1 / 13

台北榮民總醫院 婦產部 主治醫師 吳 華 席

台北榮民總醫院 婦產部 主治醫師 吳 華 席. Introduction. Ovarian cancer The lethal gynecologic cancer The major prognostic factors Residual tumor at primary surgery Sensitivity to platinum-based C/T In platinum-resistant cancers None of drugs currently used showed superiority in phase II studies.

walden
Download Presentation

台北榮民總醫院 婦產部 主治醫師 吳 華 席

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 台北榮民總醫院 婦產部 主治醫師 吳 華 席

  2. Introduction • Ovarian cancer • The lethal gynecologic cancer • The major prognostic factors • Residual tumor at primary surgery • Sensitivity to platinum-based C/T • In platinum-resistant cancers • None of drugs currently used showed superiority in phase II studies

  3. RCTs for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients • PLD vs Topotecan • Equivalent in TTP & OS • More hematologic toxicity & alopecia in Topotecan group • More PPE, stomatitis & mucosities in PLD group (Gordon, JCO, 19:3312, 2001) • Gemzar vs PLD • PLD : 50 mg/m2 q4wks (by FDA)  PPE 23% • Higher mucositis /stomatitis than 40 mg/m2 q4wks (Mutch, JCO, 25:2811, 2007)

  4. Fig 1. Study design P/T only; recurrence/progression in 12 months Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 q4w Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on D1, D8 & D15 q4w Ferrandina, G. et al. J Clin Oncol; 26:890-896 2008

  5. Patients Characteristics

  6. Study Drug Administration Details

  7. Toxicities

  8. Clinical Responses Overall response: p=0.066 16 vs 29% L vs G Clinical benefit: p=0.085 58 vs 71%

  9. Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier estimate of (A) time to progression (TTP) and (B) overall survival (OS) curves In TTP, p= 0.411 In OS, p=0.048 Ferrandina, G. et al. J Clin Oncol; 26:890-896 2008

  10. Results • The rate of response was lower in pts experiencing recurrence within 6 months versus pt with a PFI of 7-12 months (15% vs 31%, p=0.032) • Progression of disease: 88% Died of disease: 62%

  11. Fig 3. Box-whiskers plots of the global quality of life (QoL) scores for patients treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD; n = 60 at baseline) and gemcitabine (GEM; n = 61 at baseline) Ferrandina, G. et al. J Clin Oncol; 26:890-896 2008

  12. Discussion • GEM is not superior to PLD in terms of TTP in Pt with recurrence either within 6 months or 7-12 months • Although there was a trend for more favorable OS in the PLD arms, the relative low number of patients, the borderline statistical significance, and the scarcity of data on post-progression chemotherapyregimens do not allow any firm conclusion to be drawn.

  13. Conclusion • Gemcitabine • Does not provide an advantage compared to LPD • Could be considered in salvage setting • LPD • Proved to be more manageable compared with GEM, because • The schedule • Negligible hematologic toxicity • Low rate of mucositis and skin toxicity  favorable therapeutic index of LPD

More Related