TY - JOUR
T1 - Cisplatin chemotherapy (without erythropoietin) and risk of life-threatening thromboembolic events in carcinoma of the uterine cervix
T2 - The tip of the iceberg? A review of the literature
AU - Anders, Jon C.
AU - Grigsby, Perry W.
AU - Singh, Anurag K.
PY - 2006/5/5
Y1 - 2006/5/5
N2 - Background: The risk of severe cardiovascular toxicity, specifically thromboembolic events (TE), in patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent irradiation and cisplatin chemotherapy is reported to be less than 1% in several large prospective trials. However, the anecdotal risk appears to be far higher. Results and discussion: A review of several prospective trials demonstrates no treatment related grade 4 cardiovascular toxicities and only two grade 5 toxicities in 1424 (0.1%) collective patients. A recent publication and our own unpublished experience finds 6 of 128 (4.7%) patients developed grade 4 to 5 cardiovascular (thrombosis/embolism) toxicity. The differenc in incidence of severe or life threatening cardiovascular toxicity of 0.1 versus 4.7% is highly statistically significant (p < 0.00001.) Conclusion: This dramatic difference in incidence of cardiovascular toxicity raises the possibility that cardiovascular toxicities were inadequately reported on the listed prospective trials. For those patients enrolled in prospective trials, we suggest that thromboses should be diligently documented and reported. Only after the true incidence of thromboses is established can we implement appropriate levels of early screening and intervention that may prevent life threatening complications.
AB - Background: The risk of severe cardiovascular toxicity, specifically thromboembolic events (TE), in patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent irradiation and cisplatin chemotherapy is reported to be less than 1% in several large prospective trials. However, the anecdotal risk appears to be far higher. Results and discussion: A review of several prospective trials demonstrates no treatment related grade 4 cardiovascular toxicities and only two grade 5 toxicities in 1424 (0.1%) collective patients. A recent publication and our own unpublished experience finds 6 of 128 (4.7%) patients developed grade 4 to 5 cardiovascular (thrombosis/embolism) toxicity. The differenc in incidence of severe or life threatening cardiovascular toxicity of 0.1 versus 4.7% is highly statistically significant (p < 0.00001.) Conclusion: This dramatic difference in incidence of cardiovascular toxicity raises the possibility that cardiovascular toxicities were inadequately reported on the listed prospective trials. For those patients enrolled in prospective trials, we suggest that thromboses should be diligently documented and reported. Only after the true incidence of thromboses is established can we implement appropriate levels of early screening and intervention that may prevent life threatening complications.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248371523&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1748-717X-1-14
DO - 10.1186/1748-717X-1-14
M3 - Review article
C2 - 16722547
AN - SCOPUS:34248371523
SN - 1748-717X
VL - 1
JO - Radiation oncology (London, England)
JF - Radiation oncology (London, England)
IS - 1
M1 - 14
ER -