4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A phase II, randomized trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy comparing a three-drug combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (TIP) versus paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the Snap-02 Italian Collaborative Study

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 660-665

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn690

Keywords

cisplatin; ifosfamide; locally advanced cervical carcinoma; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy; paclitaxel; randomized trial

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The efficacy and tolerability of the regimen containing paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) in the neo-adjuvant treatment of locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer are unknown. The TIP regimen (TP plus ifosfamide) showed high efficacy but high toxicity and it is used as an internal control. Patients and methods: In all, 154 patients were randomized to TP (paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) + cisplatin 75 mg/m(2); n = 80) or TIP (TP + ifosfamide 5 g/m(2); n = 74), three cycles, followed by radical surgery. Pathological response to chemotherapy was classified as optimal [no residual tumor (complete response) or residual disease with <= 3 mm stromal invasion (PR1)] or suboptimal response. Results: Patient characteristics (TP/TIP): stage IB2 (56%/64%), IIA (18%/14%), IIB (20%/19%), III-IVA (5%/4%) and median age (42 years/45 years). The optimal response rate in the TP group was 25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 16% to 37% and 43%, 95% CI = 31% to 55% in the TIP group. Grades 3-4 leukopenia (6%/53%) and neutropenia (26%/76%) were significantly more frequent on TIP. Conclusion: TP performance was below expectation since the lower 95% confidence limit of the optimal response rate failed to reach the prespecified minimum requirement of efficacy, i.e. 22%. The TIP regimen confirmed its activity but was associated with higher haematological toxicity than TP.

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