Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29158911›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology research and practice2017

A retrospective evaluation of activity of gemcitabine/platinum regimens in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer.

Tran N Le, Rachel E Harvey, Christine K Kim, Jubilee Brown, Robert L Coleman, Judith A Smith

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tran N LeDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street, Rm. 3.152, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
Rachel E HarveyMBS Pharmacy, Round Rock, TX USA.
Christine K KimUniversity of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA.
Jubilee BrownLevine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC USA.
Robert L ColemanUniversity of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA.
Judith A SmithDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street, Rm. 3.152, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCarolinas Healthcare System · USMemorial Hermann · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile many of these agents have been compared in prospective clinical trials, the gemcitabine/platinumbased regimens have not been compared in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. While bothgemcitabine/carboplatin and gemcitabine/cisplatin have a similar ORR in separate clinical trials, the tworegimens have never been directly been compared. With overlapping dose-limiting toxicity of thrombocytopenia, the gemcitabine/carboplatin regimen has been challenging to employ in the clinical setting in previously treated ovarian cancer patients and is often associated with treatment delays and/or dose reductions. Gemcitabine/cisplatin can also be a challenge due to its dose limiting neuropathy and renal toxicity, especially in previously treated patients. In the absence of any prospective, head to head comparison this retrospective study was embarked upon to compare the response rate and toxicity profiles of gemcitabine/cisplatin verses gemcitabine/carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive verses platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

methodsThis was a retrospective chart review study that identified patients that had received either gemcitabine/cisplatin or gemcitabine/carboplatin for treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and compared documented hematological and non-hematological toxicity and response based on RECIST (v1.1). Data was evaluated based upon platinum sensitivity/resistance as well.

resultsA total of 93 patients were identified that had received a gemcitabine/platinum regimen with 48 with recurrent ovarian cancer that were included in the study. There were 21 patients in the gemcitabine/cisplatin arm and 27 patients identified in the gemcitabine/carboplatin arm. Objective response rate (ORR) was greater in platinum-sensitive patients that received gemcitabine/carboplatin compared to gemcitabine/cisplatin (8 (67%) vs 2 (25%),

conclusionsGemcitabine/cisplatin appears to have greater efficacy in platinum-resistant patients, while gemcitabine/carboplatin seems to have greater efficacy in platinum-sensitive patients. Overall, gemcitabine/carboplatin was associated with a greater incidence of myelosuppression and discontinuation due to toxicity. Similar to findings in endometrial cancer, gemcitabine/cisplatin may have benefit specifically in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

CarboplatinCisplatinEfficacyGemcitabineRecurrent ovarian cancerToxicity

Identifiers

PMID29158911
PMCPMC5684736
OpenAlexW2766344346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.