• Users Online: 1232
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 46  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 162-170

Third-line chemotherapy after resistance to Etoposide, Cisplatin-Etoposide, Methotrexate, Actinomycin (EP-EMA) in high risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: Experience at the Philippine General Hospital


Division of Trophoblastic Diseases, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines

Correspondence Address:
Julie Ann B. Bolastig-Canson
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines, Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila 1000
Philippines
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/pjog.pjog_32_22

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of the Division of Trophoblastic Diseases of the Philippine General Hospital with the various third-line chemotherapeutic regimens among high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients who experienced resistance after receiving the etoposide, cisplatin–etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin (EP-EMA) regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 17-year descriptive study that included all patients who used various salvage chemotherapy after resistance to EP-EMA as treatment for metastatic, high-risk GTN at the Philippine General Hospital from January 2002 to December 2018. The medical records of eligible patients were retrieved and assessed. All abstracted data were analyzed retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were used to compute for percentages for the various demographic characteristics of the sample population. RESULTS: From January 2002 to December 2018, a total of 291 patients with metastatic, high-risk gestational GTN were treated at the Philippine General Hospital. Of these, only seven patients received various third-line chemotherapy regimens after resistance to EP-EMA. One patient was excluded due to incomplete data. Among the third-line chemotherapeutic regimens used, 3 patients received paclitaxel/carboplatin, two of whom went into remission while one expired. One patient had vincristine, bleomycin, and cisplatin (VBP) with two adjunctive surgeries in the form of hysterectomy and thoracotomy. She also went into remission. Two patients received paclitaxel–cisplatin/paclitaxel–etoposide (TP/TE) as third line of treatment. The first was shifted back to EP-EMA and eventually developed chemoresistance to EP-EMA and had multiple toxicities. After multidisciplinary conference with the patient and family, they decided to go home and refused further chemotherapy. The other patient had TP/TE followed by bleomycin–etoposide–cisplatin, with adjunctive hysterectomy. Despite multiple cycles of chemotherapy, the disease persisted. She was offered palliative care and the family decided to bring her home. Both patients eventually expired at home. CONCLUSION: No conclusion can be made about the most effective third line chemotherapy for resistant high-risk GTN because of the limited cases included in this study. An individualized approach is still recommended. Physicians and centers for patients caring for such patients are encouraged to report their experience to improve the management of future patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed557    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded60    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal