Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.153 on July 14 2003
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 21, Issue 17
(September), 2003: 3194-3200
© 2003 American Society for Clinical Oncology
Phase III Trial of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Compared With Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Optimally Resected Stage III Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study
Robert F. Ozols,
Brian N. Bundy,
Benjamin E. Greer,
Jeffrey M. Fowler,
Daniel Clarke-Pearson,
Robert A. Burger,
Robert S. Mannel,
Koen DeGeest,
Ellen M. Hartenbach,
Rebecca Baergen
From Medical Science Department, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Department of Pathology, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Gynecologic Oncology and Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (affiliate of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX).
Address reprint requests to Denise Mackey, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Four Penn Center, 1600 JFK Blvd, Suite 1020, Philadelphia, PA 19103; e-mail: dmackey{at}gog.org.
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Purpose: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population.
Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II).
Results: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02).
Conclusion: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
IN THE United States, standard therapy for women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer has developed from a series of randomized trials performed primarily by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG). In 1996, this group reported the results of a randomized comparison of cisplatin and cyclophosphamide versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated advanced stage III and IV disease.1 The cisplatin plus paclitaxel regimen was judged superior on the basis of the following results of that trial: an overall improved response rate (73% v 60%; P = .01); an increased clinical complete response rate (54% v 32%); an increase in progression-free survival (PFS; 18.1 v 13.6 months; P < .001); and, most importantly, an increased overall median survival (38 v 24 months; P < .001). The results of this study were subsequently confirmed by a European-Canadian trial in patients with stage IIB through IV epithelial ovarian cancer who were similarly randomly assigned to a cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide regimen versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel.2 In the latter study, cisplatin was combined with paclitaxel administered as a 3-hour infusion, whereas in the GOG trial, paclitaxel was administered as a 24-hour infusion. Furthermore, in the GOG protocol, only suboptimal stage III and IV patients were included (residual masses > 1.0 cm after initial surgery) and there was minimal cross-over to paclitaxel in patients who were initially randomly assigned to receive cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide. Despite these differences in protocol design, both studies demonstrated superiority of initial treatment with cisplatin plus paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated advanced ovarian cancer.
Carboplatin, an analog of cisplatin, has less nonhematologic toxicity than the parent compound. Most randomized trials have reported comparable activity between cisplatin and carboplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced ovarian cancer.3,4 However, some investigators questioned whether this analog demonstrated equal efficacy in patients with small-volume stage III disease (no tumor nodule > 1.0 cm after initial surgery). An International Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference in 1993 recommended that carboplatin should not routinely replace cisplatin in patients with potentially curable small-volume stage III disease.5
On the basis of these considerations, a phase I study combining carboplatin and paclitaxel was conducted in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage ovarian cancer.6 Initially, cohorts of patients received paclitaxel at 135 mg/m2 as a 24-hour infusion, with individual groups of patients receiving carboplatin escalated from an area under the curve (AUC) of 5.0 to 7.5 to 10.0 mg/mL/min. The maximum-tolerated dose was determined to be paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 in a 24-hour infusion followed by carboplatin at an AUC of 7.5. With multiple cycles of treatment, cumulative granulocytopenia developed and most patients required the addition of colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) to maintain dose. This phase I study was subsequently amended on the basis of results of a European-Canadian trial that compared 3- v 24-hour infusions of paclitaxel.7 In that trial, patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (previously untreated for recurrence) were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 factorial trial design to receive either a 3- or 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel at a dose of either 135 or 175 mg/m2. This trial demonstrated that paclitaxel could safely be administered in a 3-hour schedule with premedication, and that there was significantly less myelosuppression with 3- v 24-hour infusion. Furthermore, the efficacy of the 3-hour infusion was comparable to that observed with the 24-hour infusion.7
Consequently, in the GOG pilot protocol, additional groups of patients received carboplatin at an AUC of 7.5 in combination with a 3-hour paclitaxel infusion that was escalated from 175 to 225 mg/m2.6 In this phase I trial, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours followed by carboplatin at an AUC of 7.5 over 30 minutes was identified as the dose and schedule for phase II and phase III trials on the basis of acceptable hematologic toxicity without the need for G-CSF. At this dose level, there were no hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia and no platelet transfusions were required. With the exception of paclitaxel-induced alopecia, there was minimal nonhematologic toxicity reported. Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon and did not exceed grade 2. The most common toxicity was nausea and vomiting, which was easily managed with antiemetics.
The combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel was found to be an active regimen. In 24 patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 75%, including complete responses in 67% of patients. On the basis of the results of the pilot study, GOG Protocol 158 was designed as a noninferiority study to compare the efficacy and toxicity of carboplatin plus paclitaxel with cisplatin plus paclitaxel, which at that time, was the GOG standard treatment regimen for patients with small-volume stage III disease.
|
PATIENTS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Women with pathologically verified stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (borderline tumors were excluded) underwent a staging laparotomy with cytoreduction. Those who were left with no residual disease greater than 1.0 cm in diameter were eligible for the study. Eligibility criteria also included no previous chemotherapy, a GOG performance status of 0 to 2, WBC at least 3,000/µL, platelets at least 100,000/µL, serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dL or less, and serum bilirubin and AST values of no more than 2 x the institutional upper level of normal. Patients provided written informed consent consistent with all federal, state, and local requirements and must have entered onto the study within 6 weeks of laparotomy. They could not have had previous chemotherapy or radiation for ovarian cancer, nor any previous cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer. Pathologic material was centrally reviewed by the GOG Pathology Committee. Each patient case was also reviewed for adequacy of initial surgical procedure, and all of the operative and pathology reports were reviewed to verify eligibility.
On study entry, patients underwent a history, physical examination, and laboratory procedures. Because eligibility disallowed tumor nodules more than 1.0 cm after the initial laparotomy, imaging procedures were not required until completion of six cycles of therapy.
Women in the standard therapy group were to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 intravenously at 1 mg/min and paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 intravenously as a 24-hour continuous infusion every 3 weeks for a total of six courses. Patients in the experimental group received carboplatin at an AUC of 7.5 mg/mL/min and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 as a 3-hour infusion. The carboplatin dose in milligrams was based on the Calvert formula8: dose in milligrams = target AUC x [glomerular filtration rate (GFR) + 25]. Creatinine clearance was substituted for GFR and was calculated using the Jelliffe9 formula on the basis of the patient’s weight, age, and serum creatinine level. Premedication consisted of dexamethasone 20 mg orally 12 and 6 hours before the infusion or 20 mg intravenously 30 minutes before the paclitaxel infusion.10 Both diphenhydramine 50 mg and cimetidine 300 mg were administered intravenously 30 minutes before the paclitaxel infusion.
Adverse effects were graded according to standard GOG toxicity criteria. Patients must have had an absolute neutrophil count  1,000/µL and platelets more than 100,000/µL before receiving the next course of therapy. Treatment modifications included cycle delay, dose reduction, and the addition of G-CSF (in that sequence). There was no dose modification for uncomplicated nadirs. Patients who required a delay of 2 weeks or less received no dose modification from the previous cycle and G-CSF was not instituted. Those who required a delay of greater than 2 but no more than 3 weeks received modified doses. If patients in the latter group experienced recurrent delays of more than 2 weeks or developed febrile neutropenia during subsequent cycles, G-CSF was added at a dose of 5 µg/kg/d beginning 24 hours after the completion of chemotherapy and continuing for 14 days without further modification to chemotherapy doses. Cycles were not delayed for any gastrointestinal toxicity, grade 1 to 2 peripheral neuropathy, or mild renal toxicity (serum creatinine  2 mg/dL or creatinine clearance 50 mL/min). More severe neurologic or renal toxicity that had not resolved before the next scheduled dose necessitated discontinuation of protocol therapy, but follow-up was continued.
At the time of random assignment to treatment arm, the decision to undergo or not undergo second-look laparotomy at the completion of chemotherapy (provided patients met the criteria for surgery) was made. In women who underwent reassessment laparotomy, pathologic response was determined and defined according to one of the following three categories: complete response, partial response with microscopic disease only, or persistent disease.
The GOG Statistical and Data Center randomly assigned the treatment regimen employing a fixed block with an equal number of each regimen after stratification on the amount of residual disease (microscopic or macroscopic) after initial laparotomy and the option of whether a second-look laparotomy was planned after treatment was completed. A sample size of 720 patients was set, with an estimated 3 years (6 years for survival) of follow-up, to observe 382 recurrences (382 deaths for survival) before testing the noninferiority hypothesis: Does carboplatin plus paclitaxel decrease recurrence-free survival when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel in patients with small-volume stage III ovarian cancer? This was a one-sided test with the probability of a type I and type II error both set at .1 for a hazard ratio (carboplatin plus paclitaxel compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel) of 1.3. These operating characteristics were selected because of the importance of detecting a moderate-sized loss in efficacy with the use of carboplatin plus paclitaxel. A hazard ratio of 1.25 would be detectable with 80% power given the sample size goal.
Overall survival (OS) and PFS were measured from the date of random assignment to treatment. The duration of OS was measured up to the date of death or, for patients still alive, the date of last contact. The duration of PFS was the minimum amount of time until clinical progression, death, or date of last contact. All eligible patients were included in the analysis of OS and PFS (intent-to-treat principle for eligible patients). All causes of death were used to calculate survival, and the estimates of the cumulative proportions of survival were based on Kaplan-Meier procedures.11 Relative risk (RR) estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) of treatment effects on failure and death while adjusting for prognostic factors was accomplished using the Cox model.12
Only eligible women who received at least one course of treatment were included in the assessment of toxicity. The Kruskal-Wallis rank test adjusted for ties was used to test the independence of severity of toxicity (grade 0 to 4) to the assigned treatment.13
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Eight hundred forty patients entered onto the trial. Forty-eight women, equally distributed between the two treatment groups, were deemed ineligible for the following reasons: wrong stage (14 patients); borderline tumor or not invasive carcinoma (11 patients); inadequate surgery (10 patients); and various pathologic exclusions (eg, wrong cell type) on central pathology review (13 patients). The remaining 792 eligible patients with small-volume stage III disease were randomly assigned to either cisplatin plus paclitaxel or to carboplatin plus paclitaxel. The two groups were balanced for several prognostic factors (Table 1 ). Slightly more nonwhite (16% v 12%) and patients with serous adenocarcinomas tumors (74% v 70%) were randomly assigned to the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group. Sixty-five percent of patients had gross residual disease, whereas the remaining patients had no residual or microscopic disease after the initial laparotomy.
Table 2 summarizes the number of cycles by treatment and Table 3 summarizes the average dose of chemotherapy received per cycle. Eighty-five percent of patients completed six cycles of the cisplatin regimen compared with 87% of those completing the carboplatin regimen. In patients randomly assigned to arm I, the median (average dose per cycle) dose of cisplatin and paclitaxel was 74.1 and 133 mg/m2, respectively. Among patients randomly assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel, the median AUC was 7.4 and dose was 175 mg/m2, respectively.
Grade 3 to 4 adverse effects are listed in Table 4. Patients treated with the cisplatin regimen experienced more (statistically significant) leukopenia, gastrointestinal, renal (genitourinary), and metabolic (hypomagnesemia or abnormal electrolytes) toxicities than did those treated with carboplatin. Patients treated with the carboplatin regimen experienced more (statistically significant) grade 2 to 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 1 to 2 pain. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in the majority of women on this trial, but its consequences were manageable, with few patients having documented infection or requiring hospitalization. Regarding thrombocytopenia, there were no reports of clinically significant bleeding or the need for platelet transfusion. Grade 2 to 4 neurologic toxicity (primarily peripheral neuropathy) occurred with similar frequency; 31% in the cisplatin arm and 28% in the carboplatin arm.
Inasmuch as the protocol included only patients with small-volume stage III disease, eligible patients did not have measurable disease. A second-look laparotomy to assess disease status after six cycles of chemotherapy was not mandatory, and surgically confirmed negative second-look frequency was not a statistical end point of this study. However, it was required that the decision regarding whether a patient would undergo second-look laparotomy after six cycles of chemotherapy be made at the time of registration. Three hundred ninety-three (50%) patients elected second-look surgery and results are summarized in Table 5. Of the 325 patients who either underwent surgical restaging or had clinically determined progressive disease before the restaging procedure could be performed, there were 160 (50%) negative second-look laparotomies.
Two hundred eighty-five (73%) patients treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel have experienced a recurrence of disease compared with 303 (76%) treated with cisplatin and paclitaxel. Figure 1 displays PFS, which includes 25 deaths that occurred without prior documented recurrence. Ninety percent of patients have been observed for at least 48 months or have died. Median PFS in the carboplatin group is 20.7 months compared with 19.4 months for the cisplatin group (not significant). The RR of treatment failure is 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03) when comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel with cisplatin plus paclitaxel. Figure 2 compares the PFS by treatment group stratified by whether the patient had any gross residual disease after surgery. The RR of treatment failure for carboplatin plus paclitaxel to cisplatin plus paclitaxel is 0.89 and 0.85 in patients with gross residual disease and those with microscopic or no residual disease, respectively.
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 2. Progression-free survival by treatment group and microscopic (Micro) or gross residual disease (Res. Dis.). Treat., treatment; Carbop, carboplatin; Cisp, cisplatin.
|
|
Two hundred seven patients (53%) treated with carboplatin plus paclitaxel have died compared with 230 patients (58%) treated with cisplatin plus paclitaxel. Median survival is 57.4 months for carboplatin plus paclitaxel versus 48.7 months for cisplatin plus paclitaxel (Fig 3). The RR is 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). Figure 4 compares survival between patients with macroscopic residual disease and patients with no (or microscopic) disease by treatment group. The RR estimates for treatment within the residual disease categories are the same.
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 4. Observed survival by treatment group, and microscopic (Micro) or gross residual disease (Res. Dis.). Treat., treatment; Carbop, carboplatin; Cisp, cisplatin.
|
|
Figure 5 compares survival from time of recurrence by treatment. Median survival after recurrence is 23 months, and in this exploratory subset analysis there does not appear to be any difference between treatments. Recurrence is associated with a poor prognosis and long-term survival (> 60 months) is infrequent, without any evidence for a plateau.
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
The results of this study demonstrate that the combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel is not inferior to cisplatin plus paclitaxel with regard to PFS and survival in patients with small-volume stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. The RR of failure is 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03). The RR of death is 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). This study was designed as a noninferiority trial and the results essentially exclude the possibility that the carboplatin regimen is inferior to the cisplatin regimen. This trial was not designed to determine whether the carboplatin regimen was superior to the cisplatin regimen. Nonetheless, the 16% reduced risk of death is of interest because it is suggestive that carboplatin may provide a slight increase in efficacy over cisplatin. The dose of carboplatin (AUC 7.5) in this trial may result in more platinum exposure than the cisplatin dose (75 mg/m2). However, previous trials have failed to show a benefit for increasing doses of carboplatin (either as a single agent or in combination with cyclophosphamide).14,15 It is possible that a pharmacodynamic interaction exists between carboplatin plus paclitaxel, resulting in a better outcome when higher doses of carboplatin are used in combination with paclitaxel.
It is unlikely that a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel (as used in combination with carboplatin) is superior to a 24-hour infusion (as used in combination with cisplatin) because previous randomized trials have not demonstrated a significant difference in outcomes with different schedules of administration.7 However, to identify the potential role of carboplatin AUC 7.5 versus any lower dose of carboplatin would require a prospective randomized trial that compares two different doses of carboplatin in combination with the same dose and schedule of paclitaxel.
Two other prospective randomized trials have been performed comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In the Danish-Netherlands Trial,16 there was an insufficient number of patients to determine a statistical equivalency, whereas in the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologie trial from Germany,17 800 patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to similar regimens. Investigators reported no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two treatment groups. However, in the German study, the cisplatin plus paclitaxel regimen used paclitaxel 185 mg/m2 as a 3-hour infusion instead of 135 mg/m2 as a 24-hour infusion as used by the GOG in its combination trial with cisplatin. In addition, the carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimen used a slightly lower dose of carboplatin (AUC 6.0 versus 7.5) and a higher dose of 3-hour paclitaxel (185 instead of 175 mg/m2). Both European trials included patients with stage II to IV disease.
In contrast, GOG Protocol 158 was confined to patients with small-volume stage III disease, and it is within this group of patients that a decrease in efficacy could have the greatest potential influence on survival. The GOG trial fails to support the hypothesis that carboplatin is inferior to cisplatin in patients with small-volume stage III ovarian cancer. Similarly, concerns had been raised regarding the relative efficacy of a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel versus prolonged infusions1 on the basis of in vitro toxicity data that demonstrated increased cell kill with prolonged exposure to paclitaxel.18 The results of this trial, however, failed to support the contention that a 3-hour infusion is less efficacious than a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel in patients with small-volume stage III ovarian cancer when used in combination with a platinum compound.
The carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimen was also associated with less gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicity (Table 4 ). The difference in toxicity relates primarily to increased nephrotoxicity caused by cisplatin and to its emetogenic effects. Of note in this study is that there was no difference reported for neurotoxicity at the completion of six cycles of treatment. Both European studies16,17 have reported less neurotoxicity with the carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimen when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel. However, in those studies, cisplatin was combined with a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel, which is a schedule that shows a high degree of neurotoxicity.2 Furthermore, the outpatient carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimen is easier to administer than is the cisplatin plus paclitaxel regimen, for which most patients are hospitalized for a 24-hour paclitaxel infusion. On the basis of at least equal activity with regard to PFS and OS, and a more favorable toxicity profile, carboplatin plus paclitaxel is considered the preferred regimen for patients with small-volume stage III ovarian cancer.
Although this study has demonstrated that carboplatin plus paclitaxel is the current treatment of choice for patients with small-volume stage III disease, the results also emphasize the need for more effective therapy. More than 70% of patients have experienced disease recurrence, with a median time to progression of less than 2 years. Median survival after progression is less than 2 years, and median survival from time of diagnosis is between 4 and 5 years. This indicates that treatment after progression, although not curative, may extend survival.
The GOG, in cooperation with investigators from Europe and Asia, is performing a five-arm randomized trial comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel to new three-drug combinations (carboplatin plus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, or carboplatin plus paclitaxel plus encapsulated doxorubicin) and sequential doublets (carboplatin and topotecan followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel, or carboplatin and gemcitabine followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel).19 Until that trial is completed, the standard therapy for ovarian cancer in the GOG continues to be the two-drug combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
|
APPENDIX
|
|---|
The following member institutions participated in this study: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Duke University Medical Center, Abington Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Wayne State University, University of Minnesota Medical School, Emory University Clinic, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Colorado Gynecologic Oncology Group PC, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Georgetown University Hospital, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Indiana University Medical Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Albany Medical College, University of California Medical Center at Irvine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke’s Medical Center, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Community Clinical Oncology Program, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, SUNY at Stony Brook, Eastern Pennsylvania GYN/ONC Center PC, Washington University School of Medicine, Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, Columbus Cancer Council, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Women’s Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia, University of Chicago, Tacoma General Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Case Western Reserve University, Tampa Bay Cancer Consortium, North Shore University Hospital, and Brookview Research Inc.
|
NOTES
|
|---|
Supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group Administrative Office (CA 27469) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical Office (CA 37517).
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
1. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al: Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 334:1–6, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Piccart MJ, Bertelsen K, James K, et al: Randomized intergroup trial of cisplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Three-year results. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:699–708, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Aabo K, Adams M, Adnitt P, et al: Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: Four systematic meta-analyses of individual patient data from 37 randomized trials. Br J Cancer 78:1479–1487, 1998[Medline]
4. Go RS, Adjei AA: Review of the comparative pharmacology and clinical activity of cisplatin and carboplatin. J Clin Oncol 17:409–422, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Vermorken JB, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Eisenhauer EA, et al: Carboplatin versus cisplatin. Ann Oncol 4:S41–S48, 1993[Abstract]
6. Bookman MA, McGuire WP, Kilpatrick D, et al: Carboplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian carcinoma: A phase I study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 14:1895–1902, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Eisenhauer EA, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Swenerton KD, et al: European-Canadian randomized trial of paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian cancer: High-dose versus low-dose and long versus short infusion. J Clin Oncol 12:2654–2666, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al: Carboplatin dosage: Prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol 7:1748–1756, 1989[Abstract]
9. Jelliffe RW: Creatinine clearance: Bedside estimate. Ann Intern Med 79:604–605, 1973[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Bookman MA, Kloth DD, Kover PE, et al: Short-course intravenous prophylaxis for paclitaxel-related hypersensitivity reactions. Ann Oncol 8:611–614, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. McGuire WP: Taxol: A new drug with significant activity as a salvage therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 51:78–85, 1993[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Cox DR: Regression model and life tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B34:187–219, 1972
13. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA: Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621, 1952[CrossRef]
14. Jakobsen A, Bertelson K, Anderson JE, et al: Dose-effect study of carboplatin in ovarian cancer: A Danish Ovarian Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 15:193–198, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Gore M, Mainwaring P, A’Hern R, et al: Randomized trial of dose-intensity with single-agent carboplatin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2426–2434, 1998[Abstract]
16. Neijt JP, Engelholm SA, Tuxen MK, et al: Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3084–3092, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. du Bois A, Lück HJ, Meier W, et al: Cisplatin/paclitaxel vs. carboplatin/paclitaxel in ovarian cancer: Update of an Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäekologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group Trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:356a, 1999 (abstr 1374)
18. Liebmann JE, Cook JA, Lipschultz C, et al: Cytotoxic studies of paclitaxel (Taxol) in human tumour cell lines. Br J Cancer 68:1104–1109, 1993[Medline]
19. Bookman M: Developmental chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: Incorporation of newer cytotoxic agents in a phase III randomized trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG-0182). Semin Oncol 29:20–31, 2002[Medline]
Submitted February 27, 2003;
accepted June 4, 2003.
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
S. Pecorelli, G. Favalli, A. Gadducci, D. Katsaros, P. B. Panici, A. Carpi, G. Scambia, M. Ballardini, O. Nanni, and P. Conte
Phase III Trial of Observation Versus Six Courses of Paclitaxel in Patients With Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Complete Response After Six Courses of Paclitaxel/Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: Final Results of the After-6 Protocol 1
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2009;
27(28):
4642 - 4648.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. WEBER, A. LORTHOLARY, F. MAYER, H. BOURGEOIS, H. ORFEUVRE, M. COMBE, C. PLATINI, J. CRETIN, D. FRIC, D. PARAISO, et al.
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin and Carboplatin in Late-relapsing Ovarian Cancer: A GINECO Group Phase II Trial
Anticancer Res,
October 1, 2009;
29(10):
4195 - 4200.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mabuchi, C. Kawase, D. A. Altomare, K. Morishige, K. Sawada, M. Hayashi, M. Tsujimoto, M. Yamoto, A. J. Klein-Szanto, R. J. Schilder, et al.
mTOR Is a Promising Therapeutic Target Both in Cisplatin-Sensitive and Cisplatin-Resistant Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 1, 2009;
15(17):
5404 - 5413.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Lundvall, F. Jensen, H. Roed, C. Ottosen, C. Ewertsen, and B. M. Henriksen
Vaginal rupture caused by transvaginal ultrasonography in follow-up for ovarian cancer
BMJ Case Reports,
August 13, 2009;
2009(aug13_1):
bcr0520091860 - bcr0520091860.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Xie, J. L. Hsu, M.-G. Choi, W. Xia, H. Yamaguchi, C.-T. Chen, B. Q. Trinh, Z. Lu, N. T. Ueno, J. K. Wolf, et al.
A novel hTERT promoter-driven E1A therapeutic for ovarian cancer
Mol. Cancer Ther.,
August 1, 2009;
8(8):
2375 - 2382.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. G. ZEIMET, D. REIMER, A. C. RADL, A. REINTHALLER, C. SCHAUER, E. PETRU, N. CONCIN, S. BRAUN, and C. MARTH
Pros and Cons of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Anticancer Res,
July 1, 2009;
29(7):
2803 - 2808.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. W. Helm
The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Ovarian Cancer
Oncologist,
July 1, 2009;
14(7):
683 - 694.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Aebi, M. Castiglione, and On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group
Newly and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2009;
20(suppl_4):
iv21 - iv23.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Berchuck, E. S. Iversen, J. Luo, J. P. Clarke, H. Horne, D. A. Levine, J. Boyd, M. A. Alonso, A. A. Secord, M. Q. Bernardini, et al.
Microarray Analysis of Early Stage Serous Ovarian Cancers Shows Profiles Predictive of Favorable Outcome
Clin. Cancer Res.,
April 1, 2009;
15(7):
2448 - 2455.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Teneriello, P. C. Tseng, M. Crozier, C. Encarnacion, K. Hancock, M. J. Messing, K. A. Boehm, A. Williams, and L. Asmar
Phase II Evaluation of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel in Platinum-Sensitive Patients With Recurrent Ovarian, Peritoneal, or Fallopian Tube Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 20, 2009;
27(9):
1426 - 1431.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Bookman, M. F. Brady, W. P. McGuire, P. G. Harper, D. S. Alberts, M. Friedlander, N. Colombo, J. M. Fowler, P. A. Argenta, K. De Geest, et al.
Evaluation of New Platinum-Based Treatment Regimens in Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 20, 2009;
27(9):
1419 - 1425.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Hoskins
Triple Cytotoxic Therapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Failed Application, Not a Failed Strategy
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 20, 2009;
27(9):
1355 - 1358.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. FIORENTINI, M. FILIPPESCHI, G. TURRISI, A. MAMBRINI, P. G. GIANNESSI, M. D'ALESSANDRO, S. ROSSI, P. DENTICO, S. GUADAGNI, M. CANTORE, et al.
Advanced Cancer of the Ovary: Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy as a New Therapeutical Option
In Vivo,
March 1, 2009;
23(2):
317 - 321.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Aoki, Y. Oda, S. Hattori, K.-i. Taguchi, Y. Ohishi, Y. Basaki, S. Oie, N. Suzuki, S. Kono, M. Tsuneyoshi, et al.
Overexpression of Class III {beta}-Tubulin Predicts Good Response to Taxane-Based Chemotherapy in Ovarian Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma
Clin. Cancer Res.,
February 15, 2009;
15(4):
1473 - 1480.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Prat, M. Parera, B. Adamo, S. Peralta, M. A. Perez-Benavente, A. Garcia, A. Gil-Moreno, J. M. Martinez-Palones, J. Baselga, and J. M. del Campo
Risk of recurrence during follow-up for optimally treated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with a low-level increase of serum CA-125 levels
Ann. Onc.,
February 1, 2009;
20(2):
294 - 297.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. AOKI, Y. WATANABE, T. JOBO, K. USHIJIMA, K. HASEGAWA, N. SUSUMU, N. SUZUKI, R. AOKI, S. ISONISHI, S. SAGAE, et al.
Favourable Prognosis with Modified Dosing of Docetaxel and Cisplatin in Japanese Patients with Ovarian Cancer
Anticancer Res,
February 1, 2009;
29(2):
561 - 566.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. W. S. YAP, G. BHAT, L. LIU, and T. O. TOLLEFSBOL
Epigenetic Modifications of the Estrogen Receptor {beta} Gene in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cells
Anticancer Res,
January 1, 2009;
29(1):
139 - 144.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Walker
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
ASCO Educational Book,
January 1, 2009;
2009(1):
308 - 312.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Havrilesky, A. Alvarez Secord, K. M. Darcy, D. K. Armstrong, and S. Kulasingam
Cost Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Compared With Intravenous Chemotherapy for Women With Optimally Resected Stage III Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2008;
26(25):
4144 - 4150.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. E. Johnatty, J. Beesley, J. Paul, S. Fereday, A. B. Spurdle, P. M. Webb, K. Byth, S. Marsh, H. McLeod, AOCS Study Group, et al.
ABCB1 (MDR 1) Polymorphisms and Progression-Free Survival among Women with Ovarian Cancer following Paclitaxel/Carboplatin Chemotherapy
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 1, 2008;
14(17):
5594 - 5601.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Kim, N.-H. Park, H. H. Chung, J. W. Kim, Y.-S. Song, and S.-B. Kang
Are Three Additional Cycles of Chemotherapy Useful in Patients with Advanced-stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer After a Complete Response to Six Cycles of Intravenous Adjuvant Paclitaxel and Carboplatin?
