585 Background: Pathological complete response (pCR) is a well-known surrogate for DFS and OS in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). New approaches are being tested to increase pCR rate. We compared the standard of care (AC-T) vs Carboplatin/Docetaxel (CbD) for locally-advanced TNBC. Our objective is to determine whether CbD will increase the pCR rate, with PFS and OS as secondary objectives. Methods: A single arm phase II prospective trial with historical controls. 61 stage II-III TNBC patients were included between 2013-2014 at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas (Peru). 27 patients received Carboplatin 6AUC + Docetaxel 75mg/m2 q21d for 6cy, and 34pts, Adriamycin 60mg/m2 + Cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2 q21d for 4cy followed by weekly paclitaxel 80mg/m2 for 12 weeks. The Miller and Payne method was used to evaluate pathological response after definitive surgery. Results: Median age was 47 years, most patients were premenopausal (55.7%), median tumor size was 61 mm (T3=32.8%, T4=50.8%) and most patients had LN+ve (77%). There was a significantly greater tumor size in the CbD arm (mean 72.8 vs 52.2mm, p=0.007), no toxicity differences were noted. Only pCR was independently associated with OS/PFS on multivariate analysis. pCR was achieved in 37% (n=10) and 23.5% (n=8) in the CbD and AC-T groups, respectively (p=0.44). Partial pathological response was achieved in 37% (n=10) and 38.2% (n=13) patients in AC-T and CbD respectively. No characteristics were associated to pCR on logistic regression. At 2-year follow-up, all patients with pCR were alive and without recurrence, while patients with partial response achieved a 2-year PFS of 75% and, 2-year OS of 83.5%. The non-respondent group had the worse outcomes (2-year PFS: 32.7%, 2-year OS: 58.7%). The CbD group had a better 2-year PFS and OS (73.1% and 84%, respectively) than the AC-T group (59.3% and 71%, respectively), however no-statistical difference was found. Conclusions: CbD is an effective and promising neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen for TNBC. Despite a larger mean tumor size in the CbD group, a non-significant trend towards higher pCR rate and longer PFS and OS was observed and warrants further exploration.
e17004 Background: Cervical cancer occurs mostly in developing countries, being locally advanced cancer the majority. The standard treatment is chemo-radiation with platinum salts. Carboplatin is commonly used because of its synergy with radiation reported in other malignancies and its safe toxicity profile, besides it is not clear use of it. We want to evaluate the equivalence of cisplatin versus carboplatin concurrent to radiotherapy in terms of response rates and toxicity profile. Methods: Retrospective observational analysis in women older than 18 years old, with diagnosis of locally advanced cervical cancer (stages Ib2 – IVA) at the “Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas”, Lima – Peru, between 2014 and 2015. We determined two arms; cisplatin 40 mg/m2 per week for 5 weeks and Carboplatin 2AUC per week for 5 weeks. Both groups were given concurrent to radiotherapy. Results: 247 patients were evaluated, 119 received carboplatin and 128 cisplatin. Both groups have similar characteristics; median age was 50 years, the most frequent hystologic type was squamous cell carcinoma in 90.7%, and TNM stage IIB 59.5%, IIIB 27.5% and IV-A 2.8%. The complete response (CR) rate in cisplatin group was of 88.3% and carboplatin group 73.9% (p = 0.004). The toxicity profile was similar in both groups, except to renal toxicity (Cisplatin: 0% vs. Carboplatin: 5%, p = 0.010) and diarrhea (Cisplatin:26.6% vs. Carboplatin: 16.0%, p = 0.043). In patients with CR, the recurrence rate does not present a significant difference according to treatment schedule (Cisplatin: 15.9% vs. Carboplatin: 13.6%, p = 0.651). Overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) are on going. Conclusions: Our study found that cisplatin had better response rates than carboplatin with similar toxicity profile. This intervention to be remains to be clarified with following-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.