AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To investigate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel and cisplatin regimen in a selected group of metastatic breast cancer patients with primary or acquired chemo-resistance to anthracycline-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive women with metastatic breast cancer (PS < or =2) were entered in this phase II trial; all patients had been previously treated for metastatic disease with chemotherapy containing anthracyclines and had shown a progression of the disease during drug administration or after a clinical response lasting less than 6 months. Fifteen patients had received 2 or more chemotherapeutic regimens for advanced disease; 31 patients had > or =2 sites of metastatic disease. Paclitaxel (135 mg/m2) was administered iv by a 3-hr infusion followed by iv infusion of cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. After the completion of the planned chemotherapy administration, 9 responsive patients continued to receive paclitaxel alone (175 mg/m2) iv, on day 1, every 3 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: A partial clinical response was recorded in 17 cases (45%; 95% CI, 30-64%). The median duration of overall response was 8 months; for the 9 responsive patients who continued treatment with paclitaxel alone, 4 had maintained the partial clinical response at the median follow-up of 24 months from the onset of therapy. The median time to progression was 6 months and median overall survival 8 months. Neurotoxicity was the most frequent adverse effect and caused treatment discontinuation in 5 cases for grade 3-4 paresthesia and/or an arthralgia/myalgia syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 16 patients (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel/cisplatin is an active regimen for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy. However, the cumulative neurotoxicity should limit the efficacy of prolonged paclitaxel monotherapy in responsive patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosati et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: