|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 22, No 1 (January 1), 2004: pp. 45-52 © 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.039 Phase I Trial of Combined-Modality Therapy for Localized Esophageal Cancer: Escalating Doses of Continuous-Infusion Paclitaxel With Cisplatin and Concurrent Radiation TherapyFrom the Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, the Department of Radiation Oncology, the Thoracic Service, Department of Surgery, and the Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the Weill School of Medicine, Cornell University, New York, NY Address reprint requests to David P. Kelsen, MD, the Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021; e-mail: kelsend{at}mskcc.org
PURPOSE: To define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel when given as a weekly 96-hour infusion with cisplatin and radiotherapy for patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer and three patients with local recurrence or positive resection margins were treated. Weekly paclitaxel doses of 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, and 80 mg/m2, given as a continuous 96-hour infusion, were administered with weekly cisplatin, 30 mg/m2 on day 1, weeks 1 to 6, and concurrent radiation (50.4 Gy). Plasma paclitaxel steady-state levels were measured.
RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicity, defined as a treatment break longer than 2 weeks for toxicity, occurred in one patient in the 80-mg/m2/wk dose level. Major causes for any (including CONCLUSION: Weekly, 96-hour infusion of paclitaxel 60 mg/m2/wk, given with concurrent cisplatin and radiotherapy, is a safe and tolerable regimen for patients with localized esophageal cancer. Preliminary efficacy data are encouraging. This regimen is the basis of ongoing Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase II randomized trials in esophageal and gastric cancers.
Esophageal cancer is a highly aggressive neoplasm. In 2003, 13,900 Americans will be diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and more than 90% will die of their disease [1]. Approximately half of these patients present with locally advanced disease [2], with a less than 20% 5-year survival rate after surgical resection or radiation. These results have led to extensive exploration of multimodality treatment approaches. Adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy alone, with surgery, has thus far failed to clearly improve patient outcome [3-5]. In light of the survival advantage of concurrent chemoradiotherapy over radiation alone [6,7], combining chemoradiotherapy with surgery was attempted, with conflicting results in prospective randomized trials [8,9]. Improved chemoradiotherapy programs are required. The most commonly used chemotherapy regimen for patients with esophageal cancer combines cisplatin and fluorouracil (FU). Nevertheless, cisplatin plus FUbased concurrent chemoradiotherapy programs have limited efficacy and are associated with substantial toxicity [6,7]. This has prompted the investigation of newer chemotherapy regimens for esophageal cancer, such as paclitaxel. In light of the activity and improved toxicity of the paclitaxel plus cisplatin regimen in advanced disease and the potent radiosensitizing effects of both drugs [10], we evaluated this regimen with concurrent radiation in esophageal cancer. Protracted infusion of paclitaxel was used to exploit several potential benefits of this approach. Paclitaxel has been shown to temporarily arrest cells at the G2-M interface, the most radiosensitive cell cycle phase [11]. Prolonged exposure may increase the proportion of tumor cells in this phase and potentiate radiosensitization. Protracted infusion of paclitaxel may also be associated with higher response rate in several disease models [12-14], with a potentially improved toxicity profile. Therefore, we initiated the current phase I trial, combining bolus cisplatin and escalating doses of a 96-hour intravenous (IV) infusion of paclitaxel, both given weekly, with concurrent radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The primary objective was to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel and the recommended dose for phase II trials.
Eligibility Patients (age 18 years) with histologically confirmed primary or recurrent epidermoid carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (including the gastroesophageal junction) were eligible for the study. Eligible patients included patients with primary disease clinically limited to the esophagus or nodal metastases only (T1-4, N0-1, M0-1A), patients with locoregional failure only, and patients that underwent resection with positive microscopic margins. Patients had to be candidates for curative radiation therapy, with a Karnofsky performance status 60%, and could not have received any prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Required laboratory tests included a total WBC count 4,000/µL, a platelet count 150,000/µL, a serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL and/or creatinine clearance of 65 mL/min/L, and a total serum bilirubin 1.5 mg/dL. Patients were excluded from participation in the study for the presence of any of the following: positive cytology of the pleura, pericardium, or peritoneum; metastases to distant organs; biopsy-proven invasion of the tracheobronchial tree; tracheoesophageal fistula; general medical condition preventing combined-modality treatment (eg, New York Heart Association grade 3 congestive heart failure); or active cancer arising at another primary site other than basal cell carcinoma of skin or in situ cervical carcinoma. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient.
