PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the activity and toxicity of carboplatin (PPL) and ifosfamide (IFO) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer previously treated with cisplatin (CDDP)-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 1989 to December 1991, 35 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer relapsed or refractory to CDDP as first-line chemotherapy were treated. PPL was administered at a dose of 300 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1 and IFO at a dose of 1,500 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 3 every 3 to 4 weeks. Criteria for evaluating previous response to CDDP were strictly defined. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 43% (complete response [CR], 6%; partial response [PR], 37%) and the median duration of response was 7 months (range, 3 to 16). In potentially platinum-sensitive (PPS; relapsed) patients, the overall response rate was 56%. None of the primary platinum-resistant (PPR) patients obtained a clinical response to PPL plus IFO, whereas one of five secondary platinum-resistant (SPR) patients obtained a PR. The regimen was easily manageable. CONCLUSION: PPL plus IFO is useful and well-tolerated combination in salvage treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. However, clear synergism between PPL and IFO that could overcome intrinsic or acquired CDDP resistance was not observed. The advantage of PPL plus IFO as compared with CDDP-containing regimens is represented by the increased tolerability and the reduced neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and ototoxicity as compared with CDDP-containing regimens. It is essential that the patient population be defined according to their previous response to platinum therapy in trials involving second-line therapy of ovarian cancer.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the activity and toxicity of carboplatin (PPL) and ifosfamide (IFO) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer previously treated with cisplatin (CDDP)-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 1989 to December 1991, 35 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer relapsed or refractory to CDDP as first-line chemotherapy were treated. PPL was administered at a dose of 300 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1 and IFO at a dose of 1,500 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 3 every 3 to 4 weeks. Criteria for evaluating previous response to CDDP were strictly defined. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 43% (complete response [CR], 6%; partial response [PR], 37%) and the median duration of response was 7 months (range, 3 to 16). In potentially platinum-sensitive (PPS; relapsed) patients, the overall response rate was 56%. None of the primary platinum-resistant (PPR) patients obtained a clinical response to PPL plus IFO, whereas one of five secondary platinum-resistant (SPR) patients obtained a PR. The regimen was easily manageable. CONCLUSION:PPL plus IFO is useful and well-tolerated combination in salvage treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. However, clear synergism between PPL and IFO that could overcome intrinsic or acquired CDDP resistance was not observed. The advantage of PPL plus IFO as compared with CDDP-containing regimens is represented by the increased tolerability and the reduced neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and ototoxicity as compared with CDDP-containing regimens. It is essential that the patient population be defined according to their previous response to platinum therapy in trials involving second-line therapy of ovarian cancer.