Objective: The effectiveness of paclitaxel-cisplatin-ifosfamide triplet regimen (TIP) was reported to be superior to that of paclitaxel-cisplatin doublet. However, the efficacy of paclitaxel-cisplatin-bevacizumab triplet (TPA) and TIP has not been compared. Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of TIP and TPA in patients with metastatic, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer who were at the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea between January 2005 and September 2018. Of the 161 patients included in the study, 92 had received TIP and 71 had received TPA. For the study, we compared the response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the 2 treatment groups.
Results: The response rates of patients who received TIP and TPA were comparable (64.1% vs 73.2%, P = 0.239). Histology (squamous vs nonsquamous) was the only prognostic factor that affected the response to therapy (odds ratio, 0.259; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.119-0.562; P = 0.001). The PFS after TIP and TPA treatment was similar: 12.0 months (95%CI, 10.26-13.74) vs 11.5 months (95%CI, 10.18-12.83), respectively. In a Cox proportional hazard model, objective response to therapies was the only independent prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. However, different types of therapy (TIP vs TPA) did not affect the oncological outcomes for either PFS or OS. Although hematologic toxicity was significantly higher in the TIP-treated group than in the TPA-treated group, both regimens were safe and well-tolerated.
Conclusions: The effectiveness and safety of TIP was comparable to TPA in terms of response rates, survival, and adverse effects. TIP could be an effective alternative in the treatment of cervical cancer when TPA is contraindicated or unaffordable.
Keywords: Bevacizumab; Cisplatin; Paclitaxel; Uterine cervical neoplasms.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.