This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Markman, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Markman, M.

Topotecan as Second-Line Therapy for Ovarian Cancer: Dosage Versus Toxicity

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

Key Words. Topotecan • Ovarian cancer • Bone marrow toxicity • Second-line therapy

Correspondence: Maurie Markman, M.D., University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. Telephone: 713-745-7140; Fax: 713-563-9586; e-mail: mmarkman{at}mdanderson.org

In this issue of The Oncologist, Armstrong et al. present an analysis of the use of topotecan (Hycamtin^®; GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, http://www.gsk.com) in the second-line treatment of both ovarian cancer and small cell carcinoma of the lung. This cytotoxic agent has clearly been demonstrated to be a useful drug in a population of patients with both of these conditions. However, the description of the nature of the toxicity, as stated in the manuscript, must be questioned along with comments made regarding the relative toxicity of alternative cytotoxic agents frequently used in similar settings. The purpose of this discussion absolutely is not to negate the unquestioned, demonstrated usefulness of topotecan as second-line therapy in ovarian cancer but rather to point out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved dose level of 1.5 mg/m² per day x 5 days can cause substantial and highly clinically relevant bone marrow toxicity. Whether this toxicity, which can result in a level of fatigue that may cause responding patients to discontinue treatment, should simply be labeled "excessive" rather than "cumulative" appears to be a matter of semantics rather than an important distinction. Whether delivery of a lower dose of topotecan (1 mg/m²–1.25 mg/m² per day x 5 days) will essentially eliminate concern for the development of severe clinically relevant marrow toxicity is uncertain, but the risk will certainly be substantially reduced.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Takemura, V. A. Rao, O. Sordet, T. Furuta, Z.-H. Miao, L. Meng, H. Zhang, and Y. Pommier Defective Mre11-dependent Activation of Chk2 by Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated in Colorectal Carcinoma Cells in Response to Replication-dependent DNA Double Strand Breaks J. Biol. Chem., October 13, 2006; 281(41): 30814 - 30823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Muggia, R. Kosloff, L. Liebes, and H. Hochster Topotecan Continuous Infusion: CA-125 Responses Including Patients Pretreated with Other Schedules of Topotecan. Oncologist, May 1, 2006; 11(5): 529 - 531. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. K. Armstrong, D. Spriggs, J. Levin, R. Poulin, and S. Lane Hematologic Safety and Tolerability of Topotecan in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer and Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Integrated Analysis Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(9): 686 - 694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. T. Penson and M. V. Seiden Topotecan: Weighing in When There Are Many Options Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(9): 698 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]