gemcitabine, and a genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 genetic screening approach identified only the pyrimidine metabolism pathway as modifying cancer cell sensitivity to NUC-1031. Low deoxycytidine kinase expression in tumour biopsies from patients treated with gemcitabine, assessed by immunostaining and image analysis, correlates with a poor prognosis, but there is no such correlation in tumour biopsies from a Phase I cohort treated with NUC-1031.

Phase I dose-escalation study of plitidepsin in combination with sorafenib or gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors or lymphomas

This phase I trial evaluated the combination of the marine-derived cyclodepsipeptide plitidepsin (trade name Aplidin) with sorafenib or gemcitabine in advanced cancer and lymphoma patients. The study included two treatment arms: a sorafenib/plitidepsin (S/P) and a gemcitabine/plitidepsin (G/P) arm. In the S/P arm, patients were treated orally with sorafenib continuous dosing at two dose levels (DL1: 200 mg twice daily and DL2: 400 mg twice daily) combined with plitidepsin (1.8 mg/m, day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk, intravenously). In the G/P arm, patients with solid tumors or lymphoma were treated at four different DLs with a combination of gemcitabine (DL1: 750 mg/m, DL2-DL4: 1000 mg/m) and plitidepsin (DL1-DL2: 1.8 mg/m; DL3: 2.4 mg/m; DL4: 3 mg/m). Both agents were administered intravenously on day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk. Forty-four patients were evaluable for safety and toxicity. The safety of the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib or gemcitabine was manageable. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild; no grade 4 treatment-related AEs were reported in any of the groups (except for one grade 4 thrombocytopenia in the gemcitabine arm). The most frequently reported study drug-related (or of unknown relationship) AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, erythema, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue in the S/P arm and nausea, fatigue, and vomiting in the G/P arm. In the S/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients treated at the maximum dose tested (DL2): palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia and grade 2 aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase increase that resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions. In the G/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients at DL4: grade 2 alanine aminotransferase increase resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The recommended dose for the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib was not defined because of a sponsor decision (no expansion cohort to confirm) and for plitidepsin with gemcitabine, it was 2.4 mg/m plitidepsin with 1000 mg/m gemcitabine. In the S/P group, objective disease responses were not observed; however, disease stabilization (≥3months) was observed in four patients. In the gemcitabine group, two lymphoma patients showed an objective response (partial response and complete response) and nine patients showed disease stabilization (≥3months). Combining plitidepsin with gemcitabine and sorafenib is feasible for advanced cancer patients; some objective responses were observed in heavily pretreated lymphoma patients.

Phase I dose-escalation study of milciclib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors

BACKGROUND

This phase I trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of milciclib, an inhibitor of multiple cyclin-dependent kinases and tropomycin receptor kinase A, in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors.

DESIGN

Sixteen patients were enrolled and treated with milciclib at three dose levels (45 mg/m²/day, n = 3; 60 mg/m²/day, n = 3; and 80 mg/m²/day, n = 10) with a fixed dose of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²/day). Milciclib was administered orally once daily for 7 days on/7 days off in a 4-week cycle, and gemcitabine was administered intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 4-week cycle.

RESULTS

All 16 enrolled patients were evaluable for safety and toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities, which occurred in only one out of nine patients treated at the maximum dose tested (milciclib 80 mg/m²/day and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m²/day), consisted of Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, Grade 3 ataxia and Grade 2 tremors in the same patient. Most frequent treatment-related AEs were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Among 14 evaluable patients, one NSCLC patient showed partial response and 4 patients (one each with thyroid, prostatic, pancreatic carcinoma and peritoneal mesothelioma) showed long-term disease stabilization (>6-14 months). Pharmacokinetics of the orally administered milciclib (~t1/2 33 h) was not altered by concomitant treatment with gemcitabine.

CONCLUSION

The combination treatment was well tolerated with manageable toxicities. The recommended phase II dose was 80 mg/m²/day for milciclib and 1000 mg/m²/day for gemcitabine. This combination treatment regimen showed encouraging clinical benefit in ~36% patients, including gemcitabine refractory patients. These results support further development of combination therapies with milciclib in advanced cancer patients.

