Intraperitoneal Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide versus Intravenous Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Stage III Ovarian Cancer
David S. Alberts, M.D., P.Y. Liu, Ph.D., Edward V. Hannigan, M.D., Robert O'Toole, M.D., Stephen D. Williams, M.D., James A. Young, M.D., Ernest W. Franklin, M.D., Daniel L. Clarke-Pearson, M.D., Vinay K. Malviya, M.D., Brent DuBeshter, M.D., Mark D. Adelson, M.D., and William J. Hoskins, M.D.
Background Intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy is the standardprimary therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted aphase 3 trial to compare the effects of intraperitoneal andintravenous cisplatin on the survival of women with previouslyuntreated, stage III, epithelial ovarian cancer.
Methods The patients underwent an initial exploratory laparotomyand resection of all tumor masses larger than 2 cm. Within fourweeks after surgery, six courses of intravenous cyclophosphamide(600 mg per square meter of body-surface area per course) pluseither intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) orintravenous cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) were administeredat three-week intervals.
Results Of 654 randomized patients, 546 were eligible for thestudy. The estimated median survival was significantly longerin the group receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin (49 months;95 percent confidence interval, 42 to 56) than in the groupreceiving intravenous cisplatin (41 months; 95 percent confidenceinterval, 34 to 47). The risk of death was lower in the intraperitonealgroup than in the intravenous group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95percent confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Moderate-to-severetinnitus, clinical hearing loss, and neuromuscular toxic effectswere significantly more frequent in the intravenous group.
Conclusions As compared with intravenous cisplatin, intraperitonealcisplatin significantly improves survival and has significantlyfewer toxic effects in patients with stage III ovarian cancerand residual tumor masses of 2 cm or less.
Ovarian cancer, the leading cause of death from gynecologiccancer in the United States, is one of the few solid tumorsin which the five-year survival rate for patients has improvedin recent years.1,2 Nevertheless, most women with advanced ovariancancer die of the disease. Even those with stage III cancerand minimal residual intraperitoneal masses (<2 cm in thegreatest dimension) have a median survival of only about 40months.3,4
Standard chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer includes aplatinum analogue (either cisplatin or carboplatin). In an attemptto maximize its activity against ovarian cancer, cisplatin hasbeen administered directly into the peritoneal cavity in investigationalstudies.5 This route yields an intraperitoneal concentrationof cisplatin that is 12 to 15 times greater than the plasmaconcentration.6,7 Some phase 2 studies have suggested that survivalis prolonged in patients with small residual masses (<1 cm)who receive salvage intraperitoneal chemotherapy after initialchemotherapy and second-look surgery.8,9 The present phase 3trial compares cisplatin administered intraperitoneally withcisplatin administered intravenously in patients with previouslyuntreated stage III ovarian cancer and residual masses no largerthan 2 cm in the greatest dimension.
Methods
Patients
Within four weeks before enrollment, patients underwent an initialexploratory laparotomy with at least bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy,total abdominal hysterectomy, omentectomy, and debulking ofall tumor nodules to a size of 2 cm or less in the greatestdimension. The Southwest Oncology Group's Gynecologic SurgicalReview Board reviewed the surgical results to confirm eligibilityfor enrollment. Only patients with a histologic diagnosis ofepithelial-type ovarian cancer were eligible.
Eligible patients had stage III disease, a performance statusof 0 to 2 (according to criteria established by the SouthwestOncology Group), normal blood counts, and adequate renal function(serum creatinine, <1.5 mg per deciliter [130 µmolper liter]; creatinine clearance, >40 ml per minute). Allpatients gave informed consent according to institutional andfederal guidelines before enrollment.
Treatment Plan
Patients were randomly assigned to receive intraperitoneal cisplatinplus intravenous cyclophosphamide or intravenous cisplatin plusintravenous cyclophosphamide. The randomization procedure incorporatedstratification according to the amount of residual tumor (<0.5cm vs. >0.5 cm to 2 cm), performance status (0 or 1 vs. 2),the timing of enrollment (during vs. after surgery), and thecooperative group (Southwest Oncology Group vs. GynecologicOncology Group vs. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group).
Patients in both treatment groups received cyclophosphamide(600 mg per square meter of body-surface area in 150 ml of diluent)administered in a 60-to-90-minute intravenous infusion on day1. Patients in the intravenous group received cisplatin (100mg per square meter in 500 to 1000 ml of normal saline) administeredintravenously at a rate of 1 mg per minute, followed by at least1 liter of normal saline with 3 g of magnesium sulfate and 40g of mannitol over a period of one to two hours on day 1. Patientsin the intraperitoneal group received cisplatin (100 mg persquare meter in 2 liters of normal saline) warmed to body temperatureand instilled into the peritoneal cavity as rapidly as possible.Concurrently, these patients received at least 1 liter of normalsaline with 3 g of magnesium sulfate and 40 g of mannitol intravenously.
