4.7 Article

Recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: A randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 14, Pages 3312-3322

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.14.3312

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and topotecan in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma that recurred after or didn't respond to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: patients with measurable and assessable disease were randomized to receive either PLD 50 mg/m(2) as a 1-hour infusion every 4 weeks or topotecan 1.5 mg/m(2)/d for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified prospectively for platinum sensitivity and for the presence or absence of bulky disease. Results: A total of 474 patients were treated (239 PLD and 235 topotecan). They comprised the intent-to-treat population. The overall progression-free survival rates were similar between the two arms (P = .095). The overall response rates for PLD and topotecan were 19.7% and 17.0%, respectively (P = .390). Median overall survival times were 60 weeks for PLD and 56.7 weeks for topotecan. Data analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients demonstrated a statistically significant benefit from PLD for progression-free survival (P = .037), with medians of 28.9 for PLD versus 23.3 weeks for topotecan. For overall survival, PLD was significantly superior to topotecan (P = .008), with a median of 108 weeks versus 71.1 weeks. The platinum-refractory subgroup demonstrated a nonstatistically significant survival trend in favor of topotecan (P = .455). Severe hematologic toxicity was more common with topotecan and was more likely to be associated with dosage modification, or growth factor or blood product utilization. Conclusion: The comparable efficacy, favorable safety profile, and convenient dosing support the role of PLD as ct valuable treatment option in this patient population. (C) 2001 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available