Update on the Treatment of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death for all gynecologic malignancies in developed countries, largely owing to the late stage of diagnosis. Despite response to initial surgery and chemotherapy, more than 65% of patients will have recurrent or persistent diseases. Approximately 50% of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer are asymptomatic. Recurrences are often diagnosed using a combination of tests, including cancer antigen 125, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography scan. The most significant prognostic factor among women with recurrent ovarian cancer is the length of time from initial diagnosis to recurrence. Treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer involves chemotherapy, with or without surgery. In selected patients, secondary cytoreductive surgery might significantly improve survival. Radiotherapy may have a role in the treatment of a small group of patients with localized symptomatic masses. New treatment modalities for women with recurrent ovarian cancer are needed, as none of the available treatments are curative.

Models for change in tumour size, appearance of new lesions and survival probability in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

AIMS

The aims of this study were (i) to develop a modelling framework linking change in tumour size during treatment to survival probability in metastatic ovarian cancer; and (ii) to model the appearance of new lesions and investigate their relationship with survival and disease characteristics.

METHODS

Data from a randomized Phase III clinical trial comparing carboplatin monotherapy to gemcitabine plus carboplatin combotherapy in 336 patients with metastatic ovarian cancer were used. A population model describing change in tumour size based on drug treatment information was established and its relationship with time to appearance of new lesions and survival were investigated with time to event models.

RESULTS

The tumour size profiles were well characterized as evaluated by visual predictive checks. Metastasis in the liver at enrolment and change in tumour size up to week 12 were predictors of time to appearance of new lesions. Survival was predicted based on the patient tumour size and ECOG performance status at enrolment and on appearance of new lesions during treatment and change in tumour size up to week 12. Tumour size and survival data from a separate study were adequately predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed models simulate tumour dynamics following treatment and provide a link to the probability of developing new lesions as well as to survival. The models have potential to be used for optimizing the design of late phase clinical trials in metastatic ovarian cancer based on early phase clinical study results and simulation.

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma

Although the general intent of treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer is palliative, and cure does not seem to be a realistic objective in this setting, median overall survival is greater than 12 months in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients with ovarian cancer can now expect that the time from first relapse of their disease to death will be longer than the period from diagnosis to that first relapse. There is current evidence from prospective randomized trials that carboplatin combined with either paclitaxel or gemcitabine confers a progression-free survival advantage over platinum monotherapy for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. Since the efficacy of paclitaxel/platinum and gemcitabine/carboplatin regimens appears to be comparable based on similar progression-free survival (both combinations confer a 3-month advantage), toxicity profiles should be taken into account when deciding on the combination to be used. The gemcitabine/carboplatin combination should be preferred in patients with underlying peripheral neuropathy. Since alopecia associated with paclitaxel can diminish the overall quality of life, the gemcitabine plus carboplatin combination may be preferable for patients in whom alopecia is a major consideration. This review provides an update on the role of the gemcitabine/carboplatin combination in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Role of gemcitabine in the treatment of ovarian cancer

The US FDA has recently approved the combination of carboplatin and gemcitabine as a second-line therapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This article briefly reviews the pharmacokinetics and mechanism of action of gemcitabine and its synergistic effect with platinum. An overview of the literature on the role of gemcitabine in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer is also presented.

Phase III trial of induction gemcitabine or paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by paclitaxel consolidation in ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) induction regimens with or without paclitaxel consolidation therapy were assessed in ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

Patients with stage IC-IV OC were randomized to either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8, plus carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5, day 1) or TC (paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6, day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients with complete response (CR) were allowed optional consolidation with paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) every 28 days for ≤ 12 months. Patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy at induction doses/schedules until CR, disease progression (PD), or unacceptable toxicity. PD or death in 636 patients was required to compare induction arms with 80% statistical power for progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Randomized induction therapy was received by 820 of 919 patients enrolled; 352 patients with CR received paclitaxel consolidation whereas 155 patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy. PFS was similar for GC and TC (median, 20.0 and 22.2 months, respectively; P=.199). Despite high censoring rates (>52%), overall survival was longer for TC (median, 57.3 versus 43.8 months for GC; P=.013). Controlling for patient characteristics including performance status, residual tumor size, and tumor stage, there was no statistical difference in a multivariate analysis (HR=1.22; 95% CI=0.99-1.52; P=.067).

CONCLUSIONS

GC does not improve PFS over TC as first-line induction chemotherapy in OC. Although favoring TC, overall survival analyses were limited by the study design and high censoring rates.

An open-label, single-arm Phase II study of intravenous weekly (Days 1 and 8) topotecan in combination with carboplatin (Day 1) every 21 days as second-line therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical activity of weekly topotecan plus carboplatin in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal carcinoma.

METHODS

An open-label, single-arm, multicenter Phase I/II study. Phase II was the activity assessment phase, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint. Eligible patients (females aged ≥18 years) received study treatment at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) identified in Phase I: intravenous topotecan 2.5mg/m(2) (Days 1 and 8), followed by carboplatin AUC 5 (Day 1), every 21 days. A two-stage Green-Dahlberg design was used to assess efficacy of treatment. An ORR of ≤30% was required to conclude that treatment was ineffective.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients in Phase I permitted identification of the MTD. In Phase II, 55 patients (median age 64.0 years) were enrolled and included in the intent-to-treat population. There were six complete responses (10.9%) and 11 partial responses (20.0%), giving an ORR of 30.9% (17 patients; 95% CI: 18.7%, 43.1%). Median time to response and progression-free survival were 6.57 weeks (95% CI: 5.86, 12.57) and 44.29 weeks (95% CI: 36.14, 52.14), respectively. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity caused dose reductions, treatment delays and study discontinuation. Neutropenia (Grade 3: 29%; Grade 4: 11%) was the most common hematological adverse event (AE). Fatigue (71%) and nausea (71%) were the most common drug-related non-hematologic AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed an acceptable benefit-risk profile for topotecan plus carboplatin. Further studies using alternative dose levels could help define an optimal dosing schedule for this treatment combination in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease.

Tolerability, efficacy, and safety of pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin in combination with Carboplatin versus gemcitabine-Carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the tolerability, efficacy, and safety profiles of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with carboplatin (PLD-Carbo) with those of gemcitabine-carboplatin (Gem-Carbo) for the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) by reviewing the published literature.

METHODS

Using the PubMed database, a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2000 and September 2009 was undertaken to identify studies related to the treatment of patients with PSROC with PLD-Carbo or Gem-Carbo. Studies reporting either response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were included. Treatment regimens, efficacy endpoints, and safety profiles were compared between the two combination therapies.

RESULTS

Ten studies evaluating 608 patients (PLD-Carbo: 5 studies, 278 patients; Gem-Carbo: 5 studies, 330 patients) were identified. The mean planned doses were: PLD, 34.8 mg/m(2) and Gem, 993 mg/m(2). The dose intensity reported in Gem trials was lower (75% of the planned dose) than the dose intensity reported in PLD trials (93.7% of the planned dose), suggesting better tolerability for the PLD-Carbo regimen. Among patients receiving PLD-Carbo, 60.2% achieved a response (complete, 27.0%; partial, 33.2%), versus 51.4% of patients treated with Gem-Carbo (complete, 19.2%; partial, 32.2%). The median PFS times were 10.6 months and 8.9 months in the PLD-Carbo and the Gem-Carbo populations, respectively. The median OS was longer for the PLD-Carbo regimen (27.1 months) than for the Gem-Carbo regimen (19.7 months). The hematological safety profiles were comparable in the two groups, although grade III or IV anemia (PLD-Carbo, 13.6%; Gem-Carbo, 24.5%) and neutropenia (PLD-Carbo, 45.5%; Gem-Carbo, 62.9%) were more common in patients receiving Gem-Carbo.