Courses of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin were repeated everythree weeks for a total of six cycles, provided the serum creatinineconcentration was less than or equal to 1.9 mg per deciliter(170 µmol per liter), the white-cell count was higherthan 3000 per cubic millimeter, and the platelet count was higherthan 100,000 per cubic millimeter. Therapy could be delayedfor a maximum of two weeks to allow for the resolution of toxiceffects. Cisplatin was permanently discontinued and the doseof cyclophosphamide increased to 1 g per square meter (in theabsence of grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression) if peripheral neuropathyof grade 2 or higher developed or the serum creatinine concentrationrose above 1.9 mg per deciliter. Therapy was discontinued altogetherif the serum creatinine level remained higher than 1.9 mg perdeciliter for eight weeks.
Clinical and Pathological Assessments
At base line and after six courses of therapy, a physical examinationwas performed, with a complete blood count, serum CA-125 andblood chemical measurements, and chest radiography. In addition,before each cycle, a physical examination was performed, witha complete blood count and measurement of serum CA-125 and creatinineconcentrations. Blood chemical measurements were performed atthe start of every other course. At the completion of therapy,patients without clinical evidence of ovarian cancer (excludingan elevated serum CA-125 value) underwent a second-look laparotomyto determine whether there had been a pathological response.
A complete pathological response was defined as no pathologicalevidence of disease on second-look surgery and biopsy of theupper abdomen and the para-aortic and retroperitoneal lymphnodes, as well as any other site previously involved with tumor.
Statistical Analysis
In the original study design (before the protocol was amendedto increase enrollment), it was assumed that 215 eligible patientswould be randomly assigned to each treatment group. At a two-sidedP value of 0.05, with the use of a Pearson chi-square approximation,the estimated power was 0.85 to detect a difference of 55 percentversus 40 percent in pathological-response rates in the intraperitonealand intravenous groups, respectively. The power was 0.93 (two-sidedlog-rank test, = 0.05) to detect a difference if the underlyingrisk of death (hazard ratio) in the intraperitoneal group, ascompared with the intravenous group, was 0.67. Survival wasdefined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.
Provisions for subgroup analysis were not included in the originalstudy design. During the study, however, a consensus emergedamong gynecologic oncologists that the patients most likelyto benefit from intraperitoneal chemotherapy were those witha tumor mass that was no larger than 0.5 cm in the greatestdimension. Therefore, in January 1991, with no knowledge ofsubgroup data, we extended accrual for an additional year toachieve a sufficiently large sample for a separate analysisof data from patients with residual tumors that were no largerthan 0.5 cm. All previously eligible patients were includedin the extended sample, which was planned to include 560 eligiblepatients overall and 390 eligible patients with residual tumorsno larger than 0.5 cm. In the analysis of this subgroup, ifthe hazard ratio was 0.67 for the patients receiving intraperitonealtreatment, the power to detect a difference was 0.88.
The treatment group, size of residual tumor (microscopical vs.<0.5 cm vs. >0.5 cm to 2 cm), age, performance status(0 or 1 vs. 2), race (white vs. other), tumor type (clear cellor mucinous vs. other), tumor grade, participating group (SouthwestOncology Group vs. Gynecologic Oncology Group vs. Eastern CooperativeOncology Group), and timing of enrollment (during vs. aftersurgery) were included as covariates in Cox regression analyses.10Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for comparisons oftoxic effects in the two treatment groups. All eligible patientswho received chemotherapy were included in the analysis of toxicity.
Results
Patients
Between June 1986 and July 1992, 654 women were randomly assignedto a study group: 295 from the Southwest Oncology Group, 298from the Gynecologic Oncology Group, and 61 from the EasternCooperative Oncology Group. A total of 108 patients were ineligible(52 in the intravenous group and 56 in the intraperitoneal group)for the following reasons: inadequate surgery (in 54), pathologicalfindings that did not meet the study criteria (31), insufficientdocumentation (20), and miscellaneous clinical factors thatdid not meet the study criteria (3). Table 1 shows the characteristicsof the eligible patients. There were no significant differencesbetween the study groups with respect to important prognosticfactors.
Table 1. Characteristics of 546 Eligible Patients with Stage III Ovarian Cancer Who Were Assigned to Treatment with Intravenous or Intraperitoneal Cisplatin.
Of the 279 eligible patients in the intravenous group, 2 diedbefore treatment, and 1 refused treatment after randomization.There were 20 major protocol violations among the 267 eligiblepatients in the intraperitoneal group: 3 patients died beforetreatment was started, 6 withdrew consent after randomization,8 did not receive the assigned treatment for other reasons (5because of complications related to intraperitoneal catheterizationand 3 because of errors by the local pathologist), 2 receivedtreatment for only one day, and 1 erroneously received intravenouscarboplatin during cycles 2 through 6. All 546 eligible patientswere included in the efficacy analyses (according to the intention-to-treatprinciple), regardless of whether they completed the assignedtreatment. The 20 patients in both groups who did not receiveany treatment were excluded from the toxicity analysis.
Intensity of Cisplatin Dose
In both the intravenous and intraperitoneal groups, 58 percentof all eligible patients completed six courses of cisplatintherapy (Table 2). Among these patients, the average proportionof the initial cisplatin dose administered during cycle 6 (thecourse with the maximal dose reduction) was 96 percent in theintravenous group and 97 percent in the intraperitoneal group.Cisplatin was discontinued because of toxic effects (with aconcomitant increase in the cyclophosphamide dose) in 40 patientsin the intravenous group and 22 in the intraperitoneal group.
Table 2. Percentages of Eligible Patients Receiving Cisplatin and the Dose Received during Each Course of Treatment.
Complete Pathological Responses
Of the 546 eligible patients, 20 never received any study treatment,81 did not complete therapy, and 45 had tumors that progressedbefore the completion of therapy. Second-look surgery was notrequired in these patients. In 103 of the remaining 400 patients,surgery was contraindicated or the patient refused it (70 patients),or the procedure was performed but deemed inadequate by theGynecologic Surgical Review Board (33). Because of the biasassociated with this group of 103 patients who had no clinicalevidence of disease at the completion of therapy but did notundergo second-look surgery or had inadequate surgery, the ratesof pathological responses are given without statistical comparisons.
A total of 297 patients with no clinical evidence of diseaseat the end of chemotherapy underwent adequate second-look surgery.The rate of complete pathological responses was 36 percent inthe intravenous group (complete responses in 57 of 158 patients)and 47 percent in the intraperitoneal group (complete responsesin 66 of 139).
Survival
All eligible patients were included in the primary analysisregardless of whether they completed the assigned treatment.Covariates associated with improved survival included the absenceof gross disease at enrollment (P<0.001), a younger age (P<0.001),a type of tumor other than clear cell or mucinous (P<0.001),and enrollment after surgery (P<0.001). The final Cox modelincluded these four factors and performance status (which wasretained in the model because of its established prognosticimportance).
The results after adjustment for these five factors are shownin Table 3, along with unadjusted median survival in the twogroups. The hazard ratio for the risk of death in the intraperitonealgroup, as compared with the intravenous group, was 0.76 (95percent confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). The mediansurvival was 41 months (95 percent confidence interval, 34 to47) in the intravenous group and 49 months (95 percent confidenceinterval, 42 to 56) in the intraperitoneal group (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Survival of 546 Eligible Patients with Stage III Ovarian Cancer Who Were Randomly Assigned to Treatment with Intravenous or Intraperitoneal Cisplatin.
Figure 2 shows the survival curves for all eligible patientsaccording to the extent of residual intraperitoneal disease.The effect of the treatment (intravenous or intraperitonealcisplatin) was not influenced by the extent of residual disease(P = 0.93 for the interaction of treatment and residual disease).Table 3 shows the results of a separate analysis for the subgroupof patients with residual tumors no larger than 0.5 cm. Theanalysis was repeated for all 654 randomized patients, includingthose who were ineligible. The results were equivalent to thoseof the primary analysis (Table 3).
Figure 2. Survival of Eligible Patients According to the Extent of Residual Disease at Enrollment.
Toxic Effects
Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the intraperitonealgroup. One patient died of respiratory failure of unknown cause41 days after the second cycle of chemotherapy (blood countswere adequate at the time of death). The second patient diedof bronchopneumonia during a period of chemotherapy-associatedleukopenia 13 days after the third cycle. No treatment-relateddeaths occurred in the intravenous group.
Significantly more patients in the intravenous group than inthe intraperitoneal group had grade 3 or higher granulocytopenia(P = 0.002) and leukopenia (P = 0.04) (Table 4). Table 5 showsthe frequency of other toxic effects (grade 2 or higher) duringany treatment cycle. Moderate-to-severe tinnitus and hearingloss were more frequent in patients receiving intravenous cisplatinthan in those receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin. In addition,significantly more patients in the intravenous group had grade2 or 3 neuromuscular toxic effects at the completion of chemotherapy(25 percent, vs. 15 percent in the intraperitoneal group; P= 0.02).
Table 5. Frequency of Other Toxic Effects (>Grade 2) during Any Course of Treatment.
As expected, abdominal pain of grade 2 or higher was more commonin the intraperitoneal group (P<0.001); however, the painusually resolved within 24 hours and was controlled with nonopioidor only weak opioid drugs. One patient had grade 4 abdominalpain. Transient dyspnea was infrequent but occurred in a significantlylarger proportion of patients in the intraperitoneal group (3percent, vs. 0.4 percent in the intravenous group; P = 0.002).In the patients receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin, dyspneaprobably resulted from compression of the base of the lung bythe fluid-filled intraperitoneal cavity.
Discussion
In this study we compared intraperitoneal with intravenous cisplatinin women with advanced ovarian cancer. All the patients hadundergone debulking surgery and received intravenous cyclophosphamideconcomitantly with the cisplatin. The median survival of thepatients treated intraperitoneally was 8 months longer thanthat of the patients given intravenous cisplatin (49 vs. 41months), and the hazard ratio in the intraperitoneal group was0.76 (P = 0.02). These results represent a 20 percent improvementin median survival and a 24 percent reduction in the risk ofdeath during the entire follow-up period among the eligiblepatients in the intraperitoneal group.
Neutropenia, tinnitus, hearing loss, and neuromuscular toxiceffects were significantly less frequent in the intraperitonealgroup than in the intravenous group. Abdominal pain was morecommon in the intraperitoneal group, but in most cases it wastransient and not severe (i.e., grade 3 or higher in only 5percent of the patients).
Previous reports have summarized the toxic effects of intraperitonealcisplatin at doses ranging from 50 to 100 mg per square meter.11,12,13Chronic, low-grade inflammation from repeated intraperitonealadministration may cause mild-to-severe abdominal pain and intraabdominaladhesions. These reports have generally focused on patientswho had undergone two exploratory laparotomies before the administrationof intraperitoneal cisplatin. In our study, all the patientshad undergone only one definitive exploratory laparotomy withinfour weeks before the start of chemotherapy. Thus, our patientswere probably less susceptible to the local toxic effects ofintraperitoneal cisplatin.
Howell et al. reported that after second-line therapy with intraperitonealcisplatin, rates of surgically established complete responseswere significantly higher among patients with smaller residualintraperitoneal tumor masses (<0.5 cm) than among those withlarger masses (>0.5 cm to 2 cm).8 Consistent with this findingwas the 80 percent rate of a complete pathological responseamong our patients with no gross residual disease who receivedintraperitoneal cisplatin (32 of 40 patients), as compared witha rate of 56 percent among those with no gross residual diseasewho received intravenous cisplatin (24 of 43). Such resultsreflect the fact that the penetration of intraperitoneal cisplatinis limited to a depth of 0.1 to 1 mm from the surface of theperitoneal tumor.14
We found that intraperitoneal cisplatin was associated witha longer survival than was intravenous cisplatin, whether residualintraperitoneal tumor masses were 0.5 cm or less or more than0.5 cm in the greatest dimension. We do not know the reasonfor this result, but several explanations are possible. Allprevious investigations of intraperitoneal cisplatin therapyhave been phase 2 studies, which included mainly patients whohad already received intravenous cisplatin. Our patients hadnever before received chemotherapy, and their tumors may thereforehave been highly sensitive to cisplatin. Moreover, the precisionin measuring intraperitoneal tumor masses during an initialexploratory laparotomy is limited, and the total volume of themass may have more prognostic value than the maximal dimension.
The combination of intravenous paclitaxel plus intraperitonealcisplatin may prove to be more effective than intravenous cyclophosphamideplus intraperitoneal cisplatin in patients with stage III ovariancancer and minimal residual disease. The Gynecologic OncologyGroup recently reported that paclitaxel plus cisplatin significantlyincreased survival (median, 38 months, vs. 24 months with cyclophosphamideplus cisplatin) when administered as primary chemotherapy inwomen with incompletely resected stage III or IV ovarian cancer.15Ongoing phase 3 studies by the Gynecologic Oncology Group andthe Southwest Oncology Group will further define the role ofintraperitoneal cisplatin (and intravenous paclitaxel) in thetreatment of stage III ovarian cancer that has been optimallyresected.
Supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute(CA38926, CA32102, CA45450, CA04920, CA42028, CA46441, CA45560,CA13612, CA20319, CA35119, CA35090, CA35281, CA58686, CA28862,CA35431, CA35200, CA45377, CA58861, CA45807, CA35261, CA12644,CA35192, CA37981, CA42777, CA16385, CA12213, CA35128, CA04919,CA35178, CA35176, CA35262, CA32734, CA46282, and CA58415) andBristol-Myers Squibb.
We are indebted to Drs. Renzo Canetta and Mace Rothenberg forscientific advice; to the individual investigators for theirparticipation and support (especially Drs. Ronald Alvarez, AlbertBonebrake, Eric Jenison, William Creasman, Nicola Spirtos, MatthewBurrell, and Mark Crozier); to Dava Garcia for assistance withstudy coordination and manuscript preparation; to Janet O'Sullivan,M.S., for assistance with the statistical analysis; to DanaSparks, M.A.T., for protocol coordination; to Janet Quade, NancyMason-Liddil, and Dianna Garcia for assistance with data management;and to Lois Loescher, R.N., M.S., for editorial assistance.
Source Information
From the University of Arizona, Tucson (D.S.A.); the Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle (P.Y.L.); the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston (E.V.H.); Ohio State University Health Center, Columbus (R.O.); the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Philadelphia (S.D.W., D.L.C.-P., B.D., M.D.A., W.J.H.); Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (S.D.W.); the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Boston (J.A.Y.); Cancer Care Associates, Tulsa, Okla. (J.A.Y.); Atlanta Regional Community Clinical Oncology Program, Atlanta (E.W.F.); Wayne State University Medical Center, Detroit (V.K.M.); and the University of Rochester Medical School, Rochester, N.Y. (B.D.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Alberts at the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG-8501), Operations Office, 14980 Omicron Dr., San Antonio, TX 78245-3217.
References
Wingo PA, Tong T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics, 1995. CA Cancer J Clin 1995;45:8-30. [Erratum, CA Cancer J Clin 1995;45:127-8.] [Free Full Text]
Miller BA, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, et al., eds. SEER cancer statistics review: 1973-1990. Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1993. (NIH publication no. 93-2789.)
Neijt JP, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, van der Burg MEL, et al. Randomized trial comparing two combination chemotherapy regimens (CHAP-5 v CP) in advanced ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1157-1168. [Free Full Text]
Omura GA, Bundy BN, Berek JS, Curry S, Delgado G, Mortel R. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin with or without doxorubicin in ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:457-465. [Abstract]
Dedrick RL, Myers CE, Bungay PM, DeVita VT Jr. Pharmacokinetic rationale for peritoneal drug administration in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:1-11. [Medline]
Howell SB, Pfeifle CL, Wung WE, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin with systemic thiosulfate protection. Ann Intern Med 1982;97:845-851.
Goel R, Cleary SM, Horton C, et al. Effect of sodium thiosulfate on the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of cisplatin. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1552-1560. [Free Full Text]
Howell SB, Zimm S, Markman M, et al. Long-term survival of advanced refractory ovarian carcinoma patients with small-volume disease treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1607-1612. [Free Full Text]
Kirmani S, Lucas WE, Kim S, et al. A phase II trial of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide as salvage treatment for minimal residual ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:649-657. [Abstract]
Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972;34:187-220.
Piccart MJ, Speyer JL, Markman M, et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy: technical experience at five institutions. Semin Oncol 1985;12:Suppl 4:90-96. [Medline]
Markman M. Intraperitoneal antineoplastic agents for tumors principally confined to the peritoneal cavity. Cancer Treat Rev 1986;13:219-242. [CrossRef][Medline]
Markman M. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies. In: Deppe G, ed. Chemotherapy of gynecologic cancer. 2nd ed. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1990:375-90.
Los G, Mutsaers PHA, van der Vijgh WJF, Baldew GS, de Graaf PW, McVie JG. Direct diffusion of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) in intraperitoneal rat tumors after intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a comparison with systemic chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1989;49:3380-3384. [Free Full Text]
McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1-6. [Free Full Text]
Lu, Z., Tsai, M., Lu, D., Wang, J., Wientjes, M. G., Au, J. L.-S.
(2008). Tumor-Penetrating Microparticles for Intraperitoneal Therapy of Ovarian Cancer. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
327: 673-682
[Abstract][Full Text]
Robinson, W. R., Coberly, C., Beyer, J., Lewis, A., Ballard, C.
(2008). Office-Based Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer. J Oncol Pract
4: 225-228
[Full Text]
Havrilesky, L. J., Alvarez Secord, A., Darcy, K. M., Armstrong, D. K., Kulasingam, S.
(2008). Cost Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Compared With Intravenous Chemotherapy for Women With Optimally Resected Stage III Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. JCO
26: 4144-4150
[Abstract][Full Text]
Krivak, T. C., Darcy, K. M., Tian, C., Armstrong, D., Baysal, B. E., Gallion, H., Ambrosone, C. B., DeLoia, J. A.
(2008). Relationship Between ERCC1 Polymorphisms, Disease Progression, and Survival in the Gynecologic Oncology Group Phase III Trial of Intraperitoneal Versus Intravenous Cisplatin and Paclitaxel for Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. JCO
26: 3598-3606
[Abstract][Full Text]
Swart, A. M. C., Burdett, S., Ledermann, J., Mook, P., Parmar, M. K. B.
(2008). Why i.p. therapy cannot yet be considered as a standard of care for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol
19: 688-695
[Abstract][Full Text]
Trimble, E. L., Thompson, S., Christian, M. C., Minasian, L.
(2008). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Women with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. The Oncologist
13: 403-409
[Abstract][Full Text]
Vergote, I., Amant, F., Leunen, K., Cadron, I., Van Gorp, T., Neven, P., Berteloot, P.
(2008). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer: The Con View. The Oncologist
13: 410-414
[Abstract][Full Text]
Prat, A., Parera, M., Peralta, S., Perez-Benavente, M. A., Garcia, A., Gil-Moreno, A., Martinez-Palones, J. M., Roxana, I., Baselga, J., Del Campo, J. M.
(2008). Nadir CA-125 concentration in the normal range as an independent prognostic factor for optimally treated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol
19: 327-331
[Abstract][Full Text]
Viswanathan, A. N., Buttin, B. M., Kennedy, A. M.
(2008). Oncodiagnosis Panel: 2006: Ovarian, Cervical, and Endometrial Cancer. RadioGraphics
28: 289-307
[Full Text]
Schnipper, L. E.
(2007). Update in Oncology. ANN INTERN MED
147: 775-782
[Full Text]
Bijelic, L., Jonson, A., Sugarbaker, P. H.
(2007). Systematic review of cytoreductive surgery and heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in primary and recurrent ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol
18: 1943-1950
[Abstract][Full Text]
Ali, S N., Ledermann, J. A
(2007). Current practice and new developments in ovarian cancer chemotherapy. The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist
9: 265-269
[Abstract][Full Text]
Mobus, V., Wandt, H., Frickhofen, N., Bengala, C., Champion, K., Kimmig, R., Ostermann, H., Hinke, A., Ledermann, J. A.