Pretreatment Evaluation
Treatment Plan
Radiotherapy The superior and inferior borders of the radiation field were 5 cm beyond the tumor, and the anterior, posterior, and lateral borders were 2 cm beyond the tumor, as defined by barium esophagography, CT, or esophageal ultrasonography (whichever was larger). The locoregional lymph nodes were included.
Chemotherapy Paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) was commercially available. During the 96-hour infusion, pump cassettes were prepared for two 48-hour treatment intervals (ie, with one cassette change on day 3). The total dose was administered through a standard 0.22-µm filter. Cisplatin was commercially available. The drug was infused via peripheral IV at a maximal rate of 500 mL/h.
Evaluation During the Study
Dose Escalation and Attenuation Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria version 1 and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) acute radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Although chemotherapy dose attenuation was allowed for toxicity, this was required mainly at the paclitaxel 80 mg/m2/wk dose level. If, according to the dose attenuation schema, chemotherapy had to be held because of toxicity, both drugs, as well as radiation therapy, were held. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as a toxicity-related treatment break greater than 2 weeks. Hospitalization for toxicity, by itself, was not defined as DLT. If DLT occurred, treatment was discontinued, and further therapy was decided by the treating physician. If one of three patients treated at a given paclitaxel dose level experienced a DLT, then three more patients were to be treated at that dose level. If a second patient experienced a DLT, then the MTD was defined. If at a given dose level, six patients were treated and less than two patients had DLT, but substantial toxicities were seen, additional patients may have been added to that level, to clarify its safety and tolerability. A minimum of three patients had to complete the entire chemoradiotherapy program and to be followed for 4 weeks afterwards before the trial could escalate to the next dose. If none of the three patients experienced a DLT, then patients were entered at the next higher dose level.
Pharmacokinetics
Postchemoradiotherapy Management
Biostatistics
Patient Characteristics Between December 1996 and July 1999, 34 patients with previously untreated locally advanced esophageal cancer; two patients with positive surgical margins and one patient with locally recurrent disease were enrolled onto this trial. The patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. All patients received at least one dose of the cisplatin and paclitaxel combination with radiation and were, therefore, considered assessable for toxicity. All 34 patients who received the treatment as primary therapy of their cancer were assessable for treatment efficacy. Twenty-nine patients (78%) were men, and 33 (89%) were white. The median age was 59 years, and the median Karnofsky performance status was 90%. Twenty-five patients (68%) had adenocarcinoma, and 28 (76%) had a tumor of the lower esophagus (nine patients) or the gastroesophageal junction (19 patients, all Siewert type I). Twenty-one patients (57%) had clinical stage III or IVA disease, and all patients who were classified as IIA had T3N0 disease.
Hematologic Toxicities Table 2 lists the hematologic toxicities, throughout the chemoradiotherapy treatment, by cohort. In general, hematologic toxicity was mild, mainly limited to a transient drop in the neutrophil count. Five patients (13%) had neutropenic fever, but only one patient, receiving 80 mg/m2/wk of paclitaxel, had grade 4 toxicity. The degree of myelosuppression was paclitaxel dose dependent and cumulative and was characterized by rapid recovery of the blood counts.
Nonhematologic Toxicity Common nonhematologic toxicities, at any time during and up to 1 month after the completion of the chemoradiotherapy, are listed in Table 3. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were infrequent and were mainly observed in the last cohort. Fatigue and nausea and vomiting were the most common toxicities and were mostly of grade 2 or less severity. Severe stomatitis, esophagitis, and diarrhea were infrequent. Insertion of an enteral feeding tube as a result of toxicity was never required. Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon; only eleven patients (30%) had any neurosensory symptoms, none of which were of more than grade 2 severity and all of which resolved within several weeks after therapy. Electrolyte imbalance, usually hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia, was documented in 18 patients (49%), including five patients in whom a grade greater than 2 severity was observed. This typical cisplatin-induced toxicity was usually observed in patients whose underlying impaired fluid intake was aggravated by treatment-related toxicity (eg, vomiting). Six patients (16%) developed seven mediport complications, including infection of the implanted device (three patients), thrombosis of the involved vein (three patients), and leakage from the pump (one patient). The incidence of these complications, which required hospitalization in all cases and temporary cessation in therapy in four patients, did not seem to correlate with paclitaxel doses.
Hospitalizations Seventeen patients (46%) were hospitalized for treatment-related toxicity. Six of these patients were admitted twice, and one of these patients had three admissions. Mediport complications were the leading cause of admission (seven admissions), followed by fever with (five admissions) or without (four admissions) neutropenia. Most admissions involved patients from the last two cohorts (three and nine patients in the 60 and 80 mg/m2/wk dose levels, respectively). Fifteen of the 25 admissions occurred during the second half of the treatment period, suggesting a cumulative effect of most of these toxicities.
Treatment Delivery
Pharmacokinetics Paclitaxel serum levels were available for all patients, except for two patients in cohort 1. Repeated samples demonstrated limited intrapatient variation and no evidence for time-dependent inhibition or induction of paclitaxel metabolism. Figure 1 shows patient average paclitaxel steady-state levels. Because the results of only one patient from cohort 1 are available, cohort 1 is not presented. No clear-cut correlation between treatment dose level and steady-state concentrations was observed. Although interpatient variability was significant, the majority of patients had mean steady-state concentrations within the range suggested by preclinical studies as desirable for radiosensitization (10 to 50 nmol/L). Seventy-three percent of all patients and 82% of patients at or one dose level from the recommended phase II dose had values within this range. Patients who had significant (grade 3 to 4) toxicity were found to have relatively higher paclitaxel concentrations. The average paclitaxel steady-state concentration at the MTD was 17.2 nmol/L.
Treatment Efficacy Responses were seen in all cohorts. Of the 34 assessable patients, 22 patients (64%) had objective clinical responses, including 12 patients (35%) with cCR. Six patients (18%) experienced disease progression during therapy. Although not mandated by the protocol, 22 of the 34 previously nonoperated patients had surgery after chemoradiotherapy. Of these, 16 patients (73%) underwent complete (R0) resection. pCR, proved by examination of either the resected specimens, when surgery was performed (surgical pCR, four patients), or endoscopic biopsies (four patients), was observed in eight patients (24%). A similar rate of pCR was observed among patients with squamous cell carcinoma (three of 12 patients [25%]) and patients with adenocarcinoma (five of 25 patients [20%]). With a median follow-up of 47 months (range, 23 to 64 months), 14 patients (38%) are still alive, and 13 of these (35%) have no evidence of disease recurrence. The 3-year survival rate for the entire patient population was 43% (Fig 2). Eight patients achieved cCR and were not operated on. Of these, three patients are still alive and have been free of disease for over 4 years, one patient died with no evidence of disease recurrence, and four patients died of disease. Notably, in only one of these four patients, the disease recurred within the irradiated area; in three of the patients, it recurred in the liver. Overall, locoregional control was achieved in seven of the eight patients. The failure pattern of these patients may be the most indicative of the impact of the chemoradiotherapy program.
At present, concurrent chemoradiotherapy therapy alone or surgical resection are the standard treatment options for localized esophageal cancer. Programs combining the two are considered investigational, given the conflicting results of the studies testing this approach [8,9,19,20]. With the modest survival associated with either surgery or currently available chemoradiotherapy programs, novel strategies, with improved anticancer activity, are being pursued. Paclitaxel and cisplatin combinations seem to have an improved toxicity profile compared with the cisplatin plus FU regimen and a significant activity against esophageal cancer [21-23]. Therefore, we conducted a phase I trial, combining weekly treatment with cisplatin and escalating doses of a 96-hour infusion of paclitaxel, with concurrent radiotherapy. Protracted infusion of paclitaxel was chosen based on preclinical and clinical data suggesting a potential advantage in efficacy and toxicity [11-14].
Therapy was generally well tolerated. Moderate to severe toxicities (grade
Perhaps the most widely used regimen for chemoradiotherapy therapy for localized esophageal cancer is that used in the RTOG 85-01 trial [6]. In that trial, chemoradiotherapy was associated with 44% and 20% grade 3 and 4 acute toxicities, respectively, mostly esophagitis and neutropenia. Chemotherapy was delivered as planned to only 68% of the patients [6,24]. Other FU and cisplatinbased regimens have been also associated with significant toxicities, primarily gastrointestinal. Heath et al [25] reported grade
Paclitaxel has been combined with cisplatin and concurrent thoracic irradiation in esophageal and lung cancers mainly as a short infusion. In a trial involving 41 patients with esophageal cancer, a weekly 3-hour infusion of 60 mg/m2 of paclitaxel and 25 mg/m2 of cisplatin were given. The DLT was neutropenia (grade In the current study, we noted a tolerable toxicity profile at paclitaxel 60 mg/m2/wk. This seems to have less esophagitis and neutropenia than that observed with FU-based programs and, to a lesser extent, those using short infusions of paclitaxel. However, the current treatment was associated with a 24% rate of mediport complications. Other studies using protracted infusion through central venous access devices, including three lung cancer trials using a 96-hour infusion of paclitaxel, did not report similar rates [14,30-32]. It is unclear why a higher rate was seen in our study. Several pharmacokinetic observations were made. Paclitaxel concentrations were relatively steady over time. Preclinical data suggest that 10 nmol/L represents a threshold for paclitaxel antineoplastic and radiosensitizing effects [11,33-35]. It was also shown that the best pharmacodynamic predictor for toxicity is the duration of exposure to concentrations above a certain level, probably 50 nmol/L [36,37]. In our trial, 82% of the patients around the MTD had mean paclitaxel concentrations within the suggested therapeutic window of 10 to 50 nmol/L. It also seems that patients with significant toxicity had relatively higher concentrations. The long median follow-up in this trial provides some information as to the potential efficacy of the regimen. We noted a 24% pCR rate, a 73% R0 resection rate in operated patients, and a 43% 3-year survival. These data are encouraging. In summary, weekly treatment with cisplatin and a 96-hour infusion of paclitaxel, with concurrent irradiation, is feasible and safe. The recommended dose levels in this schedule are cisplatin 30 mg/m2, paclitaxel 60 mg/m2/wk, radiation therapy 50.4 Gy. Antitumor efficacy is encouraging. Two RTOG phase II randomized trials in esophageal and gastric cancers are currently using this regimen as one of their investigational arms.
The following authors or their immediate family members have indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. Acted as a consultant within the last 2 years: David Ilson, Sanofi; Bruce Minsky, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Pfizer. Performed contract work within the last 2 years: Bruce Minsky, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Pfizer. Received more than $2,000 a year from a company for either of the last 2 years: David Ilson, Roche and Pfizer; Bruce Minsky, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Pfizer.
Supported in part by grant no. U01 CA69913 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
1. Jemal AMT, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, et al: Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5-26, 2003
2. Kelsen DP: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:283-285, 2001 3. Zieren HU, Muller JM, Jacobi CA, et al: Adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy after curative resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: A prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 19:444-449, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Ando N, Iizuka T, Kakegawa T, et al: A randomized trial of surgery with and without chemotherapy for localized squamous carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 114:205-209, 1997
5. Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak TF, et al: Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 339:1979-1984, 1998 6. Herskovic A MK, Martz K, Al-Sarraf M, et al: Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med:1593-1598, 1992 7. Al-Sarraf M, Martz K, Herskovic A, et al: Progress report of combined chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with esophageal cancer: An intergroup study. J Clin Oncol:277-284, 1997 8. Walsh T, Noonan N, Hollywood D, et al: A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med:462-467, 1996 9. Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Fitzgerald F, et al: A randomized phase III trial of preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery (CR-S) versus surgery alone (S) in localized resectable cancer of the esophagus. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:130A, 2002 (abstr 518)
10. Milas LHN, Mason KA, Kurdoglu B, et al: Enhancement of tumor radio-response of a murine mammary carcinoma by paclitaxel. Cancer Res 54:3506-3510, 1994
11. Liebmann JCJ, Fisher J, Teague D, et al: In vitro studies of Taxol as a radiation sensitizer in human tumor cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:441-446, 1994
12. Seidman AD, Hochhauser D, Gollub M, et al: Ninety-six-hour paclitaxel infusion after progression during short taxane exposure: A phase II pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:1877-1884, 1996
13. Smith RE, Brown AM, Mamounas EP, et al: Randomized trial of 3-hour versus 24-hour infusion of high-dose paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-26. J Clin Oncol 17:3403-3411, 1999
14. Georgiadis MS, Schuler BS, Brown JE, et al: Paclitaxel by 96-hour continuous infusion in combination with cisplatin: A phase I trial in patients with advanced lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:735-743, 1997 15. Fleming I, Cooper J, Henson D, et al: American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven, 1997
16. Choy H, Akerley W, Safran H, et al: Phase I trial of outpatient weekly paclitaxel and concurrent radiation therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:2682-2686, 1994 17. Longnecker SM, Donehower RC, Cates AE, et al: High-performance liquid chromatographic assay for Taxol in human plasma and urine and pharmacokinetics in a phase I trial. Cancer Treat Rep 71:53-59, 1987[Medline] 18. Kaplan EL, Meier P: Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457-481, 1958[CrossRef]
19. Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, et al: Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19:305-313, 2001
20. Bosset JF, Gignoux M, Triboulet JP, et al: Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 337:161-167, 1997 21. Ilson D, Arquette M, Costa F, et al: Preoperative paclitaxel and cisplatin in esophageal cancer: A phase II multicenter trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:926A, 1997 (abstr) 22. Ilson DH, Forastiere A, Arquette M, et al: A phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced carcinoma of the esophagus. Cancer J 6:316-323, 2000[Medline] 23. Polee MB, Eskens FA, van der Burg ME, et al: Phase II study of bi-weekly administration of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer 86:669-673, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Cooper JS GM, Herskovic A, Macdonald JS, et al: Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. JAMA 281:1623-1627, 1999
25. Heath EI, Burtness BA, Heitmiller RF, et al: Phase II evaluation of preoperative chemoradiation and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol 18:868-876, 2000 26. Safran HGH, Akerman P, Hesketh PJ, et al: Paclitaxel, cisplatin, and concurrent radiation for esophageal cancer. Cancer Invest 19:1-7, 2001 27. Comella G, Frasci G, Scoppa G, et al: Weekly paclitaxel/cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase I study. Semin Oncol 24:S12-S116, 1997 (suppl 4) 28. Isokangas OP, Joensuu H, Halme M, et al: Paclitaxel (Taxol) and carboplatin followed by concomitant paclitaxel, cisplatin and radiotherapy for inoperable stage III NSCLC. Lung Cancer 20:127-133, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Adelstein DJ, Rice TW, Rybicki LA, et al: Does paclitaxel improve the chemoradiotherapy of locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer? A nonrandomized comparison with fluorouracil-based therapy. J Clin Oncol 18:2032-2039, 2000
30. Breathnach OS, Georgiadis MS, Schuler BS, et al: Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 96-hour continuous infusion in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 6:2670-2676, 2000 31. Breathnach OS, Kasturi V, Kaye F, et al: Phase II neoadjuvant trial of paclitaxel by 96-hour continuous infusion (CIVI) in combination with cisplatin followed by chest radiotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 25:269-273, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
32. O'Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, et al: Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med 331:502-507, 1994 33. Lopes NM, Adams EG, Pitts TW, et al: Cell kill kinetics and cell cycle effects of Taxol on human and hamster ovarian cell lines. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 32:235-242, 1993[CrossRef][Medline] 34. Zanelli GD, Quaia M, Robieux I, et al: Paclitaxel as a radiosensitiser: A proposed schedule of administration based on in vitro data and pharmacokinetic calculations. Eur J Cancer 1997 33:486-492, 1997 35. 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]
36. Gianni LKC, Giani A, Capri G, et al: Nonlinear pharmacokinetics and metabolism of paclitaxel and its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships in humans. J Clin Oncol 13:180-190, 1995 37. Ohtsu T, Sasaki Y, Tamura T, et al: Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of paclitaxel: A 3-hour infusion versus a 24-hour infusion. Clin Cancer Res 1:599-606, 1995[Abstract] Submitted May 6, 2003; accepted October 9, 2003.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|