BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer remains problematic, because chemotherapy and hormonal therapy have yielded low response rates and limited progression-free survival. Because the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated synergism in preclinical studies, the authors attempted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution, phase 2 study was performed in women with histologically documented International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV or recurrent endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at a dose of 35 mg/m2 were administered intravenously on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle; because of myelosuppression, the protocol was revised to gemcitabine at a dose of 900 mg/m2 and cisplatin at a dose of 30 mg/m2. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were enrolled and received a median of 5 courses of therapy (range, 1-9 courses). The median age at the time of study enrollment was 62 years (range, 41-75 years). Of 20 evaluable patients, 2 (10%) had a confirmed complete response, 8 (40%) had a partial response, 6 (30%) had stable disease, and 4 (20%) developed progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months (range, 2.3-33.6 months), and the median overall survival was 18.2 months (range, 2.5-49.4 months). The development of toxicity mandated dose reductions in 16 of 20 patients (80%). Eighteen patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxic effects (graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]). CONCLUSIONS: The objective response rate of 50% noted with gemcitabine and cisplatin combination chemotherapy merits the further development of this regimen in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer remains problematic, because chemotherapy and hormonal therapy have yielded low response rates and limited progression-free survival. Because the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated synergism in preclinical studies, the authors attempted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution, phase 2 study was performed in women with histologically documented International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV or recurrent endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at a dose of 35 mg/m2 were administered intravenously on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle; because of myelosuppression, the protocol was revised to gemcitabine at a dose of 900 mg/m2 and cisplatin at a dose of 30 mg/m2. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients were enrolled and received a median of 5 courses of therapy (range, 1-9 courses). The median age at the time of study enrollment was 62 years (range, 41-75 years). Of 20 evaluable patients, 2 (10%) had a confirmed complete response, 8 (40%) had a partial response, 6 (30%) had stable disease, and 4 (20%) developed progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months (range, 2.3-33.6 months), and the median overall survival was 18.2 months (range, 2.5-49.4 months). The development of toxicity mandated dose reductions in 16 of 20 patients (80%). Eighteen patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxic effects (graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]). CONCLUSIONS: The objective response rate of 50% noted with gemcitabine and cisplatin combination chemotherapy merits the further development of this regimen in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
Authors: F Cardenal; M P López-Cabrerizo; A Antón; V Alberola; B Massuti; A Carrato; I Barneto; M Lomas; M García; P Lianes; J Montalar; C Vadell; J L González-Larriba; B Nguyen; A Artal; R Rosell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcus E Randall; Virginia L Filiaci; Hyman Muss; Nick M Spirtos; Robert S Mannel; Jeffrey Fowler; J Tate Thigpen; Jo Ann Benda Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gregory A Masters; Athanassios E Argiris; Elizabeth A Hahn; J Thaddeus Beck; P Gregory Rausch; Zhishen Ye; Matthew J Monberg; Leslie P Bloss; Rafael E Curiel; Coleman K Obasaju Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Robert A Nagourney; Marshall Flam; John Link; Steven Hager; Jonathan Blitzer; William Lyons; Barbara L Sommers; Steven Evans Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Howard D Homesley; Nathan P Meltzer; Lucybeth Nieves; Luis Vaccarello; George S Lowendowski; Al A Elbendary Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-29 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: C J van Moorsel; H M Pinedo; G Veerman; A M Bergman; C M Kuiper; J B Vermorken; W J van der Vijgh; G J Peters Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Charles A Kunos; Tracy M Sherertz; Mazen Mislmani; Rodney J Ellis; Simon S Lo; Steven E Waggoner; Kristine M Zanotti; Karin Herrmann; Robert L Debernardo Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Tran N Le; Rachel E Harvey; Christine K Kim; Jubilee Brown; Robert L Coleman; Judith A Smith Journal: Gynecol Oncol Res Pract Date: 2017-11-14