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 1, 2008;
38(6):
445 - 450.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. C. Swart, S. Burdett, J. Ledermann, P. Mook, and M. K. B. Parmar
Why i.p. therapy cannot yet be considered as a standard of care for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer: a systematic review
Ann. Onc.,
April 1, 2008;
19(4):
688 - 695.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Rocconi, T. O. Kirby, R. S. Seitz, R. Beck, J. M. Straughn Jr, R. D. Alvarez, and W. K. Huh
Lipoxygenase Pathway Receptor Expression in Ovarian Cancer
Reproductive Sciences,
March 1, 2008;
15(3):
321 - 326.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Ferrandina, M. Ludovisi, D. Lorusso, S. Pignata, E. Breda, A. Savarese, P. Del Medico, L. Scaltriti, D. Katsaros, D. Priolo, et al.
Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Compared With Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Progressive or Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 20, 2008;
26(6):
890 - 896.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. N. Landen Jr, M. J. Birrer, and A. K. Sood
Early Events in the Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 20, 2008;
26(6):
995 - 1005.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Prat, M. Parera, S. Peralta, M. A. Perez-Benavente, A. Garcia, A. Gil-Moreno, J. M. Martinez-Palones, I. Roxana, J. Baselga, and J. M. Del Campo
Nadir CA-125 concentration in the normal range as an independent prognostic factor for optimally treated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer
Ann. Onc.,
February 1, 2008;
19(2):
327 - 331.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Viswanathan, B. M. Buttin, and A. M. Kennedy
Oncodiagnosis Panel: 2006: Ovarian, Cervical, and Endometrial Cancer
RadioGraphics,
January 1, 2008;
28(1):
289 - 307.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Chi, P. T. Ramirez, J. B. Teitcher, S. Mironov, D. M. Sarasohn, R. B. Iyer, E. L. Eisenhauer, N. R. Abu-Rustum, Y. Sonoda, D. A. Levine, et al.
Prospective Study of the Correlation Between Postoperative Computed Tomography Scan and Primary Surgeon Assessment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian, Tubal, and Peritoneal Carcinoma Reported to Have Undergone Primary Surgical Cytoreduction to Residual Disease 1 cm or Less
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 1, 2007;
25(31):
4946 - 4951.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Joerger, A. D.R. Huitema, D. J. Richel, C. Dittrich, N. Pavlidis, E. Briasoulis, J. B. Vermorken, E. Strocchi, A. Martoni, R. Sorio, et al.
Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Study by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Pharmacology and Molecular Mechanisms Group and New Drug Development Group
Clin. Cancer Res.,
November 1, 2007;
13(21):
6410 - 6418.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Marsh, J. Paul, C. R. King, G. Gifford, H. L. McLeod, and R. Brown
Pharmacogenetic Assessment of Toxicity and Outcome After Platinum Plus Taxane Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer: The Scottish Randomised Trial in Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 10, 2007;
25(29):
4528 - 4535.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Mobus, H. Wandt, N. Frickhofen, C. Bengala, K. Champion, R. Kimmig, H. Ostermann, A. Hinke, and J. A. Ledermann
Phase III Trial of High-Dose Sequential Chemotherapy With Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Support Compared With Standard Dose Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Intergroup Trial of the AGO-Ovar/AIO and EBMT
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 20, 2007;
25(27):
4187 - 4193.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Ozols
Ovarian Cancer: Is Dose Intensity Dead?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 20, 2007;
25(27):
4157 - 4158.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Markman
Concept of Optimal Surgical Cytoreduction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Brief Critique and a Call for Action
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 20, 2007;
25(27):
4168 - 4170.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Winter III, G. L. Maxwell, C. Tian, J. W. Carlson, R. F. Ozols, P. G. Rose, M. Markman, D. K. Armstrong, F. Muggia, and W. P. McGuire
Prognostic Factors for Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 20, 2007;
25(24):
3621 - 3627.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Ferrandina, M Ludovisi, R De Vincenzo, V Salutari, D Lorusso, M Colangelo, T Prantera, M. Valerio, and G Scambia
Docetaxel and oxaliplatin in the second-line treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a phase II study
Ann. Onc.,
August 1, 2007;
18(8):
1348 - 1353.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Forster, S. Kaye, A. Oza, I. Sklenar, A. Johri, W. Cheung, S. Zaknoen, and M. Gore
A Phase Ib and Pharmacokinetic Trial of Patupilone Combined with Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
July 15, 2007;
13(14):
4178 - 4184.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mabuchi, D. A. Altomare, M. Cheung, L. Zhang, P. I. Poulikakos, H. H. Hensley, R. J. Schilder, R. F. Ozols, and J. R. Testa
RAD001 Inhibits Human Ovarian Cancer Cell Proliferation, Enhances Cisplatin-Induced Apoptosis, and Prolongs Survival in an Ovarian Cancer Model
Clin. Cancer Res.,
July 15, 2007;
13(14):
4261 - 4270.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rao, M. Crispens, and M. L. Rothenberg
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer: Overview and Perspective
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 10, 2007;
25(20):
2867 - 2872.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Trope and J. Kaern
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer: Review of the Literature
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 10, 2007;
25(20):
2909 - 2920.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Ramalingam, R. A. Parise, R. K. Ramananthan, T. F. Lagattuta, L. A. Musguire, R. G. Stoller, D. M. Potter, A. E. Argiris, J. A. Zwiebel, M. J. Egorin, et al.
Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Vorinostat, A Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor, in Combination with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Advanced Solid Malignancies
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 15, 2007;
13(12):
3605 - 3610.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Aletti, M. M. Gallenberg, W. A. Cliby, A. Jatoi, and L. C. Hartmann
Current Management Strategies for Ovarian Cancer
Mayo Clin. Proc.,
June 1, 2007;
82(6):
751 - 770.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. Darcy, C. Tian, and E. Reed
A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study of Platinum-DNA Adducts and Excision Repair Cross-Complementation Group 1 Expression in Optimal, Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Treated with Platinum-Taxane Chemotherapy
Cancer Res.,
May 1, 2007;
67(9):
4474 - 4481.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F Hilpert, A du Bois, E. Greimel, J Hedderich, G Krause, L Venhoff, S Loibl, and J Pfisterer
Feasibility, toxicity and quality of life of first-line chemotherapy with platinum/paclitaxel in elderly patients aged >=70 years with advanced ovarian cancer--a study by the AGO OVAR Germany
Ann. Onc.,
February 1, 2007;
18(2):
282 - 287.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O Tredan, J-F Geay, S Touzet, R Delva, B Weber, J Cretin, J Provencal, J Martin, L Stefani, E Pujade-Lauraine, et al.
Carboplatin/cyclophosphamide or carboplatin/paclitaxel in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer? Analysis of two consecutive trials from the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens
Ann. Onc.,
February 1, 2007;
18(2):
256 - 262.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kyrgiou, G. Salanti, N. Pavlidis, E. Paraskevaidis, and J. P. A. Ioannidis
Survival Benefits With Diverse Chemotherapy Regimens for Ovarian Cancer: Meta-analysis of Multiple Treatments.
J Natl Cancer Inst,
November 15, 2006;
98(22):
1655 - 1663.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Pfisterer, M. Plante, I. Vergote, A. du Bois, H. Hirte, A. J. Lacave, U. Wagner, A. Stahle, G. Stuart, R. Kimmig, et al.
Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin Compared With Carboplatin in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: An Intergroup Trial of the AGO-OVAR, the NCIC CTG, and the EORTC GCG
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 10, 2006;
24(29):
4699 - 4707.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gore, A. du Bois, and I. Vergote
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer Remains Experimental
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2006;
24(28):
4528 - 4530.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. O'Dwyer and R. B. Catalano
Uridine Diphosphate Glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1 and Irinotecan: Practical Pharmacogenomics Arrives in Cancer Therapy
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2006;
24(28):
4534 - 4538.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Pfisterer, A du Bois, J Sehouli, S Loibl, S Reinartz, A Reuss, U Canzler, A Belau, C Jackisch, R Kimmig, et al.
The anti-idiotypic antibody abagovomab in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. A phase I trial of the AGO-OVAR.
Ann. Onc.,
October 1, 2006;
17(10):
1568 - 1577.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Sabbatini, J. Dupont, C. Aghajanian, F. Derosa, E. Poynor, S. Anderson, M. Hensley, P. Livingston, A. Iasonos, D. Spriggs, et al.
Phase I study of abagovomab in patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 15, 2006;
12(18):
5503 - 5510.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Pfisterer, B. Weber, A. Reuss, R. Kimmig, A. du Bois, U. Wagner, H. Bourgeois, W. Meier, S. Costa, J.-U. Blohmer, et al.
Randomized phase III trial of topotecan following carboplatin and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a gynecologic cancer intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR and GINECO.
J Natl Cancer Inst,
August 2, 2006;
98(15):
1036 - 1045.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Smith, J. Khatcheressian, G. H. Lyman, H. Ozer, J. O. Armitage, L. Balducci, C. L. Bennett, S. B. Cantor, J. Crawford, S. J. Cross, et al.
2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 1, 2006;
24(19):
3187 - 3205.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Chi and R. R. Barakat
Aggressive Surgery and Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 20, 2006;
24(15):
2395 - 2396.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. N. Krasner, M. Roche, N. S. Horowitz, J. G. Supko, S. I. Lee, and E. Oliva
Case 11-2006 -- A 54-Year-Old Woman with a Mass in the Pelvis
N. Engl. J. Med.,
April 13, 2006;
354(15):
1615 - 1625.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Ozols, M. A. Bookman, R. C. Young, G. de Castro Jr., I. M. Snitcovsky, M. H.H. Federico, D. K. Armstrong, B. Bundy, and J. Walker
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
April 13, 2006;
354(15):
1641 - 1643.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Rocconi, J. M. Straughn Jr., C. A. Leath III, L. C. Kilgore, W. K. Huh, M. N. Barnes III, E. E. Partridge, and R. D. Alvarez
Pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin consolidation therapy after platinum/paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for suboptimally debulked, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients.
Oncologist,
April 1, 2006;
11(4):
336 - 341.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Markman, P.Y. Liu, M. L. Rothenberg, B. J. Monk, M. Brady, and D. S. Alberts
Pretreatment CA-125 and Risk of Relapse in Advanced Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 20, 2006;
24(9):
1454 - 1458.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C.-Y. Zee
Planned Equivalence or Noninferiority Trials Versus Unplanned Noninferiority Claims: Are They Equal?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 1, 2006;
24(7):
1026 - 1028.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. du Bois, B. Weber, J. Rochon, W. Meier, A. Goupil, S. Olbricht, J.-C. Barats, W. Kuhn, H. Orfeuvre, U. Wagner, et al.
Addition of Epirubicin As a Third Drug to Carboplatin-Paclitaxel in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Prospectively Randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Trial by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 1, 2006;
24(7):
1127 - 1135.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Viens, T. Petit, A. Yovine, P. Bougnoux, G. Deplanque, P.-H. Cottu, R. Delva, J.-P. Lotz, S. V. Belle, J.-M. Extra, et al.
A phase II study of a paclitaxel and oxaliplatin combination in platinum-sensitive recurrent advanced ovarian cancer patients
Ann. Onc.,
March 1, 2006;
17(3):
429 - 436.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Komatsu, K. Hiyama, K. Tanimoto, M. Yunokawa, K. Otani, M. Ohtaki, E. Hiyama, J. Kigawa, M. Ohwada, M. Suzuki, et al.
Prediction of individual response to platinum/paclitaxel combination using novel marker genes in ovarian cancers.
Mol. Cancer Ther.,
March 1, 2006;
5(3):
767 - 775.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Markman and J. L. Walker
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy of Ovarian Cancer: A Review, With a Focus on Practical Aspects of Treatment
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 20, 2006;
24(6):
988 - 994.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Sabbatini and D. R. Spriggs
Consolidation for Ovarian Cancer in Remission
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2006;
24(4):
537 - 539.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. R. Greimel, V. Bjelic-Radisic, J. Pfisterer, F. Hilpert, F. Daghofer, and A. du Bois
Randomized Study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group Comparing Quality of Life in Patients With Ovarian Cancer Treated With Cisplatin/Paclitaxel Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2006;
24(4):
579 - 586.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lockley, M. Fernandez, Y. Wang, N. F. Li, S. Conroy, N. Lemoine, and I. McNeish
Activity of the Adenoviral E1A Deletion Mutant dl922-947 in Ovarian Cancer: Comparison with E1A Wild-type Viruses, Bioluminescence Monitoring, and Intraperitoneal Delivery in Icodextrin
Cancer Res.,
January 15, 2006;
66(2):
989 - 998.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. K. Armstrong, B. Bundy, L. Wenzel, H. Q. Huang, R. Baergen, S. Lele, L. J. Copeland, J. L. Walker, R. A. Burger, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group
Intraperitoneal Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Ovarian Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
January 5, 2006;
354(1):
34 - 43.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Aravantinos, G. Fountzilas, P. Kosmidis, M. A. Dimopoulos, G. P. Stathopoulos, N. Pavlidis, D. Bafaloukos, C. Papadimitriou, S. Karpathios, V. Georgoulias, et al.
Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus alternating carboplatin and cisplatin for initial treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: long-term efficacy results: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study
Ann. Onc.,
July 1, 2005;
16(7):
1116 - 1122.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Matulonis, J. L. Abrahm, C.-M. Liu, and S. A. Cannistra
Cancer of the Ovary
N. Engl. J. Med.,
March 24, 2005;
352(12):
1268 - 1269.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Hartmann, K. H. Lu, G. P. Linette, W. A. Cliby, K. R. Kalli, D. Gershenson, R. C. Bast, J. Stec, N. Iartchouk, D. I. Smith, et al.
Gene Expression Profiles Predict Early Relapse in Ovarian Cancer after Platinum-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2005;
11(6):
2149 - 2155.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. B. Engel, G. Keller, A. V. Schally, G. Halmos, B. Hammann, and A. Nagy
Effective Inhibition of Experimental Human Ovarian Cancers with a Targeted Cytotoxic Bombesin Analogue AN-215
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2005;
11(6):
2408 - 2415.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. G. Rose, S. Nerenstone, M. F. Brady, D. Clarke-Pearson, G. Olt, S. C. Rubin, D. H. Moore, J. M. Small, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group
Secondary Surgical Cytoreduction for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma
N. Engl. J. Med.,
December 9, 2004;
351(24):
2489 - 2497.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Cannistra
Cancer of the Ovary
N. Engl. J. Med.,
December 9, 2004;
351(24):
2519 - 2529.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. T. Penson, D. Sahani, and D. A. Bell
Case 37-2004 - A 52-Year-Old Woman with Postmenopausal Bleeding and a Cystic Ovarian Mass
N. Engl. J. Med.,
December 9, 2004;
351(24):
2531 - 2538.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Vasey, G. C. Jayson, A. Gordon, H. Gabra, R. Coleman, R. Atkinson, D. Parkin, J. Paul, A. Hay, S. B. Kaye, et al.
Phase III Randomized Trial of Docetaxel-Carboplatin Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin as First-line Chemotherapy for Ovarian Carcinoma
J Natl Cancer Inst,
November 17, 2004;
96(22):
1682 - 1691.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Herzog
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: How Important Is It to Treat to Disease Progression?
Clin. Cancer Res.,
November 15, 2004;
10(22):
7439 - 7449.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Sood, R. Lush, J. P. Geisler, M. S. Shahin, L. Sanders, D. Sullivan, R. E. Buller, and J. I. Sorosky
Sequential Intraperitoneal Topotecan and Oral Etoposide Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Carcinoma: Results of a Phase II Trial
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 15, 2004;
10(18):
6080 - 6085.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Onda, N. Katsumata, R. Tsunematsu, T. Yasugi, M. Mushika, K. Yamamoto, T. Fujii, T. Hirakawa, T. Kamura, T. Saito, et al.
Cisplatin, Paclitaxel and Escalating Doses of Doxorubicin (TAP) in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: a Phase I Trial
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2004;
34(9):
540 - 546.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Berek, P. T. Taylor, A. Gordon, M. J. Cunningham, N. Finkler, J. Orr Jr, S. Rivkin, B. C. Schultes, T. L. Whiteside, and C. F. Nicodemus
Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Oregovomab for Consolidation of Clinical Remission in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2004;
22(17):
3507 - 3516.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. De Placido, G. Scambia, G. Di Vagno, E. Naglieri, A. V. Lombardi, R. Biamonte, M. Marinaccio, G. Carteni, L. Manzione, A. Febbraro, et al.
Topotecan Compared With No Therapy After Response to Surgery and Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Patients With Ovarian Cancer: Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO-1) Randomized Study
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 1, 2004;
22(13):
2635 - 2642.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. S. Rustin, R. C. Bast Jr., G. J. Kelloff, J. C. Barrett, S. K. Carter, P. D. Nisen, C. C. Sigman, D. R. Parkinson, and R. W. Ruddon
Use of CA-125 in Clinical Trial Evaluation of New Therapeutic Drugs for Ovarian Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 1, 2004;
10(11):
3919 - 3926.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gore
Carboplatin Equals Cisplatin: But How Do I Prescribe It?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2003;
21(17):
3183 - 3185.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
