Limits...
Does adding intraperitoneal paclitaxel to standard intraperitoneal regimen yield incremental survival? A propensity score-matched cohort study.

Chang YH, Lu CH, Yen MS, Lee WH, Chang Y, Chang WP, Chuang CM - Chin J Cancer (2016)

Bottom Line: Two propensity score-matched sample cohorts were created.We found that the addition of paclitaxel as a second intraperitoneal agent on a 3-week dosing schedule did not yield significant incremental survival benefits over the intraperitoneal delivery of a single cisplatin-based regimen.If our findings could be confirmed by a prospective randomized study, then it would be interesting to explore the efficacy of shifting back to a dose-dense intraperitoneal delivery of paclitaxel or a dose-dense delivery of a new formulation of paclitaxel for the patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, 11221, Taiwan, China.

ABSTRACT
We recruited consecutive patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers who had optimal residual tumor after primary cytoreductive surgery and who received intraperitoneal chemotherapy between 2002 and 2012. Two propensity score-matched sample cohorts were created. We found that the addition of paclitaxel as a second intraperitoneal agent on a 3-week dosing schedule did not yield significant incremental survival benefits over the intraperitoneal delivery of a single cisplatin-based regimen. If our findings could be confirmed by a prospective randomized study, then it would be interesting to explore the efficacy of shifting back to a dose-dense intraperitoneal delivery of paclitaxel or a dose-dense delivery of a new formulation of paclitaxel for the patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of progression-free survival rates by intention-to-treat (a) or per-protocol (b) analyses. CI confidence interval
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862156&req=5

Fig2: Comparison of progression-free survival rates by intention-to-treat (a) or per-protocol (b) analyses. CI confidence interval

Mentions: The Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival and overall survival curves are shown in Fig. 2, with both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The median progression-free survival showed no difference between the control cohort and the experimental cohort (intention-to-treat analysis: 21.7 vs. 23.3 months, P = 0.646; per-protocol analysis: 21.6 vs. 26.8 months, P = 0.481). In addition, the median overall survival showed no significant difference between these two cohorts (intention-to-treat analysis: 61.5 vs. 63.4 months, P = 0.829; per-protocol analysis: 61.5 vs. 62.5 months, P = 0.697) (Fig. 3).Fig. 2


Does adding intraperitoneal paclitaxel to standard intraperitoneal regimen yield incremental survival? A propensity score-matched cohort study.

Chang YH, Lu CH, Yen MS, Lee WH, Chang Y, Chang WP, Chuang CM - Chin J Cancer (2016)

Comparison of progression-free survival rates by intention-to-treat (a) or per-protocol (b) analyses. CI confidence interval
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862156&req=5

Fig2: Comparison of progression-free survival rates by intention-to-treat (a) or per-protocol (b) analyses. CI confidence interval
Mentions: The Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival and overall survival curves are shown in Fig. 2, with both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The median progression-free survival showed no difference between the control cohort and the experimental cohort (intention-to-treat analysis: 21.7 vs. 23.3 months, P = 0.646; per-protocol analysis: 21.6 vs. 26.8 months, P = 0.481). In addition, the median overall survival showed no significant difference between these two cohorts (intention-to-treat analysis: 61.5 vs. 63.4 months, P = 0.829; per-protocol analysis: 61.5 vs. 62.5 months, P = 0.697) (Fig. 3).Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Two propensity score-matched sample cohorts were created.We found that the addition of paclitaxel as a second intraperitoneal agent on a 3-week dosing schedule did not yield significant incremental survival benefits over the intraperitoneal delivery of a single cisplatin-based regimen.If our findings could be confirmed by a prospective randomized study, then it would be interesting to explore the efficacy of shifting back to a dose-dense intraperitoneal delivery of paclitaxel or a dose-dense delivery of a new formulation of paclitaxel for the patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, 11221, Taiwan, China.

ABSTRACT
We recruited consecutive patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers who had optimal residual tumor after primary cytoreductive surgery and who received intraperitoneal chemotherapy between 2002 and 2012. Two propensity score-matched sample cohorts were created. We found that the addition of paclitaxel as a second intraperitoneal agent on a 3-week dosing schedule did not yield significant incremental survival benefits over the intraperitoneal delivery of a single cisplatin-based regimen. If our findings could be confirmed by a prospective randomized study, then it would be interesting to explore the efficacy of shifting back to a dose-dense intraperitoneal delivery of paclitaxel or a dose-dense delivery of a new formulation of paclitaxel for the patients with stage III epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus