BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-5, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 1, actinomycin D 0.6 mg/m(2) day 2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 4, EMACP) was compared to EMA/CO (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-2, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1 and actinomycin D 0.5 mg i.v. bolus day 1 and 0.5 mg/m(2) day 2, alternating with cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 8 and vincristine 1 mg/m(2) day 8) for the treatment of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Netherlands, 83 patients were treated with EMACP and 103 patients with EMA/CO. Outcome measures were remission rate, median number of courses to achieve normal human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) concentrations, toxicity, recurrent disease rate and disease specific survival. RESULTS: Remission rates were similar (EMACP 91.6%, EMA/CO 85.4%). The median number of courses of EMA/CO to reach hCG normalisation for single-agent resistant disease and primary high-risk disease was three and five courses, respectively, compared to 1.5 (p=0.001) and three (p<0.001) courses of EMACP. Patients treated with EMACP more often developed fever, renal toxicity, nausea and diarrhoea compared to patients treated with EMA/CO. Patients treated with EMA/CO more often had anaemia, neuropathy and hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSION: EMACP combination chemotherapy is an effective treatment for high-risk GTN, with a remission rate comparable to EMA/CO. However, the difference in duration of treatment is only slightly shorter with EMACP. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the form of EMACP in this study was not proven more effective than EMA/CO.
BACKGROUND:Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-5, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 1, actinomycin D 0.6 mg/m(2) day 2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 4, EMACP) was compared to EMA/CO (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-2, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1 and actinomycin D 0.5 mg i.v. bolus day 1 and 0.5 mg/m(2) day 2, alternating with cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 8 and vincristine 1 mg/m(2) day 8) for the treatment of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Netherlands, 83 patients were treated with EMACP and 103 patients with EMA/CO. Outcome measures were remission rate, median number of courses to achieve normal humanchorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) concentrations, toxicity, recurrent disease rate and disease specific survival. RESULTS: Remission rates were similar (EMACP 91.6%, EMA/CO 85.4%). The median number of courses of EMA/CO to reach hCG normalisation for single-agent resistant disease and primary high-risk disease was three and five courses, respectively, compared to 1.5 (p=0.001) and three (p<0.001) courses of EMACP. Patients treated with EMACP more often developed fever, renal toxicity, nausea and diarrhoea compared to patients treated with EMA/CO. Patients treated with EMA/CO more often had anaemia, neuropathy and hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSION:EMACP combination chemotherapy is an effective treatment for high-risk GTN, with a remission rate comparable to EMA/CO. However, the difference in duration of treatment is only slightly shorter with EMACP. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the form of EMACP in this study was not proven more effective than EMA/CO.