Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Final analysis of a randomized phase II/III trial of conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab versus dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab, in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma (JCOG1311)
  1. Mitsuya Ishikawa1,
  2. Taro Shibata2,
  3. Tomoko Kataoka2,
  4. Munetaka Takekuma3,
  5. Hiroaki Kobayashi4,
  6. Nobuo Yaegashi5 and
  7. Toyomi Satoh6
  8. on behalf of the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group in Japan Clinical Oncology Group
  1. 1 Department of Gynecology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
  2. 2 Japan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center/Operations Office, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
  3. 3 Division of Gynecology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, Japan
  4. 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, Japan
  5. 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
  6. 6 Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mitsuya Ishikawa, Department of Gynecology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; miishika{at}ncc.go.jp

Abstract

Objective To assess the efficacy of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical carcinoma, we conducted a phase II/III randomized controlled study comparing dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab to conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab. However, at the primary analysis of the phase II part, the response rate in the dose-dense arm was not higher than in the conventional arm and the study was terminated early before starting phase III. After a further 2 years of follow-up, we conducted this final analysis.

Methods 122 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the conventional or dose-dense arm. After bevacizumab was approved in Japan, patients in both arms received bevacizumab if not contraindicated. In the final analysis, overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were updated.

Results The median follow-up of surviving patients was 34.8 months (range 19.2–64.8). Median overall survival in the conventional arm was 17.7 months and in the dose-dense arm 18.5 months (p=0.71). Median progression-free survival in the conventional arm was 7.9 months and in the dose-dense arm 7.2 months (p=0.64). A platinum-free interval within 24 weeks and treatment without bevacizumab were identified as prognostic factors for overall and progression-free survival. Grade 3 to 4 non-hematologic toxicity occurred in 46.7% of patients who received the conventional regimen and in 43.3% of patients who received the dose-dense regimen. Adverse events related to bevacizumab in 82 patients included fistula in five (6.1%) and gastrointestinal perforation in three (3.7%).

Conclusions It was confirmed that dose-dense paclitaxel plus carboplatin for metastatic or recurrent cervical carcinoma is not superior to conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients who had early refractory disease after prior chemoradiotherapy had the poorest prognosis. The development of treatments that improve the prognosis of such patients remains an important issue.

Clinical trial information: jRCTs031180007.

  • Cervical Cancer

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Collaborators On behalf of Gynecologic Cancer Study Group in Japan Clinical Oncology Group.

  • Contributors MI, MT, HK, and NY contributed to study conceptualization, study design, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation. JCOG Data Center and JCOG Operations Office contributed to quality control of the data and to data analysis. All the authors contributed to data acquisition, manuscript editing and manuscript review, and have approved this submission. MI is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

  • Funding This work was supported by AMED under Grant Number JP16ck0106222 and JP19ck0106513 and by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund of Japan (23-A-17, 26-A-4, 29-A-3 and 2020-J-3).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.