Single agent versus combination chemotherapy in recurrent cervical cancer

Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus 125I brachytherapy for the second-line treatment of locally recurrent cervical cancer after/with radical treatment: A propensity score analysis

Rationale and objectives

The primary aim of this study was to conduct a retrospective comparative analysis of the survival outcomes in patients with recurrent cervical cancer (CC). Specifically, we aimed to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy alone versus the combined approach of chemotherapy and 125I brachytherapy subsequent to the failure of initial chemotherapy treatment.

Materials and methods

Patients diagnosed with recurrent CC subsequent to the failure of initial chemotherapy from January 2007 to December 2016 were enrolled from 2 hospitals. These patients were then divided into two groups: Group A, which underwent second-line chemotherapy alone, and Group B, which received both second-line chemotherapy and 125I brachytherapy. The assessment of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was carried out through propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1), Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard regression for survival analysis.

Results

A matched cohort comprising 88 patients each in Group A and Group B was included in the study. In Group A, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative PFS rates were 40.9 %, 15.9 %, and 5.7 % respectively, while in Group B, these rates were significantly higher at 79.5 %, 48.9 %, and 25.0 % (P = 0.003). Similarly, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative OS rates among Group A were 67.0 %, 27.3 %, and 5.7 % compared to 89.8 %, 63.6 %, and 30.7 % among Group B, suggesting a difference with statistical significance (P < 0.001) between the two groups. Moreover, the incidence of complications was similar between groups (P = 0.698).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the combined approach of chemotherapy and 125I brachytherapy yields superior therapeutic effects but similar complication rates compared to chemotherapy alone in patients experiencing local recurrence of CC following failed initial chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the management of cervical cancer

Management of cervical cancer has undergone refinement in the past two decades; concurrent chemo-radiation (CCRT) (with cisplatin alone or in combination) is currently the standard treatment approach for patients with locally advanced disease (FIGO stage IIB-IVA). About 30%-40% of such patients fail to achieve complete response; alternative approaches are needed to improve outcome for them. Treatment with bevacizumab (an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor) along with chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin for 4-6 weeks as dose dense chemotherapy prior to CCRT is currently under study in a phase III, multicentric trial. Role of adjuvant chemotherapy after CCRT in patients with positive lymph nodes, larger tumor volume and those with stage III-IVA disease needs further exploration. Novel agents targeting molecular pathways are currently being studied. Recent development of immune check point inhibitors is exciting, results of ongoing studies are awaited with interest.

Chemotherapy for metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. A woman's risk of developing cervical cancer by 65 years of age ranges from 0.69% in developed countries to 1.38% in developing countries. Although screening by Pap smear should mean early detection at a curable stage for most women, many still present with advanced or metastatic disease with a worse prognosis. The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy has improved outcome compared to radiotherapy alone; however, 30% to 50% fail to respond to treatment or develop recurrent disease. There are no standard treatment options for these patients, although platinum-based chemotherapy is frequently used and trials are on-going.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different types and combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2012). The reference lists from these and those of review articles were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving chemotherapy for metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer. Trials involving radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, intra-arterial chemotherapy, biological agents or immunomodulators were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion and data extraction and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no data comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy. Cisplatin-based regimens are the most widely used and therefore we have concentrated on these trials. In terms of response rates some non-platinum regimens are equivalent but toxicity is higher. The most common cisplatin regimen was 50 mg/m(2) day 1 q21days. Higher doses had similar survivals. There was no direct comparison between single-agent cisplatin and carboplatin. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not adequately reported and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were incompletely documented. Combination regimens were more toxic than single agents, but in the limited reported data this did not appear to adversely affect QoL.No significant difference in response rate by site of recurrence was found, although there was a trend towards improved response when the main site of disease was beyond the previously irradiated pelvis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination cisplatin-based chemotherapy could be a viable option for patients of good performance status with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, but further trials that report adequate survival and QoL data are sought. Response rates and improvements in survival are low. Cisplatin-based combinations have significant toxicity. Outcomes are poor and novel cytotoxic/biological agents and optimal scheduling need further investigation. Future trials need to stratify for and perform planned subgroup analysis with respect to previous treatment and site of recurrence.

Topotecan in cervical cancer

Recurrent and advanced cervical cancers are associated with high mortality and a lack of effective treatment options, especially for women who are poor candidates for surgery or radiation therapy. The broad clinical effectiveness and manageable toxicity of topotecan in other human malignancies as well as promising recent study results suggest that it is highly effective in treating cervical tumors. We therefore conducted a systematic review on the studies using topotecan in cervical cancer. Seven phase I-III clinical trials using topotecan, both as a single agent and in combination with cisplatin or paclitaxel, in patients with recurrent or advanced carcinoma of the cervix were reviewed. Data from two studies in which topotecan was used in combination with radiotherapy for induction therapy were also evaluated. Although single-agent cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for high-risk or locally advanced cervical cancer, topotecan, when used concurrently with cisplatin and/or radiation therapy, produces high objective response rates and prolonged survival. Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Protocol 179 for the first time showed significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival in a combination therapy for advanced cervical cancer compared to cisplatin alone. Recent data suggest that topotecan, when used concurrently with cisplatin, may be the new standard of care for the management of recurrent or advanced cervical cancer. Ongoing phase III studies (GOG-204, AGO-Zervix-1) will compare this combination with other cisplatin-containing and cisplatin-free combinations. Moreover, further evaluation of topotecan appears to be warranted in conjunction with radiotherapy and in the neoadjuvant setting as well as in combination with novel biologic agents.

A randomized phase II evaluation of bryostatin-1 (NSC #339555) in persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

OBJECTIVES

The Gynecologic Oncology Group performed a randomized phase II study to determine the antitumor activity and toxicity of two different schedules of administration of bryostatin-1 in patients with persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to receive either bryostatin-1 25 mug/m(2) as a 1-h infusion weekly for 3 weeks followed by a 1-week rest (Regimen I) or bryostatin-1 120 mug/m(2) as a 72-h continuous infusion every 2 weeks (Regimen II).

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were enrolled on this study. There were 32 eligible patients on Regimen I and 33 eligible patients on Regimen II; all but 4 had had prior chemotherapy. There were two partial responses (one on each treatment arm) among the 65 eligible patients (response rates = 3.1 and 3.0%, respectively). Ten patients on each regimen had stable disease. The most common adverse event was myalgia; 8 of 32 patients (25%) on Regimen I and 16 of 33 patients (48%) on Regimen II had any grade of myalgia. There was no significant myelosuppression on either treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Both of these schedules and doses of bryostatin-1 are inactive as single agents in the second-line treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix.

Gemcitabine in cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent and advanced cervical cancers are associated with high mortality and a lack of effective treatment options, especially for women who are poor candidates for surgery or radiation therapy. The broad clinical effectiveness and low toxicity of gemcitabine in other human malignancies suggest that it might be useful in treating cervical tumors.

METHODS

Fifteen phase I/II clinical trials on the use of gemcitabine, both as a single agent and in combination with cisplatin, in patients with recurrent or advanced carcinoma of the cervix were reviewed. Data from studies in which gemcitabine was used in combination with radiotherapy for induction therapy and with cisplatin for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Although single-agent gemcitabine was generally inferior to cisplatin, when used concurrently with cisplatin and/or radiation therapy, objective response rates were high and survival was prolonged. The drug also showed promise when used with cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial studies suggest that gemcitabine may be useful in the management of recurrent or advanced cervical cancer when used concurrently with cisplatin. Accordingly, a large phase III study will compare cisplatin/gemcitabine with the current standard, and further evaluation of gemcitabine appears to be warranted in conjunction with radiotherapy and in the neoadjuvant setting.

Randomized phase III trial of bleomycin, vindesine, mitomycin-C, and cisplatin (BEMP) versus cisplatin (P) in disseminated squamous-cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: an EORTC Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group study

PURPOSE

Three previous mitomycin-cisplatin-based chemotherapy trials conducted within the EORTC Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group (GCCG) in patients with disseminated squamous-cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix (SCCUC) suggested that with such regimens a higher overall response rate and a higher complete response rate could be obtained compared to what might have been expected from cisplatin alone. In that respect the combination of bleomycin, vindesine (Eldesine), mitomycin C and cisplatin (BEMP) was the most promising. In the present study BEMP has been compared with the best single agent, cisplatin (P) in the expectation that improved response rates might translate into a better survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were those with SCCUC and disseminated measurable disease outside previously irradiated areas, aged < or = 75 years, with a WHO performance status < or = 2 and adequate bone marrow, renal, hepatic and pulmonary function, who gave consent according to regulations followed in individual institutions. Patients were randomized to BEMP: E 3 mg/m2 day 1, P 50 mg/m2 day 1, B 15 mg (24-hour infusion) day 2-4 and M 8 mg/m2 (at alternate cycles), or P 50 mg/m2. The first four cycles were given every 3 weeks (induction phase). Subsequent cycles were given every four weeks (maintenance phase), during which B was deleted from BEMP (MEP). Patients failing on P could be treated with BEM. Of the 287 patients entered, 235 were eligible and 201 evaluable for response.

RESULTS

BEMP induced a significantly higher response rate than P (42% vs. 25%, P = 0.006). There was no difference in complete response rate (11% vs. 7%). BEMP was significantly more toxic than P (+/- BEM), both with respect to hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. After a median follow-up of 6.1 years, survival curves were not significantly different. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.3 and 10.1 months with BEMP and 4.5 and 9.3 months with P (+/- BEM), respectively. In a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for survival, a lower age (P = 0.003), a lower performance status (P = 0.0001) and a short (<1 year) interval since diagnosis (P = 0.0152) were all associated with an increased risk of dying. For progression-free survival, lower age, prior radiotherapy, locoregional involvement and no prior surgery were associated with a high risk. Treatment with BEMP or P had no significant impact on survival, but for progression-free survival there was a trend in favor of BEMP (P = 0.0893). Adjusting for prognostic factors did not change the effect of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy with BEMP produces more toxicity and more responses compared with cisplatin alone in patients with disseminated SCCUC, but this does not translate into a better survival. Therefore, in the palliative setting single-agent cisplatin should remain the standard therapy for these patients.

Time-dependent nephrotoxicity associated with daily administration of cisplatin in mice

The chronopharmacokinetics and chronopharmacodynamics of cisplatin were studied in a mouse model to reveal the mechanisms of dosing time-dependent nephrotoxicity induced by daily administration. Chronotoxicity was tested by daily intraperitoneal injections of cisplatin (6mg kg(-1)) for 5 days at four time points (04:00, 10:00, 16:00 and 22:00h) in BALB/c mice (n = 6 in each group). After following the changes in body weight, serum concentrations of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine obtained on day 6 were compared. The results showed diurnal variations in cisplatin toxicity, with the 04:00 and 16:00h time points the best and the worst, respectively. We then measured platinum concentrations in blood, liver and kidney and compared the results of the 04:00 and 16:00 h groups (n = 4 in each group). Kidney sensitivity to cisplatin alone, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) alone, cisplatin with LPS and saline (control) were also measured using a tissue culture system (a measurement system of interleukin-6 (IL-6) production) between the 04:00 and the 16:00 h groups (n = 4 in each group). These results showed no significant difference in platinum accumulation between the two groups. IL-6 production was higher in the 16:00 h group than in the 04:00 h group after saline injection alone (P < 0.05). Cisplatin treatment alone did not increase IL-6 production. However, IL-6 levels were markedly augmented by cisplatin with LPS. In conclusion, chrononephrotoxicity induced by daily cisplatin administration does not only depend on cisplatin accumulation, but might also depend on kidney sensitivity to diurnal variations in inflammatory reaction without direct cisplatin toxicity.