In an effort to use antineoplastic drug combinations which are active in platinum resistant ovarian cancer or which can induce a second response after a platinum first-line treatment, we conducted a study on 30 ovarian cancer patients previously treated with carboplatin plus cyclophosphamide who were given ifosfamide 5 g/m2 i.v. divided over days 1 to 3 plus mesma combined with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 i.v. divided over days 1 to 3 every 4 weeks as second-line treatment. Eight patients had never entered remission with first-line chemotherapy while 22 patients had tumor recurrence within 6 to 18 months after the end of chemotherapy and their tumors were considered potentially platinum sensitive. Responding patients received 6 courses while palliative treatment for nonresponders was provided. Of the 22 patients with tumor recurrence, 8 patients responded with one partial response (PR) and 7 complete clinical responses (CCR). Two out of the 8 patients with platinum resistant disease demonstrated short lasting PR. Seven patients with CCR underwent second-look operation and in two a pathological CR was documented. Median time to progression was 6 mo (4-12). The median overall survival was 12 mo (4-20). Myelotoxicity despite G-CSF administration was significant with grade 4 leukopenia in 40% and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 20% of patients. Central nervous system (CNS) toxicity was significant with 30% somnolence, 20% disorientation and an episode of grand-mal epilepsy ascribed to ifosfamide. With a 33% response rate the combination is as effective as new agents employed in relapsed ovarian cancer. Platinum-refractory disease may respond to a lesser degree. The most important determinant of response was the progression-free interval from first-line chemotherapy. Whether patients recurring after carboplatin plus cyclophosphamide have a greater chance to respond to cisplatin plus ifosfamide or vice-versa cannot be supported by the current data and therefore randomized studies should be performed to this end.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polyzos et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: