Assessment of amifostine as protection from chemotherapy-induced toxicities after conventional-dose and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with germ cell tumor

Citation
O. Rick et al., Assessment of amifostine as protection from chemotherapy-induced toxicities after conventional-dose and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with germ cell tumor, ANN ONCOL, 12(8), 2001, pp. 1151-1155
Citations number
14
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology,"Onconogenesis & Cancer Research
Journal title
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
ISSN journal
09237534 → ACNP
Volume
12
Issue
8
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1151 - 1155
Database
ISI
SICI code
0923-7534(200108)12:8<1151:AOAAPF>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
Background: We assessed the efficacy of amifostine for protection from chem otherapy-induced toxicities in patients treated with conventional-dose pacl itaxel, ifosfamide, cisplatin (TIP) and high-dose carboplatin, etoposide an d thiotepa (CET) followed by peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) rescue . Patients and methods: In a prospective single-center study 40 patients with relapsed or refractory germ-cell tumors (GCT) were treated with 3 cycles o f conventional-dose TIP followed by one cycle of high-dose CET. Patients we re randomized either to receive one fixed dose of 500 mg amifostine per day of conventional-dose TIP and two fixed doses of 500 mg per day amifostine during high-dose CET (group A, n = 20) or no amifostine (group B, n = 20). Prior to the first cycle of TIP, one course of 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and 5 g/m(2) ifosfamide (TI) followed by granulocyte-colony stimulating factor ( G-CSF) at 10 mug/kg/day were given for PBPC mobilization. Results: Toxicities and response to conventional-dose TIP and high-dose CET could be evaluated in 40 patients (100%) and 32 of 40 patients (80%), resp ectively. Peripheral neurotoxicity (i.e. paresthesia or sensorymotor impair ment), hearing impairment, hematologic toxicity, nephrotoxicity, nausea, my algia, skin- and liver-toxicity did not differ siginificantly between the t wo patient groups. Likewise, the response rates to TIP and high-dose CET we re comparable in patients with or without amifostine. After a median follow -up of 18 months, 8 of 20 (40%) patients of group A and 6 of 20 (30%) patie nts of group B are without relapse. Conclusion: Repeated low doses of 500 mg amifostine additional to conventio nal-dose TIP or high-dose CET showed no unequivocal advantage in protection from treatment-related toxicities. Furthermore, no significant differences in response rates or survival could be observed in this small number of pa tients.