BACKGROUND: Nedaplatin, a platinum analog with less renal toxicity and similar efficacy for cervical carcinoma, recently has been shown to have a synergistic effect on cervical carcinoma lines in combination with cisplatin. To determine the clinical efficacy of this combination in patients with cervical carcinoma, the authors conducted a Phase I/II study of intravenous nedaplatin and intraarterial cisplatin combined with transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). METHODS: Eligibility criteria were as follows: cervical carcinoma (Stages IB2-IV; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics), 16-70 years of age, performance status between 0 and 2, and adequate bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function. Nedaplatin (40-70 mg/m2) was administered intravenously on Day 1 followed by intraarterial administration of cisplatin (70 mg/m2) on Day 3 via both uterine arteries by using the Seldinger method. This then was followed by TAE. This course of treatment was repeated every 3 weeks for 3 cycles. RESULTS: Patient data were as follows: age 37-68 (median, 55 years) and Stages IB2:4, IIA:3, IIB:2, IIIA:1, IIIB:3, IVA:2 carcinoma. The response to therapy was defined by magnetic resonance imaging as follows: partial response in 60% (9 of 15) of patients, complete response in 40% (6 of 15) of patients, and an overall response rate of 100% (95% confidence interval, 78-100%). Myelosuppression was manageable. Grade 3/4 renal toxicity was observed in 2 patients who received 70 mg/m2 of nedaplatin. Thirteen patients received radical hysterectomy, 1 patient received lymph node sampling, and 11 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerable dose was 70 mg/m2 nedaplatin, and the dose-limiting toxicity was renal toxicity. The recommended dose was 60 mg/m2 nedaplatin intravenously followed by 70 mg/m2 cisplatin intraarterially. Intravenous nedaplatin followed by intraarterial cisplatin with TAE appears to be very effective for locally advanced cervical carcinoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adachi et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: