Weekly high-dose cisplatin is a feasible treatment option: analysis on prognostic factors for toxicity in 400 patients

ABSTRACT In the present study we describe the toxicity of weekly high-dose (70–85 mg m−2) cisplatin in 400 patients (203 men, 197 women; median age 54 years) with advanced solid tumours

treated in the period 1990–2001 who took part in phase I/II trials, investigating the feasibility and efficacy of weekly cisplatin alone, or in combination with paclitaxel or etoposide.

Cisplatin was administered in 250 ml NaCl 3% over 3 h, for six intended administrations. The mean number of administrations was 5.3 (range, 1–6 administrations). Reasons not to complete six

cycles were disease progression (7.5%), haematological toxicity (9%), nephrotoxicity (7%), ototoxicity (2.5%), neurotoxicity (1%), gastrointestinal toxicity (1%), cardiovascular

complications (0.5%) or a combination of reasons including noncompliance and patient's request (5.5%). Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate baseline parameters for

prognostic value regarding toxicity. Leukopenia correlated with etoposide cotreatment, and thrombocytopenia with cisplatin dose and prior (platinum-based) chemotherapy. Risk factors for

nephrotoxicity were older age, female gender, smoking, hypoalbuminaemia and paclitaxel coadministration. Neurotoxicity >grade 1 (11% of patients) was associated with prior chemotherapy

and paclitaxel coadministration. Symptomatic hearing loss occurred in 15% with anaemia as the predisposing factor. We conclude that _w_eekly high-dose cisplatin administered in hypertonic

saline is a feasible treatment regimen. MAIN _CIS_-Diamminedichloroplatinum (cisplatin) is a commonly used cytotoxic agent with a broad spectrum of activity against solid malignant tumours,

including germ cell, ovarian, endometrial, cervical, urothelial, head/neck and lung cancer. When cisplatin was first approved for commercial use in 1978, the major toxicities were severe

nausea and vomiting and a high incidence of renal dysfunction. Although these adverse effects are still of concern, they can be significantly reduced by the use of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

and vigorous hydration (Pinzani et al, 1994). Administration of cisplatin in hypertonic saline may further alleviate nephrotoxic side effects (Ozols et al, 1984). Protective measures against

nausea, vomiting and renal dysfunction have created the opportunity to increase the (individual and cumulative) cisplatin dose. With mild to moderate myelosuppression during conventional 3-

or 4-weekly therapy, neurotoxicity (Cersosimo, 1989) and ototoxicity (Laurell and Jungnelius, 1990) have emerged as the remaining major dose-limiting side effects. The rationale for weekly

administration of high-dose cisplatin is based on the tumour biological principle that frequent administration of chemotherapy in a high dose results in more effective killing of cancer

cells and potentially reduces the risk of developing chemotherapy resistance. Furthermore, by shortening the treatment interval, tumour cells have less time for regrowth between treatment

courses. Weekly administration of cisplatin has extensively been studied at our institution in a range of prospective clinical trials (Planting et al, 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997a, 1997b;

van der Burg et al, 1998; van den Bent et al, 1999, 2002). In the present analysis, we have pooled data of 400 patients treated with cisplatin at weekly doses of 70–85 mg m−2 for an

intended number of six administrations, with the goal of describing in detail the toxicity of this weekly regimen and of identifing predisposing factors for the development of side effects,

with an emphasis on nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS PATIENT SELECTION Patients who had been treated with weekly high-dose cisplatin in the period

1990–2001 were analysed. The majority of patients participated in phase I/II clinical trials (Planting et al, 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997a, 1997b; van der Burg et al, 1998, 2002; van den

Bent et al, 1999). All study protocols were approved by the Institutional Ethics Board and all participating patients gave written informed consent. According to the inclusion criteria of

the trials, patients were required to have locally advanced or metastatic cancer with no better treatment options than weekly cisplatin as a single agent or in combination with either i.v.

paclitaxel or oral etoposide. Age had to be ⩾18 years, WHO performance status 0–2, and life expectancy more than 12 weeks with adequate haematopoietic, renal and hepatic function at study

entry. Based on favourable treatment results (Planting et al, 1997b), patients with locally advanced head/neck cancer could be offered treatment with weekly cisplatin induction chemotherapy

followed by radiotherapy outside study protocols. TREATMENT Cisplatin was administered at a dose of 70–85 mg m−2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36 as a single agent, or at a dose of 70 mg m−2

on days 1, 8, 15, 29, 36 and 43 in combination with oral etoposide or i.v. paclitaxel. Cisplatin powder was dissolved in 250 ml NaCl 3% and administered by i.v. infusion over 3 h. Patients

received prehydration with 1 l normal saline or dextrose-saline and posthydration with 3 l normal saline or dextrose-saline supplemented with KCl (20 mmol l−1) and MgSO4 (2 g l−1).

Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of a 5HT3 antagonist in combination with dexamethasone. Diuretics were not administered routinely. DOSE INTENSITY Dose reductions were not allowed. Cisplatin

single-agent treatment was postponed 1 week for a maximum of 3 weeks if WBC <2.5 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets <75 × 109 l−1. When used in combination with etoposide, cisplatin

administration was postponed in the case of WBC <2.5 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets <75 × 109 l−1 on day 8 or day 36, WBC <1.5 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets <50 × 109 l−1 on day 15 or

day 43, and WBC <3.0 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets <100 × 109 l−1 on day 29. With the cisplatin/paclitaxel regimen, treatment was postponed if WBC <1.0 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets

<50 × 109 l−1 on days 8, 15, 36 or 43, and if on day 29 WBC <3.0 × 109 l−1 and/or platelets <100 × 109 l−1. Cisplatin was discontinued if creatinine clearance fell below 45 ml min−1

or in case of neurotoxicity >grade 2. The planned dose intensity was calculated by dividing the planned total dose of cisplatin (mg m−2) by the planned duration of treatment given in

weeks (i.e. 6 weeks for cisplatin single agent and 7 weeks for cisplatin in combination with etoposide or paclitaxel). The achieved dose intensity was calculated by dividing the total

administered dose (mg m−2) by the actual treatment duration given in weeks. Patients who did not complete treatment due to nontoxicity reasons (e.g. disease progression, noncompliance) were

not evaluated for achieved dose intensity. DATA COLLECTION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Pretreatment and follow-up studies have been reported in detail elsewhere (Planting et al, 1993, 1994,

1995a, 1995b, 1997a, 1997b; van der Burg et al, 1998, 2002; van den Bent et al, 1999). Patients' baseline characteristics analysed included age, sex, length, weight, body-surface area

(BSA), blood pressure, smoking and drinking habits, amount of weight loss, performance status, tumour type, prior anticancer treatment, planned cisplatin dose and dose intensity, and

cytotoxic comedication (etoposide, paclitaxel or none). Physical examination, laboratory tests and assessment of toxicity were performed weekly during treatment. Laboratory tests included

haemoglobin, WBC, granulocytes, platelets, albumin, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), sodium,

potassium, calcium, magnesium, creatinine and creatinine clearance measured by 24-h urine collection. In addition, creatinine clearance was estimated using the Cockroft and Gault equation.

Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC), version 1.0, National Cancer Institute (NCI), and, for the present analysis, was evaluated after three administrations

of weekly cisplatin, after six administrations and 3 months after completion of the weekly cisplatin regimen. Since audiograms were not routinely performed, grade 1 ototoxicity was not

reported. Patients who went off treatment before the fifth administration of cisplatin for reasons other than the evaluated toxicity were excluded from analysis of that toxicity, in order to

prevent under-reporting of toxicity. Logistic regression analysis was used in order to test baseline parameters for their prognostic value regarding toxicity. Patients with neurological

symptoms or hearing impairment at baseline were excluded from logistic regression analysis for neurotoxicity and ototoxicity, respectively. In order to eliminate the influence of baseline

serum creatinine and creatinine clearance on renal toxicity assessment, renal toxicity was defined as a ⩾25% decline in the estimated creatinine clearance from baseline. After univariate

analysis, all baseline parameters were presented to the multivariate model that used a stepwise procedure starting with an empty model and putting the most significant factor at that time

into the model. This process was repeated until the _P_-value of the factor involved exceeded 0.025. This level of statistical significance was chosen to reduce the risk of finding purely

coincidental associations in view of the large amount of factors analysed. _P_-values were calculated using the Wald test. For each parameter remaining in the multivariate model, an odds

ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the development of toxicity was calculated. RESULTS PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. A total of 400

patients (203 males, 197 females) who had been receiving a total of 2116 weekly cisplatin administrations were included in the study. Predominant tumour types were head and neck cancer (39%)

and ovarian cancer (27%). Of the 92 patients with prior chemotherapy, 88 patients had recurrent ovarian cancer after one or more platinum-based regimens (cisplatin pretreatment in 40

patients). The planned cisplatin dose was 70 mg m−2 for 323 patients (81%) and 80 mg m−2 for 70 patients (18%). Five patients received 75 mg m−2, and two received 85 mg m−2. Cisplatin was

administered as a single agent to 143 patients (36%); 196 patients (49%) received cisplatin in combination with oral etoposide and 61 (15%) with i.v. paclitaxel. A total of 263 patients

(66%) received six cisplatin administrations: 151 without any delay (38%), 64 with 1 week delay (16%), 39 with 2 weeks delay (10%), seven with 3 weeks delay (2%), and two with 4 weeks delay

(0.5%). From the patients that received four (_n_=30) or five (_n_=59) administrations of cisplatin, 55 had no treatment delay (14%), 18 had 1 week delay (4.5%), 10 had 2 weeks delay (2.5%)

and six had 3 weeks delay (1.5%); from the patients that received one (_n_=8), two (_n_=5) or three (_n_=35) cisplatin administrations, 46 had no delay (11%) and two had a 1-week treatment

delay (0.5%). The mean number of cisplatin administrations was 5.3, with a median total cisplatin dose of 420 mg m−2 (range, 70–480 mg m−2; mean, 379±86 mg m−2). The mean duration of

treatment was 6.5±1.9 weeks (range, 1–11 weeks; median, 7 weeks). The median achieved dose intensity was 60 mg m−2 week−1 (range, 10–80 mg m−2 week−1; mean, 55.7±11.6 mg m−2 week−1).

Toxicity incidences (scored as the worst CTC grade) are shown in Table 2. Nausea and vomiting were prevalent but did not result in dose reduction or cessation of treatment. Reasons not to

complete treatment were disease progression (30 patients, 7.5%), haematological toxicity (37 patients, 9%), renal toxicity (29 patients, 7%), ototoxicity (10 patients, 2.5%), neurotoxicity

(four patients, 1%), gastrointestinal toxicity (three patients, 1%), cardiovascular complications (two patients, 0.5%), or combinations of reasons including noncompliance and patient's

request (22 patients, 5.5%). In total, 12 patients (3%) died within 30 days after the last administration of weekly cisplatin; nine of them had rapidly progressive disease. HAEMATOLOGICAL

TOXICITY In 37 patients (9%), weekly cisplatin treatment was discontinued because of haematological toxicity, in the majority of them (21 patients) only after the fifth administration.

Anaemia was a common adverse event. During the evaluation period 202 patients (51%) received one or more transfusions. The median number of erythrocyte units transfused was two (range,

0–17). Grade 3–4 leucopenia was common, and associated with etoposide cotreatment (OR=2.2, _P_=0.007). Although frequently observed, grade 4 neutropenia was generally brief (<7 days in

74%; <14 days in 94%) and uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia occurred in only 1.5% of patients. Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 22% of patients who received at least three

administrations of weekly cisplatin; 19 patients (5%) received platelet transfusions. Thrombocytopenia was associated with prior chemotherapy (OR=3.2, _P_=0.006) and cisplatin dose (80 mg 

m−2 versus 70 mg m−2: OR=2.9, _P_=0.009). Paclitaxel coadministration was not associated with enhanced haematological toxicity (OR=0.39, _P_=0.1 for anaemia; OR=1.9, _P_=0.08 for leucopenia;

OR=0.53, _P_=0.2 for neutropenia; OR=0.55, _P_=0.3 for thrombocytopenia). NEPHROTOXICITY At baseline, serum creatinine (mean±standard deviation) was 84±14 _μ_mol l−1 with an estimated

creatinine clearance of 83±22 ml min−1. After three and six administrations of weekly cisplatin, the serum creatinine was 93±40 and 102±29 _μ_mol l−1 respectively with an estimated

creatinine clearance of 77±23 and 69±23 ml min−1 respectively. A ⩾25% reduction in creatinine clearance was observed in 116 patients (29%). In 164 patients (41%) the serum creatinine rose

above the upper limit of normal (grade 1, 127 patients (32%); grade 2, 35 patients (9%); grade 3, two patients (0.5%)). Electrolyte disorders were frequently observed. Mean±standard

deviation serum concentrations of magnesium, calcium, sodium and potassium declined from respectively 0.81±0.09 mmol l−1 (range, 0.51–1.33 mmol l−1), 2.39±0.14 mmol l−1 (range, 1.92–3.03 

mmol l−1), 139±3.7 mmol l−1 (range, 128–149 mmoll−1) and 4.2±0.41 mmol l−1 (range, 2.8–5.5 mmol l−1) at baseline to 0.70±0.13 mmol l−1 (range, 0.22–1.62 mmol l−1), 2.26±0.15 mmol l−1 (range,

1.59–2.69 mmol l−1), 135±4.3 mmol l−1 (range, 117–146 mmol l−1) and 4.0±0.50 mmol l−1 (range, 2.5–5.2 mmol l−1) after three administrations, and 0.62±0.14 mmol l−1 (range, 0.23–1.16 mmol 

l−1), 2.24±0.16 mmol l−1 (range, 1.53–2.69 mmol l−1), 135±4.1 mmol l−1 (range, 122–146 mmol l−1) and 4.0±0.56 mmol l−1 (range, 2.2–5.6 mmol l−1) after six administrations of weekly

cisplatin. Results of the logistic regression analysis for nephrotoxicity are shown in Table 3. In the univariate analysis, age, female sex, prior cisplatin treatment, paclitaxel cotreatment

and hypoalbuminaemia were associated with nephrotoxicity (defined as a ⩾25% decline of the estimated creatinine clearance at any time during the evaluation period). After adjustment for

prior chemotherapy and additional chemotherapeutical agents, age and hypoalbuminaemia remained significant whereas smoking and elevated serum alkaline phosphatase concentrations were

introduced as additional risk factors. The multivariate analysis selected age, female gender, smoking, paclitaxel coadministration and hypoalbuminaemia as independent risk factors.

Paclitaxel cotreatment (OR=4.0, _P_=0.001), hypoalbuminaemia (OR=3.5, _P_=0.006) and smoking (OR=2.5, _P_=0.002) were strong predisposing factors for renal toxicity in the multivariate

model. There was a gradual increase in renal toxicity with increasing age at an OR of 1.03 year−1 (_P_=0.007). Patients younger than 48 years had a 26% risk for renal toxicity, which

increased to 35% for patients aged 48–62 years and 41% for patients >62 years. Compared with men, women had a two-fold risk of renal toxicity (OR=2.0, _P_=0.02). NEUROTOXICITY Clinical

data on neurotoxicity (according to CTC criteria) were fully available for the period of weekly cisplatin treatment, but were missing in 71 of our patients (18%) at 2–4 months

post-treatment. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that 43 ovarian cancer patients treated with weekly cisplatin in combination with paclitaxel (11% of the study population) received additional

3-weekly treatment with cisplatin and/or paclitaxel immediately following the weekly regimen. Neurotoxicity (mostly peripheral sensory polyneuropathy) was observed in 188 patients (47%) and

was mild to moderate in most cases: 145 patients (36%) developed grade 1 neurotoxicity, 33 patients (8%) grade 2, nine patients (2%) grade 3, and one patient experienced grade 4

neurotoxicity. After univariate analysis a large number of baseline parameters were found to be related with the development of grade 2–4 neurotoxicity: female sex, tumour type (ovarian

cancer), prior chemotherapy, cisplatin dose, paclitaxel coadministration, non-smoking and alcohol consumption ⩽2 unitsday−1 (Table 4). After adjustment for prior chemotherapy and cytotoxic

cotreatment, none of the (other) risk factors remained significant. After multivariate analysis, prior platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and coadministration of

paclitaxel remained independent prognostic indicators for neurotoxicity. The ORs were 8.3 for paclitaxel coadministration (_P_=0.001), 3.9 for pretreatment with cisplatin (_P_=0.01), and 3.5

for pretreatment with carboplatin (_P_=0.01). OTOTOXICITY Ototoxicity was observed in 168 patients (42%): 110 patients (28%) had CTC grade 2 (reversible tinnitus), 55 (14%) grade 3, and

three patients (1%) had grade 4 ototoxicity. Table 5 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis for ototoxicity defined as symptomatic hearing loss (grade 3–4). Anaemia was the

single baseline parameter associated with ototoxicity (OR=3.1, _P_=0.001). DISCUSSION The present study reports the toxic side effects of weekly high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in 400

patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic cancer. Given the median number of six administrations of weekly cisplatin, the median total dose of 420 mg m−2 and the median dose-intensity

of 60 mg m−2 week−1, it can be concluded that a short intensive weekly cisplatin schedule is a feasible treatment option, even in combination with i.v. paclitaxel or oral etoposide.

Haematological toxicity resulted in treatment discontinuation in only 9% of patients (the majority of them only missing one administration of weekly cisplatin). Anaemia, however, was

frequently observed, and 51% of the patients received erythrocyte transfusions. Grade 3–4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were present, but generally of brief duration and without serious

complications. It is noteworthy that paclitaxel cotreatment (in contrast to etoposide coadministration) did not result in enhanced haematological toxicity; this could be explained by a

favourable pharmacological interaction between cisplatin and cremophor EL (the vehicle for i.v. paclitaxel administration). It is already known that the sequence paclitaxel–cisplatin induces

less profound neutropenia than the alternate sequence, which was first ascribed to lower paclitaxel clearance rates after cisplatin administration (Rowinsky et al, 1991). In other studies,

however, no pharmacokinetic interaction between paclitaxel and cisplatin could be found (Gelderblom et al, 2002), whereas _in vitro_ drug accumulation studies have demonstrated significant

reduction of intracellular cisplatin concentrations in leucocytes (but not in tumour cells) in the presence of cremophor EL, which was not observed with paclitaxel alone (de Vos et al,

1997). The infusion of cremophor EL immediately before cisplatin administration ameliorated leucopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (Gelderblom et al, 2002), which may be of potential

interest for improvement of the therapeutic index of weekly cisplatin treatment. Renal toxicity was present and necessitated discontinuation of weekly cisplatin treatment in 7% of patients.

According to CTC criteria, nephrotoxicity was observed in 42% of patients (serum creatinine above the upper limit of the normal); the majority of them (32%) experienced mild (grade 1) renal

toxicity, whereas 5% of the patients already had elevated serum creatinine concentrations at baseline. The estimated creatinine clearance declined from 83±22 ml min−1 at baseline to 69±23 ml

 min−1 after six administrations of weekly cisplatin. In 116 patients (29%), creatinine clearance decreased 25% or more; the median decrease in creatinine clearance was 16%. This certainly

does not exceed the nephrotoxicity reported from conventional 3-weekly cisplatin treatment, and confirms previous observations that haematological, and not renal, toxicity is the major

dose-limiting adverse event of weekly high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy (Planting et al, 1993, 1997a, 1997b). The administration of cisplatin in a solution with hypertonic saline may have

alleviated renal toxicity, thus allowing dose-dense cisplatin treatment. In animal models it has been shown that administration of cisplatin in a vehicle of hypertonic saline remarkably

reduced nephrotoxicity without loss of antitumour activity (Litterst, 1981). The most likely explanation is that chloride excess results in the decreased formation of highly nephrotoxic

hydrolysis products of cisplatin (Earhart et al, 1983; Bajorin et al, 1986; Jones et al, 1991). Several baseline parameters were identified as independent prognostic indicators for renal

toxicity. The incidence of nephrotoxicity gradually increased with age (OR=1.03 year−1). Although increased age was a risk factor for nephrotoxicity, our study also demonstrates that weekly

cisplatin treatment is not necessarily contraindicated in elderly patients. Women had a two-fold increased risk for renal toxicity compared with men. The reason for this gender difference is

not known. In a previous study (de Jongh et al, 2001), we found that unbound cisplatin clearance was 15% higher in men than in women but age had no significant influence on this clearance.

Paclitaxel coadministration was strongly related to the development of nephrotoxicity (OR=4.0, CI=1.8–8.8). Although the mechanism of this association is not clear, it is in concordance with

a report of increased nephrotoxicity with paclitaxel/cisplatin combination as compared to cisplatin single-agent chemotherapy in a small group of patients with gynaecologic cancers

(Merouani et al, 1997). Smoking also was an independent risk factor for cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in the present study (OR=2.5, CI=1.4–4.5). To our knowledge, this has not been

reported in the literature, and the underlying pathophysiological mechanism remains a matter of speculation. It is known, however, that cigarette smoking is associated with oxidative stress

(Maytin et al, 1999), which could possibly lead to enhanced formation of nephrotoxic platinum metabolites. Although it cannot be excluded that smoking was associated with nephrotoxicity

through coexisting smoking-related cardiovascular disease, other indicators for cardiovascular disease such as hypertension and diminished baseline creatinine clearance were not identified

as risk factors for cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Furthermore, there was no association between nephrotoxicity and a history of hypertension, cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus

in 425 patients treated with conventional cisplatin chemotherapy (Stewart et al, 1997). Another strong predisposing factor for renal toxicity was hypoalbuminaemia. This has also been

described for patients receiving conventional cisplatin treatment (Stewart et al, 1997). Various studies have demonstrated that cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity is related to the peak plasma

concentration and/or the area under the plasma concentration–time curve of nonprotein bound cisplatin (Reece et al, 1987; Nagai et al, 1996; Nagai and Ogata, 1997). It is postulated that

low serum albumin concentrations are associated with increased plasma concentrations of unbound cisplatin, resulting in enhanced renal toxicity. It is noteworthy that cisplatin dose (in the

range 70–80 mg m−2) was not associated with nephrotoxicity and that baseline creatinine clearance did not predict for nephrotoxicity (defined as relative decrease in estimated creatinine

clearance), both findings confirming data on conventional cisplatin treatment (Lagrange et al, 1997). Neurotoxicity was found to be acceptable with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy. According

to previous studies, neurotoxicity is mainly related to cumulative cisplatin dose, and shortening of the treatment interval does not necessarily lead to worsening of the neurotoxic side

effects (Cavaletti et al, 1992; Hilkens et al, 1994, 1995). Neurotoxicity was evaluated during and immediately following the weekly cisplatin regimen. Since cisplatin-induced neuropathy can

worsen during the first months after cisplatin treatment (Hilkens et al, 1994), it was also assessed 2–4 months after the completion of the weekly cisplatin regimen. The worst toxicity score

