Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). PATIENTS AND METHODS After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined. RESULTS Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.

[1]  K R Hess,et al.  Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in proportional hazards regression models using cubic spline functions. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  G. Rustin,et al.  A prospective randomized trial comparing high-dose cisplatin with low-dose cisplatin and chlorambucil in advanced ovarian carcinoma. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  J. Thigpen,et al.  Phase II trial of paclitaxel in patients with progressive ovarian carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  E. Yordan,et al.  Long-term follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  D. Ettinger,et al.  Taxol: a unique antineoplastic agent with significant activity in advanced ovarian epithelial neoplasms. , 1989 .

[6]  F. Parazzini,et al.  Weekly cisplatin given for 2 months versus cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide given for 5 months after cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  E. Partridge,et al.  Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer , 1996, New England Journal of Medicine.

[8]  Gruppo Interegionale,et al.  RANDOMISED COMPARISON OF CISPLATIN WITH CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE/CISPLATIN AND WITH CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE/DOXORUBICIN/ CISPLATIN IN ADVANCED OVARIAN CANCER , 1987, The Lancet.

[9]  A. Dembo Controversy over combination chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: what we learn from reports of matured data. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  David R. Cox,et al.  Regression models and life tables (with discussion , 1972 .

[11]  D. Cruickshank,et al.  Mature results of a randomized trial of two doses of cisplatin for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Scottish Gynecology Cancer Trials Group. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  R W Makuch,et al.  Sample size requirements for comparing time-to-failure among k treatment groups. , 1982, Journal of chronic diseases.

[13]  A. Gadducci,et al.  High-dose versus low-dose cisplatin in combination with cyclophosphamide and epidoxorubicin in suboptimal ovarian cancer: a randomized study of the Gruppo Oncologico Nord-Ovest. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  J. Berek,et al.  Assessment of dose-intensive therapy in suboptimally debulked ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  E. Yordan,et al.  A randomized trial of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin with or without cisplatin in advanced ovarian carcinoma. A gynecologic oncology group study , 1986, Cancer.

[16]  W. J. Conover,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 1972 .

[17]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[18]  M. Gore,et al.  A randomised study of carboplatin vs sequential ifosfamide/carboplatin for patients with FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The London Gynaecologic Oncology Group. , 1993, British Journal of Cancer.