P Terheyden1, E B Bröcker, J C Becker. 1. Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Department of Dermatology, Josef-Schneider-Strasse 2, Building 13, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Results from in vitro chemosensitivity testing recommend treosulfan/gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV uveal melanoma. METHODS: Twenty patients received treosulfan 3,500 mg/m2 followed by gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 repeated on day 29. In cases of prior chemotherapy only 75% of these dosages were used. RESULTS: Without any patient achieving an objective response, 25% of patients (95% confidence interval, 8.6-49.1%) had stabilisation of disease. This stabilisation was associated with a prolonged median overall survival of 17 months compared with 7 months for the patients with progressive disease. First-line treatment was not associated with better response or survival although prognostic parameters did not significantly differ from that of other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results are disappointing and question the value of individualized chemotherapy based on in vitro assays.
PURPOSE: Results from in vitro chemosensitivity testing recommend treosulfan/gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV uveal melanoma. METHODS: Twenty patients received treosulfan 3,500 mg/m2 followed by gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 repeated on day 29. In cases of prior chemotherapy only 75% of these dosages were used. RESULTS: Without any patient achieving an objective response, 25% of patients (95% confidence interval, 8.6-49.1%) had stabilisation of disease. This stabilisation was associated with a prolonged median overall survival of 17 months compared with 7 months for the patients with progressive disease. First-line treatment was not associated with better response or survival although prognostic parameters did not significantly differ from that of other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results are disappointing and question the value of individualized chemotherapy based on in vitro assays.
Authors: G J Kaspers; A J Veerman; R Pieters; C H Van Zantwijk; L A Smets; E R Van Wering; A Van Der Does-Van Den Berg Journal: Blood Date: 1997-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S Leyvraz; V Spataro; J Bauer; S Pampallona; R Salmon; T Dorval; R Meuli; M Gillet; F Lejeune; L Zografos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claudia Pföhler; Ian A Cree; Selma Ugurel; Christoph Kuwert; Nikolas Haass; Karsten Neuber; Ulrich Hengge; Pippa G Corrie; Markus Zutt; Wolfgang Tilgen; Uwe Reinhold Journal: Anticancer Drugs Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: A Y Bedikian; S S Legha; G Mavligit; C H Carrasco; S Khorana; C Plager; N Papadopoulos; R S Benjamin Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Oleg Schmidt-Kittler; Thomas Ragg; Angela Daskalakis; Martin Granzow; Andre Ahr; Thomas J F Blankenstein; Manfred Kaufmann; Joachim Diebold; Hans Arnholdt; Peter Muller; Joachim Bischoff; Detlev Harich; Gunter Schlimok; Gert Riethmuller; Roland Eils; Christoph A Klein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J C Becker; P Terheyden; E Kämpgen; S Wagner; C Neumann; D Schadendorf; A Steinmann; G Wittenberg; W Lieb; E-B Bröcker Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-10-07 Impact factor: 7.640