Of the 28,000 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer in
1997, nearly 70% presented with advanced disease. Through the use of
primary taxane/platinum therapy, up to 50% of these patients achieved
a complete clinical remission. Unfortunately, the majority of
patients will have persistent disease after initial treatment or will
relapse within the first 3 years. As a result, salvage therapy
comprises the majority of patient encounters in the treatment of
epithelial ovarian cancer.
Many treatment options are now available for patients with persistent
or recurrent ovarian cancer; these include repeat treatment with a
taxane and platinum compound or a choice from among a menu of new
agents with activity in this disease. In addition to standard
systemic drug strategies, proposed alternatives for salvage treatment
include high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell support, prolonged
maintenance chemotherapy, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, hormonal
therapy, secondary surgical cytoreduction, and radiotherapy.
Candidates for salvage therapy can be grouped into several different
categories. These differences are more than semantic, in that they
identify patients with markedly different prognoses and predict the
likelihood of response to treatment. Because of the heterogeneity of
these patients, they will be considered separately here.
The vast majority of patients with ovarian cancer respond to primary
therapy. A small percentage of patients (< 20%) may have
progressive tumor during primary treatment; this is defined as refractory
disease. In general, these patients are considered to have a poor
prognosis, and their poor performance status often precludes
A larger group of patients may show a partial clinical response to
six cycles of therapy. A partial response is characterized by
persistently elevated tumor markers or clinically evident disease at
the conclusion of treatment; this is termed persistent disease.
Despite a complete clinical remission, some patients may also have persistent
disease documented only at second-look surgical assessment. This
group can comprise up to 50% of patients with clinical complete remission.
A final group of patients may initially respond completely to primary
therapy but then relapse; these individuals are properly identified
as patients with recurrent disease. If the disease recurs in
< 6 months, it is defined as resistant to platinum (and
taxanes) and requires alternative therapies. If the disease recurs ³
6 months following primary therapy, it may be termed sensitive,
raising the potential for repeat treatment with platinum and taxane
compounds administered on the same or different schedules.
As mentioned above, the outlook for the < 20% of patients whose
disease progresses clinically during primary therapy with platinum-
and taxane-containing regimens remains poor. No curative strategies
are currently available for this group of patients, and any
intervention must be considered palliative.
Patients with primary refractory disease are generally offered
treatment with any of the various single-agent chemotherapies
discussed below. No randomized trial of second-line therapy in this
patient group has shown the superiority of one nonplatinum or
nontaxane agent over another, and participation in clinical trials is
particularly encouraged. Progress in testing new agents in this group
is confounded by the small number of patients, as well as their often
diminished performance status, which precludes additional
chemotherapy following primary treatment failure. Additional surgical
cytoreduction in patients with primary refractory disease has
significant morbidity and has not altered the median survival of 12 months.
Of all of the ovarian cancer salvage treatment groups, patients with
persistent disease at second-look surgical assessment are the only
group that appears to have the small possibility of achieving a cure
with currently available treatment strategies. This possibility of
definitive therapy provides a strong argument for accurate
post-treatment assessment in patients with apparent complete clinical
responses. Because of the limitations of computed tomography (CT) and
available biochemical markers, an invasive second-look assessment
remains the most accurate way to assess response to primary treatment.
Although the sensitivity and specificity of laparoscopic reassessment
vs formal laparotomy are under investigation, second-look procedures
have not been shown to prolong survival in previous comparative
trials. For example, a recent prospective trial randomized 102
patients in complete remission (as documented by clinical findings,
CT, laparoscopy, and serum markers) to laparotomy or observation.
Survival was not prolonged in patients who were surgically assessed.
However, it must be noted that a positive outcome from any
second-look procedure depends on the efficacy of salvage treatment,
since the intent of surgical reassessment is primarily diagnostic
rather than therapeutic.
No standard therapy currently exists for patients with persistent
disease. Three forms of salvage treatment can be considered for these
patients: prolonged chemotherapy with the same or different agents,
intraperitoneal therapy, or high-dose therapy with hematopoietic support.
Prolonged Systemic Chemotherapy
Platinum Agents--In general, extended administration of
platinum agents has shown no benefit in patientswith persistent
disease. Randomized trials of 6 vs 12 cycles or 5 vs 10 cycles of
cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Neosar), doxorubicin, and cisplatin
(Platinol) in advanced ovarian cancer demonstrated no survival
advantage for the longer courses of treatment.[4,5] These
observations are consistent with those seen in the treatment of
Hodgkins disease or adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy.
In contrast, a retrospective M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC)
review of 116 optimally debulked patients investigated the
relationship between duration of chemotherapy with platinum-based
regimens and survival. Median progression-free survival of patients
receiving 12 vs 6 planned cycles of therapy was 30 vs 15 months (P =
Thus, while additional cycles of platinum therapy may be considered
for patients who may still be responding by CA-125 measurements, the
preponderance of evidence does not support this "more of the
Paclitaxel--Recently, the addition of paclitaxel (Taxol) to
primary therapy regimens has reopened the sustained chemotherapy
question. No trials have compared longer courses of paclitaxel to the
standard six cycles of treatment.
Inferential data can be gleaned from the large body of literature
describing paclitaxel treatment of refractory patients. In 103
heavily pretreated (more than three prior regimens) patients
receiving paclitaxel at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
(MSKCC) who showed a minimal objective response rate of 4%, the 2-
and 3-year survival rates were 18% and 11%, respectively. Of these
patients, 21% received six or more courses of paclitaxel, and
treatment-related disease stabilization may have had a greater impact
on the natural history than is predicted by the response rate in
The concept of prolonged delivery of paclitaxel and other
cell-cycle-specific cytotoxic agents remains to be tested in a
randomized, prospective trial.
"Consolidation" Treatment--The obvious alternative
strategy is to select a different single agent or combination regimen
for use as "consolidation" treatment. There is very little
long-term information on such an approach, and no data exist
regarding the impact of consolidation treatment on time to treatment
failure or survival. However, the sequential administration of
non-cross-resistant chemotherapy has been advocated by Norton and
others. Such sequential strategies are currently being tested in
breast cancer and may be worthy of consideration in ovarian cancer as well.
There is preclinical evidence of a cytotoxic dose-response curve with
many chemotherapeutic agents, and the strategy of increasing drug
delivery via the intraperitoneal route has been extensively studied
and reviewed.[9-11] Several basic pharmacologic principles can be
generalized to intraperitoneal regimens.
In a recent review, Dedrick and Flessner developed a spatially
distributed pharmacokinetic model to examine the two most common
problems to be overcome when designing intraperitoneal regimens: (1)
poor tumor penetration by drugs, and (2) incomplete irrigation of
serosal surfaces by the drug-containing solution. The model
predicts, in a mechanistic way, the characteristic penetration
distance of a drug and the apparent permeability of a peritoneal
surface. The goal is to provide insights into the expected effects of
such procedures as pharmacologic manipulation or physical mixing.
To date, most of the information about intraperitoneal therapy has
come from clinical studies with drug sampling and pharmacokinetic
analysis. The pharmacokinetic advantages of intra-peritoneal drug
delivery include the slow systemic uptake of drug from the peritoneal
cavity and rapid subsequent drug clearance from the plasma. For
hydrophilic drugs, passive absorption into peritoneal capillaries is
directly proportional to the overall peritoneal surface area and
inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of
the agent. As shown in Table 1, an
increased mean peritoneal cavity/plasma concentration ratio has been
demonstrated for many chemotherapeutic agents with known activity
against ovarian cancer.
No randomized clinical trials of salvage intraperitoneal therapy have
been conducted in patients with persistent ovarian cancer. The only
available randomized data evaluating intraperitoneal therapy come
from a study of patients with previously untreated stage III ovarian
epithelial cancer conducted by Alberts et al. Among the 546
eligible patients in this study, estimated median survival was longer
in the group receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin (49 months; 95%
confidence interval [CI], 42 to 56 months) than in the group
receiving intravenous cisplatin (41 months; 95% CI, 34 to 47 months).
The effect of residual tumor size on predicting response to
intraperitoneal therapy has been repeatedly demonstrated in the
clinical arena, and the direct penetration of drug into tissue is
limited, ranging from 1 to 3 mm. Small-volume disease, generally
microscopic or < 0.5 to 1.0 cm, is necessary for the rational
application of this approach. The phase III randomized trial of
intraperitoneal therapy by Alberts et al in previously untreated
patients with stage III ovarian cancer showed marked differences in
survival based on tumor size at the initiation of intraperitoneal
therapy: Median survival was 76 months in patients with microscopic
disease; 42 months in those with £ 0.5-cm
disease; and 32 months in those with > 0.5- to 2.0-cm disease.
Cisplatin--Intraperitoneal cisplatin remains the most
extensively studied agent in the setting of small-volume persistent
disease after surgical reassessment. Overall, approximately 20% to
30% of patients with persistent ovarian cancer after initial
chemotherapy have been shown to respond to intra-peritoneal cisplatin
treatment. Surgically defined response (s-R) rates of 40% to 50% and
surgically defined complete response (s-CR) rates of 25% to 35% have
been reported in patients with small-volume residual disease
(microscopic or all tumor nodules £ 0.5 cm in diameter) treated
with a variety of regimens containing cisplatin.
Important predictors of response to intraperitoneal cisplatin include
not only size of the residual tumor but also prior response to
systemic cisplatin. In one series, even in the subset of patients
with < 0.5-cm residual disease, only 9% of platinum nonresponders
achieved a complete response (CR), as compared with 43% of such
patients with a previously documented response to intravenous platinum.
In the MSKCC experience, a small (< 15%) group of patients achieve
a pathologic CR after intraperitoneal cisplatin therapy and remain
disease-free for more than 7 years of follow-up. If this experience
can be duplicated by others, it may imply that salvage
intra-peritoneal cisplatin therapy may be effective in a small number
of patients with persistent disease.
Investigators at MSKCC have also recently reported preliminary data
on the use of three cycles of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide
in patients with negative second-look surgical assessments. At
36-month follow-up, the median disease-free survival is 28.5 months
in the untreated group (concurrent historical matched controls) and
has not yet been reached in the treated group. The contribution of
etoposide in this regimen is unknown. A phase II trial of intravenous
cisplatin plus etoposide in 21 patients in complete clinical
remission (10 of whom had minimal residual disease at second-look
assessment) reported a median progression-free interval of 26 months,
which is similar to data with cisplatin alone.
Other Agents--Numerous other agents have been evaluated for
intraperitoneal administration, including paclitaxel, floxuridine
(FUDR), mitomycin (Mutamycin), carboplatin (Paraplatin), mitoxantrone
(Novantrone), interleukin-2 (Proleukin), interferon-alfa (Intron A,
Roferon-A), and interferon-gamma.[11,18,19] Intraperitoneal delivery
of mitoxantrone is limited by chemical peritonitis, making this drug
poorly tolerated and not recommended for this route of
administration. Responses have been seen in some patients, however,
including those who did not respond to intraperitoneal cisplatin.
Paclitaxel likewise causes abdominal pain at doses > 125
mg/m², and the recommended phase II dose with acceptable
toxicity determined by phase I studies is 60 to 65 mg/m² weekly.
A phase II Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trial testing
intraperitoneal paclitaxel in patients with persistent disease
following primary therapy was closed to accrual in 1995 and has 76
evaluable patients; as yet, it is too early to assess outcome in
New intravenous agents with activity in epithelial ovarian cancer
that have recently been identified and tested largely in the advanced
salvage setting include liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil), topotecan
(Hycamtin), vinorelbine (Navelbine), docetaxel (Taxotere), and
gemcitabine (Gemzar).[21-25] If intraperitoneal administration of
cisplatin proves to be superior to intravenous administration for
small-volume disease, an important question will be to identify which
new agents may have a dose-response relationship and pharmacologic
properties appropriate for possible intraperitoneal administration in combination.
Summary--With the exception of one published trial, data
suggesting a benefit for intraperitoneal therapy come from
nonrandomized phase II trials. It is important to note that,
although the response rates recorded in the various trials may be
impressive, biases, such as treatment limited to patients with
responsive tumors or those with very small residual disease, cannot
be excluded or compared directly. Thus, intraperitoneal therapy
remains an investigational approach at present.
1. Markman M, Hoskins W: Responses to salvage chemotherapy in ovarian
cancer: A critical need for precise definitions of the treated
population. J Clin Oncol 10:513-514, 1992.
2. Morris M, Gershenson DM, Wharton JT: Secondary cytoreductive
surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer: Nonresponders to first
line-therapy. Gynecol Oncol 33:1-5, 1989.
3. Nicoletto MO, Tumolo S, Talamini R, et al: Surgical second look in
ovarian cancer: A randomized study in patients with laparoscopic
complete remission--a Northeastern Oncology Cooperative Group-Ovarian
Cancer Cooperative Group Study. J Clin Oncol 15:994-999, 1997.
4. Bertelsen K, Jakobsen A, Stroyer I, et al: A prospective
randomized comparison of 6 and 12 cycles of cyclophosphamide,
Adriamycin, and cisplatin in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A
Danish Ovarian Study Group trial. Gynecol Oncol 49:30-36, 1993.
5. Hakes TB, Chalas E, Hoskins WJ, et al: Randomized prospective
trial of 5 versus 10 cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and
cisplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 45:284-289, 1992.
6. Gershenson DM, Mitchell MF, Atkinson N, et al: The effect of
prolonged cisplatin-based chemotherapy on progression-free survival
in patients with optimal epithelial ovarian cancer:
"Maintenance" therapy reconsidered. Gynecol Oncol 47:7-13, 1992.
7. Markman M, Hakes T, Barakat R, et al: Follow-up of Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center patients treated on National Cancer
Center Institute Treatment Referral Center protocol 9103: Paclitaxel
in refractory ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:796-799, 1996.
8. Norton L: Evolving concepts in the systemic drug therapy of breast
cancer. Semin Oncol 24:s3-s10, 1997.
9. Levin L, Hryniuk WW: Dose intensity analysis of chemotherapy
regimens in ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 5:756-767, 1987.
10. Schneider JG: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Obstet Gynecol Clin
North Am 21:195-212, 1994.
11. Markman M: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 18:248-254, 1991.
12. Dedrick RL, Flessner MF: Pharmacokinetic problems in peritoneal
drug adminstration: Tissue penetration and surface exposure. J Natl
Cancer Inst 89:480-487, 1997.
13. Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV, et al: Intraperitoneal cisplatin
plus intravenous cyclophosphamide vs intravenous cisplatin plus
intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. N Engl J
Med 335: 1950-1955, 1996.
14. Nederman T, Carlsson J: Penetration and binding of vinblastine
and 5-fluorouracil in cellular spheroids. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
15. Markman M, Reichman B, Hakes T, et al: Responses to second line
cisplatin based intra-peritoneal therapy in ovarian cancer: Influence
of a prior response to intravenous cisplatin. J Clin Oncol
16. Barakat R, Almadrones L, Venkatraman E, et al: A phase II trial
of IP cisplatin and etoposide as consolidation therapy in patients
with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer following negative
surgical assessment (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:354a, 1997.
17. Menczer J, Ben-Baruch G, Rizel S, et al: Intraperitoneal
chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide in ovarian carcinoma
patients who are clinically in complete remission. Eur J Gynaecol
Oncol 16:12-17, 1995.
18. Francis P, Rowinsky E, Schneider J, et al: Phase I feasibility
and pharmacologic study of weekly intraperitoneal paclitaxel: A
Gynecologic Oncology Group pilot study. J Clin Oncol 13:2961-2967, 1995.
19. Braly P, Berek JS, Blessing JA, et al: Intraperitoneal
administration of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in residual ovarian
cancer: A phase II Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. Gynecol Oncol
20. Markman M, George M, Hakes T, et al: Phase 2 trial of
intraperitoneal mitoxantrone in the management of refractory ovarian
carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 8:146-150, 1990.
21. Muggia FM, Hainsworth JD, Jeffers S, et al: Phase II study of
liposomal doxorubicin in refractory ovarian cancer: Antitumor
activity and toxicity modification by liposomal encapsulation. J Clin
Oncol 15:987-993, 1997.
22. Francis P, Schneider J, Hann L, et al: Phase II trial of
docetaxel in patients with platinum refractory ovarian cancer. J Clin
Oncol 12:2301-2308, 1994.
23. Bajetta E, Di Leo A, Biganzoli L, et al: Phase II study of
vinorelbine in patients with pretreated advanced ovarian cancer:
Activity in platinum resistant disease. J Clin Oncol 14:2546-2551, 1996.
24. Shapiro JD, Millward MJ, Rischin D, et al: Activity of
gemcitabine in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Responses seen
following platinum and paclitaxel. Gynecol Oncol 63:89-93, 1996.
25. Creemers GJ, Bolis G, Scarfone G, et al: Topotecan, an active
drug in the second line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer:
Results of a large European phase II study. J Clin Oncol
26. Kaye S, Paul J, Cassidy J, et al: Mature results of a randomized
trial of two doses of cisplatin for the treatment of ovarian cancer:
Scottish Gynecology Cancer Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 14:2113-2119, 1996.
27. Ngan H, Choo Y, Cheung M, et al: A randomized study of high-dose
versus low-dose cisplatin combined with cyclophosphamide in the
treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Chemotherapy 35:221-227, 1989.
28. Conte P, Bruzzone M, Carnino F, et al: High dose versus low dose
cisplatin in combination with cyclophosphamide and epidoxorubicin in
suboptimal ovarian cancer: A randomized study of the Gruppo
Oncologico Nord-Ovest. J Clin Oncol 14:351-356, 1996.
29. Levin L, Simon R, Hryniuk W: Importance of multiagent
chemotherapy regimens in ovarian carcinoma: Dose intensity analysis.
J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1732-1742, 1993.
30. Legros M, Dauplat J, Fleury J, et al: High-dose chemotherapy with
hematopoietic rescue in patients with stage III to IV ovarian cancer:
Long term results. J Clin Oncol 15:1302-1308, 1997.
31. Stiff PJ, Bayer R, Kerger C, et al: High dose chemotherapy with
autologous transplantation for persistent/relapsed ovarian cancer: A
multivariate analysis of survival for 100 consecutively treated
patients. J Clin Oncol 15:1309-1317, 1997.
32. Abu-Rustum NR, Aghajanian C, Barakat R, et al: Salvage weekly
paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol 24:s62-s67, 1997.
33. Bristow RE, Lagasse LD, Karlan BY: Secondary surgical
cytoreduction for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer
34. Hoskins WJ, Rubin SC, Dulaney E: Influence of secondary
cytoreduction at the time of second look laparotomy on the survival
of patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol
35. Segna RA, Dottino PR, Mandelli JP, et al: Secondary surgical
cytoreduction for ovarian cancer following cisplatin therapy. J Clin
Oncol 11:434-439, 1993.
36. Vaccarello L, Rubin SC, Vlamis V, et al: Cytoreductive surgery in
ovarian carcinoma patients with a documented previously complete
surgical response. Gynecol Oncol 57:61-65, 1995.
37. Morris M, Gershenson DM, Wharton JT, et al: Secondary
cytoreductive surgery for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.
Gynecol Oncol 34:334-338, 1989.
38. Markman M, Rothman R, Hakes T, et al: Second-line platinum
therapy in patients with ovarian cancer previously treated with
cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 9:389-393, 1991.
39. Kavanagh J, Treukosol D, Edwards C, et al: Carboplatin
reinduction after taxane in patients with platinum refractory ovarian
cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1584-1588, 1995.
40. Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, Ball H, et al: Phase II trial of
paclitaxel in patients with progressive ovarian carcinoma after
platinum based chemotherapy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J
Clin Oncol 12:1748-1753, 1994.
41. Omura GA, Brady MF, Delmore JE, et al: A randomized trial of
paclitaxel at 2 dose levels and filgrastim (G-CSF) at 2 doses in
platinum pretreated epithelial ovarian cancer (abstract). Proc Am Soc
Clin Oncol 15:280, 1996.
42. Fennelly D, Aghajanian C, Shapiro F, et al: Phase I and
pharmacologic study of paclitaxel administered weekly in patients
with relapsed ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:187-192, 1997.
43. Kudelka AP, Tresukosol D, Edwards CL, et al: Phase II study of
intravenous topotecan as a 5 day infusion for refractory epithelial
ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 14:1552-1557, 1996.
44. ten Bokkel Huinik W, Gore M, Carmichael J, et al: Topotecan vs
paclitaxel for the treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.
J Clin Oncol 15:2183-2193, 1997.
45. Creemers GJ, Gerrits CJH, Eckardt JR, et al: Phase I and
pharmacologic study of oral topotecan administered twice daily for 21
days to adult patients with solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 15:1087-1093, 1997.
46. Rose PG, Blessing JA, Mayer AR, et al: Prolonged oral etoposide
as second line therapy for platinum resistant and platinum sensitive
ovarian carcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study (abstract). J
Clin Oncol 16:405-410, 1998.
47. Kavanagh JJ, Kudelka AP, Gonzalez de Leon C, et al: Phase II
study of docetaxel in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer
refractory to platinum. Clin Cancer Res 2:837-842, 1996.
