John A. Blessing

BACKGROUND: A clinicopathologic evaluation of clinical Stage I and II uterine sarcoma was done by the Gynecologic Oncology Group from 1979-1988. METHODS: After all eligibility criteria were met, 453 cases were evaluable and analyzed for prognostic factors. RESULTS: Of the 301 mixed mesodermal tumors (MMT), 167 were homologous (HO), and 134 were heterologous (HE). Fifty-nine tumors were leiomyosarcomas (LM). The remaining 93 sarcomas were predominantly stromal cell and adenosarcomas. For this study, only the MMT or LM tumors were analyzed. The recurrence rate for all MMT was 53% (HO, 44%; HE, 63%). The recurrence rate for LM was 71%. The site of the first recurrence included the pelvis in 21% of MMT and 14% in LM. Factors significantly related to progression-free interval (PFI) by univariate analysis among MMT were adnexal spread, lymph node metastases, tumor size, lymphatic-vascular space involvement, histologic grade, cell type, age, peritoneal cytologic findings, and depth of uterine tumor site of invasion. The prognostic factors based on multivariate analysis were adnexal spread, lymph node metastases, histologic cell type (HO versus HE), and grade of sarcoma. For LM, the mitotic index was the only factor significantly related to PFI.

PURPOSE: To determine whether cisplatin plus paclitaxel (C+P) improved response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), or survival compared with cisplatin alone in patients with stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible: patients with measurable disease, performance status (PS) 0 to 2, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function received either cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or C+P (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Tumor measurements and quality-of-life (QOL) assessments were obtained before each treatment cycle. RESULTS: Of 280 patients entered, 6% were ineligible. Among 264 eligible patients, 134 received cisplatin and 130 received C+P. Groups were well matched with respect to age, ethnicity, PS, tumor grade, disease site, and number of cycles received. The majority of all patients had prior radiation therapy (cisplatin, 92%; C+P, 91%). Objective responses occurred in 19% (6% complete plus 13% partial) of patients receiving cisplatin versus 36% (15% complete plus 21% partial) receiving C+P (P = .002). The median PFS was 2.8 and 4.8 months, respectively, for cisplatin versus C+P (P < .001). There was no difference in median survival (8.8 months v 9.7 months). Grade 3 to 4 anemia and neutropenia were more common in the combination arm. There was no significant difference in QOL scores, although a disproportionate number of patients (cisplatin, n = 50; C+P, n = 33) dropped out of the QOL component, presumably because of increasing disease, deteriorating health status, or early death. CONCLUSION C+P is superior to cisplatin alone with respect to response rate and PFS with sustained QOL.

The Gynecologic Oncology Group has conducted a randomized prospective trial comparing cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 21 days (regimen 1), 100 mg/m2 every 21 days (regimen 2), and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 for five consecutive days repeated every 21 days (regimen 3). Four hundred ninety-seven evaluable patients have been accrued on this study. The response rates were 20.7%, 31.4%, and 25.0%, for regimens 1, 2, and 3, respectively; the complete remission rates were 10.0%, 12.7%, and 8.6% for regimens 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median duration of response ranged from 3.9 to 4.8 months, the median progression-free interval from 3.7 to 4.6 months, and the median survival time from 6.1 to 7.1 months. The difference in response rates for regimens 1 and 2 is statistically significant (P = .015) but less than the magnitude originally considered clinically significant. The differences in complete remission rates, response duration, progression-free interval, and survival times are not statistically significant. The following types of toxicity were observed: serum creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL and/or BUN level greater than 40 mg/dL was 7%, 14%, and 17% on regimens 1, 2, and 3, respectively; leukocyte count less than 4,000/microL was 27%, 44%, and 41% on regimens 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 74 patients (83%). The regimen consisting of a 100-mg/m2 single dose has produced a statistically significant higher response rate than the 50 mg/m2 regimen while producing no appreciable differences in complete remission rate, response duration, progression-free interval, or survival. In addition, the higher dose regimen was associated with greater myelosuppression and nephrotoxicity.

PURPOSE: A phase II trial was conducted to determine the activity of prolonged oral etoposide in platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Platinum-resistant disease was defined as progression on platinum-based chemotherapy or recurrence within 6 months of completing therapy. The starting dose was 50 mg/m2/d (30 mg/m2/d for prior radiotherapy) for 21 days, every 28 days. A dose escalation to a maximum dose of 60 mg/m2/d was prescribed. RESULTS: Of 99 patients entered, 97 were assessable for toxicity and 82 were assessable for response. Among 41 platinum-resistant patients a 26.8% response rate (7.3% complete response [CR] and 19.5% partial response [PR] rate) occurred. The median response duration was 4.3 months (range, 1.3 to 8.7), median progression-free interval (PFI) was 5.7 months (range, 0.8 to 30.8+), and median survival time was 10.8 months (range, 1.9 to 45.8). Twenty-five of 41 platinum-resistant patients had also previously received paclitaxel; of which eight (32%) responded. Among 41 platinum-sensitive patients, a 34.1% response rate (14.6% CR and 19.5% PR rate) occurred. The median response duration was 7.5 months (range, 1.9 to 15.2+), median PFI was 6.3+ months (range, 0.9 to 20.4), and median survival time was 16.5+ months (range, 0.9 to 34.8). Of 97 patients assessable for toxicity, grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was common, with leukopenia occurring in 41.2% (grade 3, 29%; grade 4, 12%), neutropenia in 45.4% (grade 3, 20%; grade 4, 25%), thrombocytopenia in 9% (grade 3, 5%; grade 4, 4%), and anemia in 13.4%. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: two from neutropenic sepsis and one from thrombocytopenic bleeding after an overdose. One patient developed leukemia. CONCLUSION: This regimen is active in platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Additionally, the regimen is active in paclitaxel-resistant ovarian carcinoma.

After hysterectomy, 156 evaluable patients with stage I (limited to the corpus) or stage II (limited to the corpus and cervix) uterine sarcomas were randomly assigned to adjuvant chemotherapy with Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio) for six months or to no further treatment. Pelvic irradiation (external or intracavitary) was optional before randomization. Of 75 patients receiving Adriamycin, 31 have suffered recurrences compared with 43 of 81 receiving no adjuvant chemotherapy. This difference is not statistically significant. Moreover, there is no difference in progression-free interval or survival. The optional radiotherapy did not influence the outcome although there was a suggestion that vaginal recurrence was decreased by pelvic radiotherapy. The recurrence rates in specific cell types (leiomyosarcoma, homologous mixed mesodermal sarcoma, or heterologous mixed mesodermal sarcoma) were not significantly different although the pattern of recurrence differed, with pulmonary metastases being more common in leiomyosarcoma and extrapulmonary recurrence being more common in mixed mesodermal sarcoma. The outcome with respect to chemotherapy was not altered even after adjusting for maldistribution of cases. Thus, we could not show a benefit for this dose schedule of Adriamycin as adjuvant treatment for uterine sarcomas.