Topotecan Use for Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer at Brazilian National Cancer Institute (INCA)

Leandro Nascimento de Oliveira, Flávia Vieira Guerra Alves, Paulo Alexandre Ribeiro Mora, Claudio Calazan do Carmo, Angélica Nogueira-Rodrigues, Alvaro Henrique Ingles Garces, Andréia Cristina de Melo

Instituto Nacional do Cancer, Hospital do Cancer II, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil.

DOI: 10.4236/jct.2013.46126                

Abstract

Objective: Cervical cancer represents the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and is an important cause of death for women suffering with malignancies. Patients who are refractory or progressed after first-line palliative treatment have a dismal prognosis and no second-line chemotherapy is considered standard so far. Several agents have been investigated in this setting and topotecan is one of the most characterized. The objective of this study was to evaluate response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity of topotecan in second palliative line for cervical cancer. Methods: An analysis was performed of all patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treated with topotecan in second palliative line at Brazilian National Cancer Institute, between 2008 and 2010. Results: A total of 73 courses of topotecan were given in the current study (median: 3.5 cycles; range 1 - 6). Anemia was the most frequent adverse event (grade 2:35%; grade 3:30%). Of the 20 patients evaluable, there were 2 partial responders to the treatment. The overall response rate (ORR) was 10%; 3 patients (15%) had stable disease as maximum response. The median PFS for the entire group was 2.93 months (95% CI 2.41 - 3.45) and OS was 4.66 months (95% CI 1.21 - 8.11). Conclusion: The limited activity of topotecan schemas in second-line treatment of cervical cancer and the associated overall toxicity may not justify their use in this setting. Patients who progress after first-line treatment may be offered participation in clinical trials, other second-line agents or best supportive care measures.

Keywords

Topotecan; Cervical Cancer; Palliative Treatment

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	[1] J. Ferlay, H. R. Shin, F. Bray, D. Forman, C. Mathers and D. M. Parkinm “GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10,” International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 2010. http://globocan.iarc.fr
[2]	J. Coronel, L. Cetina, M. Candelaria, A. González-Fierro, D. Arias, D. Cantu, et al., “Weekly Topotecan as Secondor Third-Line Treatment in Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer,” Medical Oncology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2009, pp. 210-214. doi:10.1007/s12032-008-9108-5
[3]	L. A. G. Ries, M. P. Eisner, C. L. Kosary, B. F. Hankey, B. A. Miller, L. Clegg, et al., “SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1998,” National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, 2012. http://seer.cancer.gov/ Publications/CSR1973_1998/2001
[4]	J. V. Fiorica, J. A. Blessing, L. V. Puneky, A. A. Secord, J. S. Hoffman, S. D. Yamada, et al., “A Phase II Evaluation of Weekly Topotecan as a Single Agent Second Line Therapy in Persistent or Recurrent Carcinoma of the Cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 115, No. 2, 2009, pp. 285-289. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.07.024
[5]	P. Boabang, C. M. Kurbacher, H. Kohlhagen, A. Waida and B. K. Amo-Takyi, “Anti-Neoplastic Activity of Topotecan versus Cisplatin, Etoposide and Paclitaxel in Four Squamous Cell Cancer Cell Lines of the Female Genital Tract Using an ATP-Tumor Chemosensitivity Assay,” Anticancer Drugs, Vol. 11, No. 10, 2000, pp. 843-848.
[6]	K. Noda, H. Sasaki, K. Yamamoto, T. Yamamoto, R. Nishimura, T. Sugiyama, et al., “Phase II Trial of Topotecan for Cervical Cancer of the Uterus,” Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, Vol. 15, 1996, p. 754.
[7]	M. A. Bookman, J. A. Blessing, P. Hanjani, T. J. Herzog and W. A. Andersen, “Topotecan in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix: A Phase II Study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2000, pp. 446-449. doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.5807
[8]	N. R. Abu-Rustum, S. Lee and L. S. Massad, “Topotecan for Recurrent Cervical Cancer after Platinum-Based Therapy,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2000, pp. 285-288. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2000.010004285.x
[9]	D. H. Moore, J. A. Blessing, R. P. McQuellon, H. T. Thaler, D. Cella, J. Benda, et al., “Phase III Study of Cisplatin with or without Paclitaxel in Stage IVB, Recurrent, or Persistent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 15, 2004, pp. 3113-3119.
[10]	H. J. Long III., “Management of Metastatic Cervical Cancer: Review of the Literature,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 25, No. 20, 2007, pp. 2966-2974.
[11]	F. Zagouri, T. N. Sergentanis, D. Chrysikos, M. Filipits and R. Bartsch, “Molecularly Targeted Therapies in Cervical Cancer. A Systematic Review,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 126, No. 2, 2012, pp. 291-303. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.007
[12]	B. J. Monk, M. W. Sill, R. A. Burger, H. J. Gray, T. E. Buekers and L. D. Roman, “Phase II Trial of Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Persistent or Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 27, No. 7, 2009, pp. 1069-1074. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.9043
[13]	A. Nogueira-Rodrigues, C. C. Carmo, C. Viegas, F. Erlich, C. Camis?o, K. Font?o, et al., “Phase I Trial of Erlotinib Combined with Cisplatin and Radiotherapy for Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Squamous Cell Cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 14, No. 19, 2008, pp. 6324-6329. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-5112