48. Peters GJ, Bergman AM, Ruiz van Haperen VW, et al: Interaction
between cisplatin and gemcitabine in vitro and in vivo. Semin Oncol
49. Markman M, Hakes T, Resichman B, et al: Ifosfamide and mesna in
previously treated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Activity in
platinum-resistant disease. J Clin Oncol 10:243-248, 1992.
50. Rustin GJS, Nelstrop AE, Crawford M, et al: Phase II trial of
oral altretamine for relapsed ovarian carcinoma: Evaluation of
defining response by serum CA125. J Clin Oncol 15:172-176, 1997.
51. Ahlgren JD, Ellison NM, Gottlieb RJ, et al: Hormonal palliation
of chemoresistant ovarian cancer: Three consecutive phase II trials
of the Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program. J Clin Oncol 11:1957-1968, 1993.
52. Hatch KD, Beecham JB, Blessing JA, et al: Responsiveness of
patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma to tamoxifen: A Gynecologic
Oncology Group study of second-line therapy in 105 patients. Cancer
53. Davidson SA, Rubin SC, Mychalczak B, et al: Limited-field
radiotherapy as salvage treatment of localized persistent or
recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 51:349-354, 1993.
54. Cmelak AJ, Kapp DS: Long-term survival with whole abdominopelvic
irradiation in platinum-refractory peristent or recurrent ovarian
cancer. Gynecol Oncol 65:453-460, 1997.
55. Bergman AM, Ruiz van Haperen VW, Veerman G, et al: Synergistic
interaction between gemcitabine and cisplatin in vitro. Clin Cancer
Res 2:521-550, 1996.
56. Whitacre CM, Zobrowska E, Gordon NH, et al: Topotecan increases
topoisomerase II alpha levels and sensitivity to treatment with
etoposide in schedule dependent process. Cancer Res 57:1425-1428, 1997.
57. Barnes MN, Deshane JS, Rosenfeld M, et al: Gene therapy and
ovarian cancer: A review. Obstet Gynecol 89:145-55, 1997.
58. Tanimoto H, Mehta KD, Parmley TH, et al: Expression of the
farnesyltransferase beta-subunit gene in human ovarian carcinoma:
Correlation to K-ras mutation. Gynecol Oncol 66:308-312, 1997.
59. McGuire W, Hoskins W, Brady M, et al: Assessment of
dose-intensive therapy in suboptimally debulked ovarian cancer: A
Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 13:1589-1599, 1995.
60. Columbo N, Pitelli M, Parma G: Cisplatin dose intensity in
advanced ovarian cancer: A randomized study of dose intense versus
standard dose cisplatin monotherapy (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin
Oncol 12:255, 1993.
61. Jakobsen A, Bertelsen K, Andersen J, et al: Dose-effect study of
carboplatin in ovarian cancer: A Danish Ovarian Cancer Group study. J
Clin Oncol 15:193-198, 1997.
62. Bella M, Cocconi G, Lotticci R, et al: Conventional versus
high-dose intensity regimen of cisplatin in advanced ovarian
carcinoma: A prospective randomized study (abstract). Proc Am Soc
Clin Oncol 11:223, 1992.
63. Eisenhauer EA, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Swenerton KD, et al:
European-Canadian randomized trial of paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian
cancer: High-dose vs low-dose and long vs short infusion. J Clin
Oncol 12:2654-2666, 1994.
64. Markman M, Iseminger KA, Hatch KD, et al: Tamoxifen in platinum
refractory ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary
report. Gynecol Oncol 62:4-6, 1996.
65. Dimopoulos MA, Papadimitriou C, Gennatas C, et al: Ifosfamide and
paclitaxel salvage chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian
cancer. Ann Oncol 8:195-197, 1997.
66. Miglietta L, Amoroso D, Bruzzone M, et al: Paclitaxel plus
ifosfamide in advanced ovarian cancer: A multicenter phase II study.
Oncology 54:102-107, 1997.
67. Nardi M, Della Giulla M, Pollera CF, et al: A combination of
ifosfamide and mitoxantrone as salvage therapy in patients with
advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 38:298-301, 1996.
68. Lorusso V, Catino A, Leone B, et al: Carboplatin plus ifosfamide
as salvage treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: A pilot study. J
Clin Oncol 11:1952-1956, 1993.