title: A retrospective analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian cancer: do we still need it?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Ovarian cancer (OC) is the sixth most common cancer in women. Currently, carboplatin/paclitaxel ± bevacizumab is the cornerstone of front-line treatment. Conversely, the therapeutic options for recurrent or progressive disease are not well defined. For platinum-sensitive patients the best therapeutic approach is still a re-challenge with a platinum-based regimen. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), is considered one of the most active therapeutic options for recurrent or progressive OC. In this retrospective mono-institutional analysis, we evaluated the impact of PLD on the outcome of OC patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  We performed the retrospective study on a cohort of 108 patients with histologically confirmed serous papillary OC, followed at our Institution between 2001 and 2011. 80 patients were in stage III/IV and 55 of them received a second-line treatment. Thirty patients were treated with PLD. Both groups (PLD-treated versus PLD-untreated) underwent a median of 3 treatment lines and were prognostically balanced. The median follow-up was 60 months. Survival endpoints, toxicity and correlations between patients' baseline characteristics and treatment efficacy were evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Patients who had undergone PLD treatment (PLD group) showed a median overall survival (OS) of 45 months as compared to 65 months of patients not treated with PLD (PLD-free group) (HR 2.50 [0.95-6.67; p = 0.06]). Moreover, the median progression-free survival was 6 months in the PLD group versus 10 months in the PLD-free group (HR 1.75 [0.94-3.34; p = 0.07]). The overall objective response rate in II line treatment was 43% (13% in PLD group versus 57% in PLD-free group). Furthermore, we investigated survival endpoints in platinum-refractory patients who received PLD at least once during the course of disease. No OS advantage was achieved by PLD administration when compared to other therapeutic options (30 versus 32 months; HR 1.16 [0.31-4.34; p = 0.81]). No difference in term of toxicity was observed among different groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  No evidence of superiority if PLD was compared to alternative agents was found in this analysis, particularly in the platinum-refractory setting. Our findings indicate a modest therapeutic activity of PLD in OC. Analysis of cost/benefit of PLD in OC is eagerly awaited.
authors: Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Græcia University and Tommaso Campanella Cancer Center, Campus Salvatore Venuta, Catanzaro, Italy. tagliaferri@unicz.it.
authors: Nicoletta
authors: N
authors: Staropoli
authors: Domenico
authors: D
authors: Ciliberto
authors: Cirino
authors: C
authors: Botta
authors: Lucia
authors: L
authors: Fiorillo
authors: Simona
authors: S
authors: Gualtieri
authors: Angela
authors: A
authors: Salvino
authors: Pierfrancesco
authors: P
authors: Tassone
authors: Pierosandro
authors: P
authors: Tagliaferri
references: Semin Oncol. 1998 Jun;25(3):305-14
references: 9633842
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Nov-Dec;15(6):1014-22
references: 16343177
references: Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088-101
references: 7786990
references: Curr Oncol. 2007 Oct;14(5):195-208
references: 17938703
references: Lancet. 2003 Jun 21;361(9375):2099-106
references: 12826431
references: Lancet. 2009 Oct 17;374(9698):1371-82
references: 19793610
references: J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 10;30(17):2039-45
references: 22529265
references: Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 15;16(24):6159-68
references: 20802015
references: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 20;29(27):3628-35
references: 21844495
references: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 20;27(9):1419-25
references: 19224846
references: Int J Oncol. 2005 May;26(5):1257-63
references: 15809716
references: Ann Oncol. 2010 Oct;21 Suppl 7:vii218-22
references: 20943618
references: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3323-9
references: 20498395
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jan-Feb;62(1):10-29
references: 22237781
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jan;108(1):90-4
references: 17949799
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 10;26(32):5284-93
references: 18854563
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003 Nov-Dec;13(6):735-40
references: 14675308
references: Int J Cancer. 2010 Dec 15;127(12):2893-917
references: 21351269
references: BMC Med. 2010 Jan 07;8:3
references: 20055981
references: Nat Rev Cancer. 2010 Nov;10(11):803-8
references: 20944665
references: J Ovarian Res. 2009 Oct 13;2:14
references: 19825178
references: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar;6(1):66-73
references: 20398040
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Dec;19 Suppl 2:S63-7
references: 19955917
references: Hum Mutat. 2001 Aug;18(2):163-4
references: 11462242
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Jun;101(3):436-40
references: 16325893
references: Cancer. 2006 Aug 1;107(3):536-43
references: 16804928
references: Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Jan;72(1):60-4
references: 9889031
references: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jul 15;19(14):3312-22
references: 11454878
references: Cancer Biol Ther. 2009 Apr;8(7):648-53
references: 19333003
references: Lancet. 2002 Aug 17;360(9332):505-15
references: 12241653
references: J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 1;25(19):2811-8
references: 17602086
references: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 1;24(7):1127-35
references: 16505432
references: J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 1;30(4):372-9
references: 22203755
references: Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v23-30
references: 20555088
references: Adv Anat Pathol. 2009 Sep;16(5):267-82
references: 19700937
references: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 1;21(17):3194-200
references: 12860964
references: J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 1;30(31):3841-7
references: 22987083
references: Health Technol Assess. 2006 Mar;10(9):1-132. iii-iv
references: 16545208
references: Br J Cancer. 2003 Apr 22;88(8):1285-91
references: 12698198
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 20;26(6):890-6
references: 18281662