Literature DB >> 15131031

Intraperitoneal cisplatin with intraperitoneal gemcitabine in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: results of a phase I/II Trial.

Paul Sabbatini1, Carol Aghajanian, Mario Leitao, Ennapadam Venkatraman, Sybil Anderson, Jakob Dupont, Don Dizon, Catherine O'Flaherty, Jeffrey Bloss, Dennis Chi, David Spriggs.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to determine the dose and schedule of i.p. cisplatin with i.p. gemcitabine in patients with persistent disease at second-look assessment, the toxicity of this regimen, and the time to treatment failure and overall survival. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: We performed a Phase I/II evaluation of i.p. cisplatin at 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 with planned gemcitabine at 500, 750, 1000, or 1250 mg/m(2) i.p. on days 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day schedule for four courses. Eligible patients completed surgical cytoreduction followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. They had second-look assessment showing microscopic or macroscopic (< or =1 cm) disease, followed by i.p. port placement.
RESULTS: The Phase I dose-limiting toxicity was grade 3 thrombocytopenia at day 15 on dose level 1 (n = 5). The protocol was amended, and the Phase II portion accrued to 30 patients, who were given i.p. cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and gemcitabine at 500 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 on a 21-day schedule for four courses. Nine patients were removed from the study: one each for hypersensitivity, cellulitis, and i.p. port malfunction; two for progression of disease; and four for renal toxicity. Other toxicities included grade 3 nausea (7%) and transient grade 3 neuropathy (3%). Grade 1 or 2 neuropathy was frequently seen (80%). Five patients (17%) returned to the operating room at a median of 6 months (range, 1-20 months) after i.p. therapy for evaluation of abdominal pain; two patients had recurrence, and all had areas of fibrous tissue with encasement of the bowel. In two patients, the fibrous tissue was causing partial bowel obstruction. No other patients had symptoms prompting surgical exploration. Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies showed a median area under the curve (AUC) i.p. of 3041 h. micro M (range, 676-5702 h. micro M) and AUC in plasma of 4.0 h. micro M (range, 0.92-8.2 h. micro M) reached between 120 and 240 min; the pharmacological advantage was 759-fold (range, 217-1415-fold) for i.p. versus plasma drug levels. The mean residence time of gemcitabine with i.p. administration was 4.7 h. The median time to progression of the intent to treat population was 15.93 months (95% confidence interval, 9.13-25.9 months), with a median overall survival of 43.5 months [95% confidence interval, (34.66- infinity)]. No statistical differences were seen with respect to overall survival if patients were grouped in terms of optimal debulking or not (median not reached versus 34.8 months, respectively; P = 0.16) or whether visible disease was present or not at the start of i.p. therapy (34.8 versus 47.7 months; P = 0.47). With regard to time to treatment failure, a statistical difference favored patients with optimal versus nonoptimal primary debulking (25.2 versus 10.2 months, respectively; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: The median time to treatment failure and overall survival of 15.9 months and 43.5 months, respectively, are consistent with our historical data in patients receiving i.p. platinum-based regimens for consolidation. The fibrotic changes seen in explored patients suggest local toxicity of this combination. The absolute benefit of i.p. consolidation requires randomized trials to assess efficacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15131031     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-03-0486

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  8 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intraperitoneal cancer chemotherapeutics.

Authors:  Csilla Hasovits; Stephen Clarke
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  HIPEC Methodology and Regimens: The Need for an Expert Consensus.

Authors:  Aditi Bhatt; Ignace de Hingh; Kurt Van Der Speeten; Martin Hubner; Marcello Deraco; Naoual Bakrin; Laurent Villeneuve; Shigeki Kusamura; Olivier Glehen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Feasibility of intravenous gemcitabine and an intraperitoneal platinum agent in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  R L Giuntoli; R E Bristow; T P Diaz-Montes; D K Armstrong
Journal:  J Chemother       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.714

4.  Hyperthermic intra-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy as an adjuvant to pancreatic cancer resection.

Authors:  Antonios-Apostolos K Tentes
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2021-04

5.  Intraperitoneal gemcitabine chemotherapy treatment for patients with resected pancreatic cancer: rationale and report of early data.

Authors:  Paul H Sugarbaker; O Anthony Stuart; Lana Bijelic
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-12-12

6.  Pharmacokinetics of the perioperative use of cancer chemotherapy in peritoneal surface malignancy patients.

Authors:  K Van der Speeten; K Govaerts; O A Stuart; P H Sugarbaker
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 2.260

7.  Preliminary results of hyperthermic intraperitoneal intraoperative chemotherapy as an adjuvant in resectable pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Antonios-Apostolos K Tentes; Dimitrios Kyziridis; Stylianos Kakolyris; Nicolaos Pallas; Georgios Zorbas; Odysseas Korakianitis; Christos Mavroudis; Nicolaos Courcoutsakis; Panos Prasopoulos
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 2.260

Review 8.  Pain in Platin-Induced Neuropathies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Vasiliki Brozou; Athina Vadalouca; Panagiotis Zis
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2017-12-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.