Optimal cisplatin cycles in locally advanced cervical carcinoma patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

Purpose To analyze the effect of cisplatin cycles on the clinical outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Methods This study included 749 patients with LACC treated with CCRT between January 2011 and December 2015. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the optimal cut-off of cisplatin cycles in predicting clinical outcomes. Clinicopathological features of the patients were compared using the Chi-square test. Prognosis was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models. Toxicities were compared among different cisplatin cycle groups. Results Based on the ROC curve, the optimal cut-off of the cisplatin cycles was 4.5 (sensitivity, 64.3%; specificity, 54.3%). The 3-year overall, disease-free, loco-regional relapse-free, and distant metastasis-free survival for patients with low-cycles (cisplatin cycles < 5) and high-cycles (≥ 5) were 81.5% and 89.0% (P < 0.001), 73.4% and 80.1% (P = 0.024), 83.0% and 90.8% (P = 0.005), and 84.9% and 86.8% (P = 0.271), respectively. In multivariate analysis, cisplatin cycles were an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. In the subgroup analysis of high-cycle patients, patients who received over five cisplatin cycles had similar overall, disease-free, loco-regional relapse-free, and distant metastasis-free survival to patients treated with five cycles. Acute and late toxicities were not different between the two groups. Conclusion Cisplatin cycles were associated with overall, disease-free, and loco-regional relapse-free survival in LACC patients who received CCRT. Five cycles appeared to be the optimal number of cisplatin cycles during CCRT (AU)

Cisplatin cycles treatment sustains cardiovascular and renal damage involving TLR4 and NLRP3 pathways.

Cisplatin is clinically proven to combat different cancers, including sarcomas, soft tissue cancers, bones, muscles, and blood. However, renal and cardiovascular toxicities are important limitations in cisplatin therapeutical use. Immunoinflammation could be key factor in cisplatin-induced toxicity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the activation of the inflammatory TLR4/NLRP3 pathway as a common mechanism for cardiovascular and renal cisplatin's cycles treatment toxicity. Adult male Wistar rats were treated with saline, cisplatin 2 mg/kg or cisplatin 3 mg/kg (intraperitoneally once a week, for five experimental weeks). After treatments, plasma, cardiac, vascular, and renal tissues were collected. Plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) and inflammatory cytokines were determined. TLR4, MyD88, NF-κß p65, NLRP3, and procaspase-1 tissue expressions were also analyzed. Cisplatin treatment induced a dose-dependent increase in plasma MDA and IL-18. In cardiovascular system, an increase in NLRP3 and in cleaved caspase-1 were observed in cardiac tissue and a moderate increase in TLR4, MyD88 appeared in mesenteric artery. In kidney, a significant dose-dependent increase in TLR4, MyD88 and NLRP3 and cleaved caspase 1 expressions were observed after cisplatin treatments. In conclusion, cisplatin cycles provoke a low grade pro-inflammatory systemic state. Kidney was more sensitive than cardiovascular tissues to this pro-inflammatory state. TLR4 and NLRP3 are key pathways involved in renal tissue damage, NLRP3 is the main pathway involved in cardiac toxicity and TLR4 pathway in resistance vessel toxicity.

Optimal cisplatin cycles in locally advanced cervical carcinoma patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of cisplatin cycles on the clinical outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: This study included 749 patients with LACC treated with CCRT between January 2011 and December 2015. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the optimal cut-off of cisplatin cycles in predicting clinical outcomes. Clinicopathological features of the patients were compared using the Chi-square test. Prognosis was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models. Toxicities were compared among different cisplatin cycle groups. RESULTS: Based on the ROC curve, the optimal cut-off of the cisplatin cycles was 4.5 (sensitivity, 64.3%; specificity, 54.3%). The 3-year overall, disease-free, loco-regional relapse-free, and distant metastasis-free survival for patients with low-cycles (cisplatin cycles < 5) and high-cycles (≥ 5) were 81.5% and 89.0% (P < 0.001), 73.4% and 80.1% (P = 0.024), 83.0% and 90.8% (P = 0.005), and 84.9% and 86.8% (P = 0.271), respectively. In multivariate analysis, cisplatin cycles were an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. In the subgroup analysis of high-cycle patients, patients who received over five cisplatin cycles had similar overall, disease-free, loco-regional relapse-free, and distant metastasis-free survival to patients treated with five cycles. Acute and late toxicities were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin cycles were associated with overall, disease-free, and loco-regional relapse-free survival in LACC patients who received CCRT. Five cycles appeared to be the optimal number of cisplatin cycles during CCRT.