Comparison between weekly versus 3-weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer

Effectiveness and safety of nab-paclitaxel and platinum as first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus platinum as first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

Patients administered platinum combined with nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for epithelial OC, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal cancer from July 2018 to December 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Adverse events (AEs) were examined. Subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (median age, 54.5 years; range, 20.0-79.0 years) were evaluated, including 12 and 60 administered neoadjuvant therapy and primary surgery with subsequent chemotherapy, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 25.6 months, and the median PFS was 26.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]=24.0-29.3) months in the whole patient population. In the neoadjuvant subgroup, the median PFS was 26.7 (95% CI=22.9-30.5) months vs. 30.1 (95% CI=23.1-37.1) months in the primary surgery subgroup. Twenty-seven patients were administered nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin and had a median PFS of 30.3 (95% CI=not available [NA]-NA) months. The commonest grade 3-4 AEs included anemia (15.3%), white blood cell decreased (11.1%), and neutrophil count decreased (20.8%). No drug-related hypersensitivity reactions occurred.

CONCLUSION

Nab-paclitaxel plus platinum as first-line treatment in OC was associated with a favorable prognosis and was tolerable in patients with OC.

Efficacy of weekly paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel (WP) for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).

METHODS

This study will systematically search bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CNKI, WANGFANG, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) and other literature sources from inception to the March 1, 2020 without language and publication time limitations. Two authors will independently complete all literature selection, data collection, and study quality evaluation. Any disagreements will be solved by a third author through discussion. We will analyze data by RevMan V.5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study will systematically generate a comprehensive summary on the efficacy and safety of WP for the treatment of AOC.

CONCLUSION

This study may provide beneficial evidence of WP for the treatment of AOC.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

INPLASY202040193.

Comparing Paclitaxel-Carboplatin with Paclitaxel-Cisplatin as the Front-Line Chemotherapy for Patients with FIGO IIIC Serous-Type Tubo-Ovarian Cancer

The use of weekly chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced-stage serous-type epithelial Tubo-ovarian cancer (ETOC), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC) is acceptable as the front-line postoperative chemotherapy after primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). The main component of dose-dense chemotherapy is weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²), but it would be interesting to know what is the difference between combination of triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²) or triweekly carboplatin (carboplatin area under the curve 5-7 mg/mL per min [AUC 5-7]) in the dose-dense paclitaxel regimen. Therefore, we compared the outcomes of women with Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC ETOC and PPSC treated with PCS and a subsequent combination of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and triweekly cisplatin (paclitaxel–cisplatin) or triweekly carboplatin using AUC 5 (paclitaxel–carboplatin). Between January 2010 and December 2016, 40 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC EOC, FTC, or PPSC were enrolled, including 18 treated with paclitaxel–cisplatin and the remaining 22 treated with paclitaxel–carboplatin. There were no statistically significant differences in disease characteristics of patients between two groups. Outcomes in paclitaxel–cisplatin group seemed to be little better than those in paclitaxel–carboplatin (median progression-free survival [PFS] 30 versus 25 months as well as median overall survival [OS] 58.5 versus 55.0 months); however, neither reached a statistically significant difference. In terms of adverse events (AEs), patients in paclitaxel–carboplatin group had more AEs, with a higher risk of neutropenia and grade 3/4 neutropenia, and the need for a longer period to complete the front-line chemotherapy, and the latter was associated with worse outcome for patients. We found that a period between the first-time chemotherapy to the last dose (6 cycles) of chemotherapy >21 weeks was associated with a worse prognosis in patients compared to that ≤21 weeks, with hazard ratio (HR) of 81.24 for PFS and 9.57 for OS. As predicted, suboptimal debulking surgery (>1 cm) also contributed to a worse outcome than optimal debulking surgery (≤1 cm) with HR of 14.38 for PFS and 11.83 for OS. Based on the aforementioned findings, both regimens were feasible and effective, but maximal efforts should be made to achieve optimal debulking surgery and following the on-schedule administration of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus triweekly platinum compounds. Randomized trials validating the findings are warranted.