Phase III Randomized Study of Cisplatin Versus Paclitaxel Versus Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Suboptimal Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

Franco M. Muggia(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Patricia S. Braly(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Mark F. Brady(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Gregory P. Sutton(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Theodore H. Niemann(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Samuel L. Lentz(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Ronald D. Alvarez(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Paul R. Kucera(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), James M. Small(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
January 1, 2000
Cited by 619

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined. RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis