Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 22, No 24 (December 15), 2004: pp. 5022
© 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.04.324

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moore, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Moore, D. H.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Article
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

CORRESPONDENCE

In Reply:

David H. Moore

Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN

The authors appreciate the attention given by Drs Mano and Kerr to these two Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials, GOG 169 and GOG 110. In GOG 110, the cisplatin plus ifosfamide regimen seemed to yield similar results in terms of improved response rate and progression-free survival but without improvement of overall survival. Furthermore, it was difficult to determine the best regimen in that study, when therapy was not curative, higher response rates were associated with increased toxicity, and quality of life was not assessed. In addition, chemoradiotherapy was not standard therapy at that time, and some caution should be used when comparing clinical trials during an era when first-line treatment was undergoing a revolution.

The authors of GOG 169 concur that the trial was not powered for a subset analysis of chemoradiotherapy versus nonchemoradiation. However, there was no reason to believe that cisplatin alone was superior to the combination regimen in chemoradiotherapy-naive patients, and the response rates suggested inferiority even in this population.

We draw attention to results of GOG 179 (Long et al; manuscript under review), which are germane to this dialogue. In that study, the combination of cisplatin plus topotecan was found to be superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, with no appreciable difference in quality of life, in a population in which 60% of patients had received chemoradiotherapy (compared with 29% in GOG 169). The combination regimens from these two studies now comprise two of the four arms being compared in the current randomized phase III trial known as GOG 204, and plans for a multivariate analysis to address predictors of poor response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy are underway (with possible separation of these patients into noncisplatin-containing investigations).

Author's Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The author indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Moore DH, Blessing JA, McQuellon RP, et al: Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 22:3113-3119, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Omura GA, Blessing JA, Vaccarello L, et al: Randomized trial of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus mitolactol versus cisplatin plus ifosfamide in advanced squamous carcinoma of the cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 15:165-171, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?

Related Article

  • Phase III Study of Cisplatin With or Without Paclitaxel in Stage IVB, Recurrent, or Persistent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study
    David H. Moore, John A. Blessing, Richard P. McQuellon, Howard T. Thaler, David Cella, Jo Benda, David S. Miller, George Olt, Stephanie King, John F. Boggess, and Thomas F. Rocereto
    JCO 2004 22: 3113-3119 [Abstract] [Full Text]

Related Correspondence

  • Optimal Therapy for Relapsed Carcinoma of the Cervix After Primary Chemoradiation
    Max Mano and Janet Kerr
    JCO 2004 22: 5021-5022 [Full Text]



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moore, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Moore, D. H.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Article
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online