CONCLUSION

Results from this systematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature suggest that PLD-Carbo therapy is a rational alternative to Gem-Carbo for the treatment of patients with PSROC.

Gemcitabine and Vinorelbine Combination in Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Objectives:

Most patients with ovarian cancer are candidates for second-line or salvage treatments often for prolonged periods. Patients with platinum-sensitive disease can benefit from a platinum retreatment with a likelihood of response dependents on the treatment-free interval. Alternative agents and combination chemotherapy are potential therapeutic approaches. At our institution, we carried out a phase II trial to evaluate feasibility, efficacy, and toxicity of gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination in recurrent ovarian carcinoma. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of this combination in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.

Patients and Methods:

Patients with platinum-sensitive disease recurring after 1 or more lines of platinum-based chemotherapy were included. Vinorelbine at 25 mg/m2followed by gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2was administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and cancer antigen 125 test (CA-125 Kinetics [Rustin criteria]) were adopted to classify responses. Toxicity was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria.

Results:

Thirty-nine patients were eligible. Platinum-free interval (PFI) was 6 to 12 months in 13 patients (33.3%; PFI 6-12) and more than 12 months in 26 patients (66.7%; PFI > 12). The overall response rate was 48.7%, with 6 complete responses. Median response duration was 38 weeks. The response rate was 23% in PFI 6-12 and 62% in PFI >12. The most frequently observed toxicity was hematological, with 23% of the patients having grade 3 or 4 neutropenia.

Conclusions:

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination is effective and well tolerated in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. It may represent an option in the management of these patients because the chronic nature of the disease.

Carboplatin—gemcitabine in the therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: dose reduction consideration

Carboplatin—gemcitabine doublet is an important therapeutic option for patients with both previously treated and untreated ovarian cancer (OC). At the currently recommended dosing, its main toxicity is hematological, consisting of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, including febrile neutropenia, and/or anemia. The use of platelet transfusions, G-CSF and/ or packed red blood cells is often necessary, in order to avoid treatment delays or omission of doses. We report here on the high efficacy of lower doses of gemcitabine at 750 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 in combination with carboplatin AUC = 4 on day 1, repeated in 21-day cycles, in a small series of patients with advanced/metastatic OC. Using the above dose regimen, durable complete remissions were achieved in all patients in our cohort within 9—12 weeks, with no growth factor support, and no transfusions of blood components being necessary. We believe that lowering the doses of both carboplatin and gemcitabine from the start of therapy would ensure their timely delivery and steady-state plasma drug levels. In conclusion, administration of carboplatin AUC = 4 and gemcitabine 750 mg/m2 appears to be a safe and effective combination for the therapy of advanced/metastatic OC, with clinically tolerable hematological toxicity.

Phase II evaluation of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel in platinum-sensitive patients with recurrent ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with recurrent ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer have limited therapeutic options. There are no reports of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. We report efficacy and toxicity with nab-paclitaxel in this group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-seven patients enrolled (44 assessable patients). Main inclusion criteria were histologically or cytologically confirmed epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum (any stage, grade 2 to 3 if stage I) and measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or elevated CA-125 (> 70 U/mL) in patients without measurable disease. Patients received nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) administered intravenously for 30 minutes on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for six cycles or until disease progression.

RESULTS

Median age was 65.5 years; 76% of patients had stage IIIC or IV disease, 81% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, and 94% had prior surgery. For assessable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 64% (15 complete responses [CR] and 13 partial responses [PR] among 44 assessable patients). In patients evaluated with RECIST only, the ORR was 45% (one CR and four PR of 11 patients). In patients with only elevated CA-125, ORR was 82% (seven CRs and two PRs of 11 patients). In patients meeting both RECIST and CA-125 criteria, the ORR was 64% (seven CRs and seven PRs of 22 patients). Median time to response was 1.3 months (range, 0.5 to 4.8 months). Estimated median progression-free survival was 8.5 months. The most frequent grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (24%) and neuropathy (9%).

