Nida Jareemit1, Neil S Horowitz2, Donald P Goldstein2, Ross S Berkowitz2, Kevin M Elias3. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, Boston, MA, United States. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: kelias1@partners.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare experiences with EMA versus EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. METHODS: The medical records of women diagnosed with GTN at the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center from 1986 to 2019 were reviewed, and women receiving EMA or EMACO as their first multiagent regimen were eligible. Clinical characteristics, treatment, outcomes, and adverse events were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 44 and 39 patients who received EMA and EMACO, respectively. The complete remission rate was significantly higher in the EMA group (97.7%) than in the EMACO group (71.8%) (p = 0.001). However, patients receiving EMACO were more likely to have adverse prognostic factors such as higher median prognostic risk score (8 vs 4, p < 0.001), non-molar antecedent pregnancy (59 vs 27.3%, p = 0.014) and distant metastasis (64.1 vs 47.7%, p = 0.017). Time to complete remission was also similar (p = 0.947) with a median of 12 weeks with EMA and 13.1 weeks with EMACO. There was no significant difference in treatment delays or use of adjuvant surgery. After multivariate analysis, chemotherapy regimen (EMA or EMACO) did not retain prognostic significance for remission. Overall toxicities were more frequent in EMA (60.2 vs 32.7%, p < 0.001), especially neutropenia, but this did not delay treatment and likely resulted from less growth factor support (18.2 vs 48.7%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When controlling for other prognostic factors, outcomes with EMA appear similar to EMACO. It may be worthwhile to investigate whether EMA, a simpler and less costly regimen, may be as effective as EMACO in the treatment of GTN.
OBJECTIVE: To compare experiences with EMA versus EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. METHODS: The medical records of women diagnosed with GTN at the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center from 1986 to 2019 were reviewed, and women receiving EMA or EMACO as their first multiagent regimen were eligible. Clinical characteristics, treatment, outcomes, and adverse events were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 44 and 39 patients who received EMA and EMACO, respectively. The complete remission rate was significantly higher in the EMA group (97.7%) than in the EMACO group (71.8%) (p = 0.001). However, patients receiving EMACO were more likely to have adverse prognostic factors such as higher median prognostic risk score (8 vs 4, p < 0.001), non-molar antecedent pregnancy (59 vs 27.3%, p = 0.014) and distant metastasis (64.1 vs 47.7%, p = 0.017). Time to complete remission was also similar (p = 0.947) with a median of 12 weeks with EMA and 13.1 weeks with EMACO. There was no significant difference in treatment delays or use of adjuvant surgery. After multivariate analysis, chemotherapy regimen (EMA or EMACO) did not retain prognostic significance for remission. Overall toxicities were more frequent in EMA (60.2 vs 32.7%, p < 0.001), especially neutropenia, but this did not delay treatment and likely resulted from less growth factor support (18.2 vs 48.7%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When controlling for other prognostic factors, outcomes with EMA appear similar to EMACO. It may be worthwhile to investigate whether EMA, a simpler and less costly regimen, may be as effective as EMACO in the treatment of GTN.