4.6 Article

Carboplatin dosing in obese women with ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 353-358

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.02.023

关键词

carboplatin; obesity; ovarian cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Carboplatin dosing for gynecologic malignancies is traditionally based on the Jelliffe formula that lacks dose adjustment for weight. Obese women may therefore receive a sub-therapeutic carboplatin dose. This study assessed the association between BM I and outcome for ovarian cancer patients treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods. An analysis of patients treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 158 was perfonned. The dose of carboplatin for each patient was based on an area under the curve of 7.5 and a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) derived from the Jelliffe formula which is derived from age and serum creatinine. Patients were stratified based on body mass index (BMI). Results. A total of 387 patients were included in the analysis. The patients were stratified into three groups: normal weight (BMI < 25.0, 50%), overweight (BMI 25-29.9, 32%) and obese (BMI >= 30.0, 18%). Compared to pretreatment values, the obese patients had a lower relative decrease in their platelet counts (- 25% for BMI >= 30 vs. - 6 1% for BMI < 25) (p = 0.01). Similar trends were noted for relative changes in hemoglobin (p = 0.006) and hematocrit (p = 0.002). Dose reductions were required in 34% of normal weight compared to 2 1% of the obese women (p = 0.004). There was a trend toward increased risk for disease progression in women with a BMI >= 30 (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.93-1.69, p = 0. 14). Conclusion. Obese ovarian cancer patients treated with carboplatin experience substantially less toxicity than normal weight women. The lower toxicity suggests that obese patients may be receiving a substandard drug dose. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据