CONCLUSION

Nab-paclitaxel is active in this group of patients with recurrent ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. The ORR was 64%. Toxicities were manageable. Further studies of nab-paclitaxel in combination with platinum are warranted.

Role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in the treatment of relapsing ovarian cancer

The most significant factor predicting response to second-line chemotherapy is the time interval elapsed from the end of chemotherapy to relapse occurrence. Two types of situations may be considered: patients with platinum-sensitive relapse (relapse-free interval longer than 6 months) and patients with platinum-refractory relapse (progression during treatment or relapse-free interval under 6 months). Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is a doxorubicin formulation. Encapsulation in liposomes confers it different pharmacokinetic characteristics and a more favorable toxicity profile. The following review examines the efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of relapsing epithelial ovarian cancer.

Optimizing gemcitabine regimens in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer represents the leading cause of death from gynecologic neoplasms. The chance of response to secondary treatment is currently disappointing; few agents have shown notable activity in recurrent/progressive patients. Among these agents, gemcitabine represents one of the most interesting newer antineoplastic agents, showing significant activity, synergism with cisplatin, and a mild toxicity profile in both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant (and also taxane-pretreated) recurrent/progressive patients. Moreover, first-line combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine has shown promising response rates in phase I and II studies. The ongoing phase III, five-arm, randomized Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 182/International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm 5 study should clarify the clinical impact of the addition of a third drug to the standard paclitaxel plus carboplatin treatment regimen.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin as first line therapy for patients with suboptimally debulked, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. A phase II trial of sequential doublets. The GO-First Study

OBJECTIVES

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin are active in epithelial ovarian cancer with minimal overlapping toxicity. We studied the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in patients with advanced ovarian cancer when given prior to carboplatin and paclitaxel.

METHODS

Chemonaive patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and measurable disease were eligible for the study. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 8 every 21 days (GO) for 4 cycles. This was followed by carboplatin AUC = 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1 every 21 days (CP) for 4 cycles.

RESULTS

Twenty patients, median age 62 years (range 39-78), FIGO stages III (16) and IV (4) received treatment. The response rate (RR) after 4 cycles of GO was 80% (95%CI 61-99%) (4 complete responses (CR), 12 partial responses (PR)). Interval debulking surgery was performed in 7 patients (35%). After CP chemotherapy, RR increased to 85% (95%CI 68-100%) (CR = 13, PR = 4). Median time to progression was 14.5 months. Estimated median overall survival was 31.5 months. Toxicities of GO were mild; grade 3/4 nausea in 3 patients (15%) and vomiting in 2 patients (10%), grade 3/4 neutropenia in 5 patients (25%). Grade 2/3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 5 patients (25%). After sequential administration of CP, grade 2/3 neuropathy occurred in 13 patients (72%).

CONCLUSION

The sequential doublet regimen of GO followed by CP resulted in unacceptable neurotoxicity and is not recommended for further study; however, the doublet gemcitabine and oxaliplatin has significant activity in the first line treatment of patients with ovarian cancer.

Combination chemotherapy with carboplatin, capecitabine and epirubicin (ECarboX) as second- or third-line treatment in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer: a phase I/II trial

Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has been proven to be superior to single-agent platinum in the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer after a treatment-free interval of more than 6 months. A response rate of 41% was previously reported by our group using a combination of epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU in patients who relapsed within 12 months, we therefore assessed a similar, but more convenient combination of epirubicin, carboplatin and capecitabine in this phase-I/II trial. In total, 18 patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma, who had not received more than two lines of chemotherapy and the treatment-free interval exceeded 6 months were treated with carboplatin AUC5, epirubicin 50 mg m(-2) and capecitabine at several dose levels on continuous 21 day cycles and 14 of 21 day cycles. Patients were assessed for toxicity and by CT and CA-125 for response. The overall response rate was 61.1%, with three complete and eight partial responses. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicity was seen in 10 out of 18 patients and caused dose reductions and treatment delays. The combination of epirubicin, carboplatin and capecitabine showed good activity but caused excessive toxicity. A phase-II trial using carboplatin and capecitabine is underway.