(2007). Phase III Trial of High-Dose Sequential Chemotherapy With Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Support Compared With Standard Dose Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Intergroup Trial of the AGO-Ovar/AIO and EBMT. JCO
25: 4187-4193
[Abstract][Full Text]
Rao, G., Crispens, M., Rothenberg, M. L.
(2007). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer: Overview and Perspective. JCO
25: 2867-2872
[Abstract][Full Text]
Burger, R. A.
(2007). Experience With Bevacizumab in the Management of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. JCO
25: 2902-2908
[Abstract][Full Text]
Wittgen, B. P.H., Kunst, P. W.A., van der Born, K., van Wijk, A. W., Perkins, W., Pilkiewicz, F. G., Perez-Soler, R., Nicholson, S., Peters, G. J., Postmus, P. E.
(2007). Phase I Study of Aerosolized SLIT Cisplatin in the Treatment of Patients with Carcinoma of the Lung. Clin. Cancer Res.
13: 2414-2421
[Abstract][Full Text]
Morgan, R. J. Jr., Synold, T. W., Xi, B., Lim, D., Shibata, S., Margolin, K., Schwarz, R. E., Leong, L., Somlo, G., Twardowski, P., Yen, Y., Chow, W., Tetef, M., Lin, P., Paz, B., Koczywas, M., Wagman, L., Chu, D., Frankel, P., Stalter, S., Doroshow, J. H.
(2007). Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Gemcitabine in the Treatment of Advanced Malignancies Primarily Confined to the Peritoneal Cavity. Clin. Cancer Res.
13: 1232-1237
[Abstract][Full Text]
Axtell, A. E., Lee, M. H., Bristow, R. E., Dowdy, S. C., Cliby, W. A., Raman, S., Weaver, J. P., Gabbay, M., Ngo, M., Lentz, S., Cass, I., Li, A. J., Karlan, B. Y., Holschneider, C. H.
(2007). Multi-Institutional Reciprocal Validation Study of Computed Tomography Predictors of Suboptimal Primary Cytoreduction in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer. JCO
25: 384-389
[Abstract][Full Text]
Wenzel, L. B., Huang, H. Q., Armstrong, D. K., Walker, J. L., Cella, D.
(2007). Health-Related Quality of Life During and After Intraperitoneal Versus Intravenous Chemotherapy for Optimally Debulked Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. JCO
25: 437-443
[Abstract][Full Text]
Markman, M.
(2007). New, Expanded, and Modified Use of Approved Antineoplastic Agents in Ovarian Cancer. The Oncologist
12: 186-190
[Abstract][Full Text]
Gore, M., du Bois, A., Vergote, I.
(2006). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer Remains Experimental. JCO
24: 4528-4530
[Full Text]
Stachowska-Pietka, J., Waniewski, J., Flessner, M. F., Lindholm, B.
(2006). Distributed model of peritoneal fluid absorption. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.
291: H1862-H1874
[Abstract][Full Text]
Krasner, C. N., Roche, M., Horowitz, N. S., Supko, J. G., Lee, S. I., Oliva, E.
(2006). Case 11-2006 -- A 54-Year-Old Woman with a Mass in the Pelvis. NEJM
354: 1615-1625
[Full Text]
Choi, J., Credit, K., Henderson, K., Deverkadra, R., He, Z., Wiig, H., Vanpelt, H., Flessner, M. F.
(2006). Intraperitoneal immunotherapy for metastatic ovarian carcinoma: resistance of intratumoral collagen to antibody penetration.. Clin. Cancer Res.
12: 1906-1912
[Abstract][Full Text]
Markman, M., Walker, J. L.
(2006). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy of Ovarian Cancer: A Review, With a Focus on Practical Aspects of Treatment. JCO
24: 988-994
[Full Text]
Lockley, M., Fernandez, M., Wang, Y., Li, N. F., Conroy, S., Lemoine, N., McNeish, I.
(2006). Activity of the Adenoviral E1A Deletion Mutant dl922-947 in Ovarian Cancer: Comparison with E1A Wild-type Viruses, Bioluminescence Monitoring, and Intraperitoneal Delivery in Icodextrin. Cancer Res.
66: 989-998
[Abstract][Full Text]
Armstrong, D. K., Bundy, B., Wenzel, L., Huang, H. Q., Baergen, R., Lele, S., Copeland, L. J., Walker, J. L., Burger, R. A., the Gynecologic Oncology Group,
(2006). Intraperitoneal Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Ovarian Cancer. NEJM
354: 34-43
[Abstract][Full Text]
Cannistra, S. A.
(2006). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Comes of Age. NEJM
354: 77-79
[Full Text]
Kioi, M., Takahashi, S., Kawakami, M., Kawakami, K., Kreitman, R. J., Puri, R. K.
(2005). Expression and Targeting of Interleukin-4 Receptor for Primary and Advanced Ovarian Cancer Therapy. Cancer Res.
65: 8388-8396
[Abstract][Full Text]
Flessner, M. F., Choi, J., Credit, K., Deverkadra, R., Henderson, K.
(2005). Resistance of Tumor Interstitial Pressure to the Penetration of Intraperitoneally Delivered Antibodies into Metastatic Ovarian Tumors. Clin. Cancer Res.
11: 3117-3125
[Abstract][Full Text]
Flessner, M. F.
(2005). The transport barrier in intraperitoneal therapy. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.
288: F433-F442
[Abstract][Full Text]
Cannistra, S. A.
(2004). Cancer of the Ovary. NEJM
351: 2519-2529
[Full Text]
Skates, S. J., Horick, N., Yu, Y., Xu, F.-J., Berchuck, A., Havrilesky, L. J., de Bruijn, H. W.A., van der Zee, A. G.J., Woolas, R. P., Jacobs, I. J., Zhang, Z., Bast, R. C. Jr
(2004). Preoperative Sensitivity and Specificity for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer When Combining Cancer Antigen CA-125II, CA 15-3, CA 72-4, and Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Using Mixtures of Multivariate Normal Distributions. JCO
22: 4059-4066
[Abstract][Full Text]
Flessner, M. F., Choi, J., He, Z., Credit, K.
(2004). Physiological characterization of human ovarian cancer cells in a rat model of intraperitoneal antineoplastic therapy. J. Appl. Physiol.
97: 1518-1526
[Abstract][Full Text]
Sabbatini, P., Aghajanian, C., Leitao, M., Venkatraman, E., Anderson, S., Dupont, J., Dizon, D., O'Flaherty, C., Bloss, J., Chi, D., Spriggs, D.
(2004). Intraperitoneal Cisplatin with Intraperitoneal Gemcitabine in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Results of a Phase I/II Trial. Clin. Cancer Res.
10: 2962-2967
[Abstract][Full Text]
Morgan, R. J. Jr., Doroshow, J. H., Synold, T., Lim, D., Shibata, S., Margolin, K., Schwarz, R., Leong, L., Somlo, G., Twardowski, P., Yen, Y., Chow, W., Lin, P., Paz, B., Chu, D., Frankel, P., Stalter, S.
(2003). Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Docetaxel in the Treatment of Advanced Malignancies Primarily Confined to the Peritoneal Cavity: Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Pharmacokinetics. Clin. Cancer Res.
9: 5896-5901
[Abstract][Full Text]
Gore, M.
(2003). Carboplatin Equals Cisplatin: But How Do I Prescribe It?. JCO
21: 3183-3185
[Full Text]
Markman, M., Liu, P.Y., Wilczynski, S., Monk, B., Copeland, L. J., Alvarez, R. D., Jiang, C., Alberts, D.
(2003). Phase III Randomized Trial of 12 Versus 3 Months of Maintenance Paclitaxel in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Complete Response to Platinum and Paclitaxel-Based Chemotherapy: A Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial. JCO
21: 2460-2465
[Abstract][Full Text]
Cannistra, S. A., Bast, R. C. Jr., Berek, J. S., Bookman, M. A., Crum, C. P., DePriest, P. D., Garber, J. E., Koh, W.-J., Markman, M., McGuire, W. P. III, Rose, P. G., Rowinsky, E. K., Rustin, G. J.S., Skates, S. J., Vasey, P. A., King, L.
(2003). Progress in the Management of Gynecologic Cancer: Consensus Summary Statement. JCO
21: 129s-132
[Full Text]
Markman, M.
(2003). Role of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Front-Line Setting. JCO
21: 145s-148
[Abstract][Full Text]
Bookman, M. A.
(2003). Developmental Chemotherapy and Management of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer. JCO
21: 149s-167
[Abstract][Full Text]
Rothenberg, M. L., Liu, P.Y., Braly, P. S., Wilczynski, S. P., Hannigan, E. V., Wadler, S., Stuart, G., Jiang, C., Markman, M., Alberts, D. S.
(2003). Combined Intraperitoneal and Intravenous Chemotherapy for Women With Optimally Debulked Ovarian Cancer: Results From an Intergroup Phase II Trial. JCO
21: 1313-1319
[Abstract][Full Text]
Atkins, C. D.
(2003). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Stage III Ovarian Cancer. JCO
21: 957-957
[Full Text]
Alberts, D. S.
(2003). In Reply:. JCO
21: 957-958
[Full Text]
Phillips, W. T., Medina, L. A., Klipper, R., Goins, B.
(2002). A Novel Approach for the Increased Delivery of Pharmaceutical Agents to Peritoneum and Associated Lymph Nodes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
303: 11-16
[Abstract][Full Text]
Alberts, D. S., Markman, M., Armstrong, D., Rothenberg, M. L., Muggia, F., Howell, S. B.
(2002). Intraperitoneal Therapy for Stage III Ovarian Cancer: A Therapy Whose Time Has Come!. JCO
20: 3944-3946
[Full Text]
Chagnac, A., Herskovitz, P., Ori, Y., Weinstein, T., Hirsh, J., Katz, M., Gafter, U.
(2002). Effect of Increased Dialysate Volume on Peritoneal Surface Area among Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
13: 2554-2559
[Abstract][Full Text]
Bristow, R. E., Tomacruz, R. S., Armstrong, D. K., Trimble, E. L., Montz, F. J.
(2002). Survival Effect of Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma During the Platinum Era: A Meta-Analysis. JCO
20: 1248-1259
[Abstract][Full Text]
Auzenne, E., Donato, N. J., Li, C., Leroux, E., Price, R. E., Farquhar, D., Klostergaard, J.
(2002). Superior Therapeutic Profile of Poly-L-Glutamic Acid-Paclitaxel Copolymer Compared with Taxol in Xenogeneic Compartmental Models of Human Ovarian Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res.
8: 573-581
[Abstract][Full Text]
Culliford, A. T. IV, Brooks, A. D., Sharma, S., Saltz, L. B., Schwartz, G. K., O'Reilly, E. M., Ilson, D. H., Kemeny, N. E., Kelsen, D. P., Guillem, J. G., Wong, W. D., Cohen, A. M., Paty, P. B.
(2001). Surgical Debulking and Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Established Peritoneal Metastases From Colon and Appendix Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol.
8: 787-795
[Abstract][Full Text]
Sano, T.
(2001). Is Peritoneal Carcinomatosis an Incurable Disease or Controllable Locoregional Condition? -- Challenge of Surgeons with Intraperitoneal Hyperthermic Chemotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol
31: 571-572
[Full Text]
Frankel, A., Rosen, K., Filmus, J., Kerbel, R. S.
(2001). Induction of Anoikis and Suppression of Human Ovarian Tumor Growth in Vivo by Down-Regulation of Bcl-XL. Cancer Res.
61: 4837-4841
[Abstract][Full Text]
Alberts, D. S., Hallum III, A. V., Stratton-Custis, M., Garcia, D. J., Gleason-Guzman, M., Salmon, S. E., Santabarbara, P., Niesor, E. J., Floret, S., Bentzen, C. L.
(2001). Phase I Pharmacokinetic Trial and Correlative in Vitro Phase II Tumor Kinetic Study of Apomine (SR-45023A), a Novel Oral Biphosphonate Anticancer Drug. Clin. Cancer Res.
7: 1246-1250
[Abstract][Full Text]
McGuire, W. P.
(2001). Intraperitoneal Therapy for Ovarian Cancer: A Sacrifice Bunt. JCO
19: 921-923
[Full Text]
Markman, M., Bundy, B. N., Alberts, D. S., Fowler, J. M., Clark-Pearson, D. L., Carson, L. F., Wadler, S., Sickel, J.
(2001). Phase III Trial of Standard-Dose Intravenous Cisplatin Plus Paclitaxel Versus Moderately High-Dose Carboplatin Followed by Intravenous Paclitaxel and Intraperitoneal Cisplatin in Small-Volume Stage III Ovarian Carcinoma: An Intergroup Study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. JCO
19: 1001-1007
[Abstract][Full Text]
Stiff, P. J., Veum-Stone, J., Lazarus, H. M., Ayash, L., Edwards, J. R., Keating, A., Klein, J. P., Oblon, D. J., Shea, T. C., Thome, S., Horowitz, M. M.
(2000). High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation for Ovarian Cancer: An Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry Report. ANN INTERN MED
133: 504-515
[Abstract][Full Text]
Freedman, R. S., Kudelka, A. P., Kavanagh, J. J., Verschraegen, C., Edwards, C. L., Nash, M., Levy, L., Atkinson, E. N., Zhang, H.-Z., Melichar, B., Patenia, R., Templin, S., Scott, W., Platsoucas, C. D.
(2000). Clinical and Biological Effects of Intraperitoneal Injections of Recombinant Interferon-{{gamma}} and Recombinant Interleukin 2 with or without Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Patients with Ovarian or Peritoneal Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res.
6: 2268-2278
[Abstract][Full Text]
Alberts, D. S.
(1999). A Unifying Vision of Cancer Therapy for the 21st Century. JCO
17: 13-21
[Full Text]
Groopman, J. E., Itri, L. M.
(1999). Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Adults: Incidence and Treatment. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst
91: 1616-1634
[Abstract][Full Text]
Geisler, H. E., Bonnefoi, H., Gore, M. E.
(1999). Optimal Cytoreduction in Stage IV Ovarian Carcinoma. JCO
17: 3002-3002
[Full Text]
Bonnefoi, H., A'Hern, R. P., Fisher, C., Macfarlane, V., Barton, D., Blake, P., Shepherd, J. H., Gore, M. E.
(1999). Natural History of Stage IV Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. JCO
17: 767-767
[Abstract][Full Text]
Beltran, M., Fuentes, R., Izquierdo, A., Espinosa, E., Zamora, P., Fruchter, O., Alberts, D. S.
(1997). Treatment of Ovarian Cancer with Intraperitoneal Cisplatin. NEJM
336: 1674-1675
[Full Text]
(1997). Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: New Hope for Ovarian Cancer. JWatch Women's Health
1997: 9-9
[Full Text]
= 0.05) to detect a difference if the underlying risk of death (hazard ratio) in the intraperitoneal group, as compared with the intravenous group, was 0.67. Survival was defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. 
Previous