was used for evaluation of neurotoxicity. Here, several biases were met. First, data on neurotoxicity at 2–4 months were not traceable in 71 patients (18%), which probably led to some

underestimation of neurotoxicity. On the other hand, 11% of the total study population received additional paclitaxel and/or cisplatin immediately following the weekly cisplatin regimen with

possible overestimation of neurotoxicity. Nevertheless, only four patients (1%) did not complete treatment due to neurotoxicity. CTC grade 2–4 neurotoxicity was observed in 11% of the

patients. A large number of baseline parameters were identified as potential risk factors for cisplatin-induced neurotoxicity by univariate logistic regression analysis (Table 4): female

sex, ovarian cancer, prior platinum-based chemotherapy, individual cisplatin dose, nonsmoking and alcohol consumption <3 units daily. After adjustment for prior chemotherapy and

cotreatment (paclitaxel, etoposide), all other baseline parameters were eliminated as risk factors. In the multivariate model, paclitaxel coadministration and prior cisplatin and/or

carboplatin treatment were identified as independent risk factors for grade 2–4 neurotoxicity. The found associations could be anticipated and this unfortunately does not add much to our

knowledge of cisplatin-induced neuropathy. Both paclitaxel and cisplatin are neurotoxic agents, and a combination of cisplatin with taxanes is known to result in increased neurotoxicity

(Connelly et al, 1996; Hilkens et al, 1997). Furthermore, cisplatin-induced neurotoxicity is mainly dependent on the cumulative cisplatin dose (Cavaletti et al, 1992; Hilkens et al, 1994,

1995). However, despite an increased risk of neurotoxicity in the platinum pretreated patients, severe neurotoxicity necessitating treatment discontinuation rarely occurred. This is in

concordance with a previous study demonstrating that patients with absent or mild signs of neuropathy after prior treatment with cisplatin to a cumulative dose of 400–450 mg m−2 can be

retreated with six cycles of cisplatin 50–70 mg m−2 weekly with only a minimal risk of significant neurotoxicity, not different from that in carboplatin pretreated patients (van den Bent et

al, 2002). Ototoxicity is another major side effect of cisplatin chemotherapy, and is probably caused by cisplatin-induced degeneration of the hair cells of the cochlea. Previous studies

have shown that ototoxicity is related to both cumulative and individual cisplatin dose (Reddel et al, 1982; Schaeffer et al, 1985; Laurell and Jungnelius, 1990). In the present study,

tinnitus occurred in 25% of the patients, 15% had subjective, symptomatic hearing loss, and in 2.5% weekly cisplatin treatment was not completed due to ototoxicity. Anaemia was a

predisposing factor for grade 3–4 ototoxicity (OR=3.1, CI=1.6–6.3). The pathophysiological background of this association is presently unknown. Others previously identified anaemia as a risk

factor for cisplatin-induced ototoxicity (Blakley et al, 1994). They also found a relation with hypoalbuminaemia, which was a borderline prognostic factor (OR=2.4, CI=0.9–6.7, _P_=0.1) in

the present study on weekly cisplatin. It is noteworthy that age, sex, performance status, creatinine clearance and individual cisplatin dose (in the range 70–80 mg m−2) were not associated

with ototoxicity. Remarkably, in the present analysis, performance status was not associated with any chemotherapy-induced toxicity, but this is probably related to the selection of patients

with good performance status to treat with dose-dense cisplatin chemotherapy. An advantage of the weekly regimen is shortening of the treatment period from 18–24 weeks with standard

treatment (six courses with intervals of 3–4 weeks) to 6–8 weeks with weekly treatment using similar total cisplatin dose. On theoretical grounds it can be expected that weekly cisplatin

treatment enhances antitumour activity. Indeed, weekly cisplatin in combination with either etoposide or paclitaxel was highly active and well tolerated in the patients with advanced ovarian

cancer, and even in the case of platinum-refractory disease (defined as platinum treatment-free interval <4 months) the objective response rate was in the order of 50% (van der Burg et

al, 1998, 2002). This suggests that platinum resistance is a relative phenomenon that could be overcome by shortening the treatment interval and supports the use of weekly platinum treatment

in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. For other tumour types, however, the place of weekly cisplatin treatment remains to be determined. In conclusion, in a large cohort of patients, we

have demonstrated that weekly cisplatin at doses of 70–80 mg m−2 administered in hypertonic saline is a feasible treatment option, even when combined with oral etoposide or i.v. paclitaxel.

Predisposing factors for treatment-related toxicity differ from side effect to side effect. CHANGE HISTORY * _ 16 NOVEMBER 2011 This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication

to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication _ REFERENCES * Bajorin DF, Bosl GJ, Alcock NW, Niedzwiecki D, Gallina E, Shurgot B (1986) Pharmacokinetics of

_cis_-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) after administration in hypertonic saline. _Cancer Res_ 46: 5969–5972 PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar  * Blakley BW, Gupta AK, Myers SF, Schwan S (1994) Risk

factors for ototoxicity due to cisplatin. _Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg_ 120: 541–546 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Cavaletti G, Marzorati L, Bogliun G, Colombo N, Marzola M, Pitelli

MR, Tredici G (1992) Cisplatin-induced peripheral neurotoxicity is dependent on total-dose intensity and single-dose intensity. _Cancer_ 69: 203–207 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Cersosimo

RJ (1989) Cisplatin neurotoxicity. _Cancer Treat Rev_ 16: 195–211 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Connelly E, Markman M, Kennedy A, Webster K, Kulp B, Peterson G, Belinson J (1996)

Paclitaxel delivered at a 3-hr infusion with cisplatin in patients with gynecologic cancers: unexpected incidence of neurotoxicity. _Gynecol Oncol_ 62: 166–168 Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

* de Jongh FE, Verweij J, Loos WJ, de Wit R, de Jonge MJA, Planting AST, Nooter K, Stoter G, Sparreboom A (2001) Body-surface area-based dosing does not increase accuracy of predicting

cisplatin exposure. _J Clin Oncol_ 19: 3733–3739 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * de Vos AI, Nooter K, Verweij J, Loos WJ, Brouwer E, de Bruijn P, Ruijgrok EJ, van der Burg MEL, Stoter G,

Sparreboom A (1997) Differential modulation of cisplatin accumulation in leukocytes and tumor cell lines by the paclitaxel vehicle Cremophor EL. _Ann Oncol_ 8: 1145–1150 Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Earhart RH, Martin PA, Tutsch KD, Ertürk E, Wheeler RH, Bull FE (1983) Improvement in the therapeutic index of cisplatin (NSC 119875) by pharmacologically induced chloruresis in

the rat. _Cancer Res_ 43: 1187–1194 PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar  * Gelderblom H, Loos WJ, Verweij J, van der Burg MEL, de Jonge MJA, Brouwer E, Nooter K, Stoter G, Sparreboom A (2002)

Modulation of cisplatin pharmacodynamics by Cremophor EL: experimental and clinical studies. _Eur J Cancer_ 38: 205–213 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hilkens PHE, Planting AST, van der

Burg MEL, Moll JWB, van Putten WLJ, Vecht CJ, van den Bent MJ (1994) Clinical course and risk factors of neurotoxicity following cisplatin in an intensive dosing schedule. _Eur J Neurol_ 1:

45–50 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hilkens PHE, Pronk LC, Verweij J, Vecht CJ, van Putten WLJ, van den Bent MJ (1997) Peripheral neuropathy induced by combination chemotherapy of

docetaxel and cisplatin. _Br J Cancer_ 75: 417–422 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hilkens PHE, van der Burg MEL, Moll JWB, Planting AST, van Putten WLJ, Vecht CJ, van den Bent MJ (1995)

Neurotoxicity is not enhanced by increased dose intensities of cisplatin administration. _Eur J Cancer_ 31A: 678–681 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Jones MM, Basinger MA, Beaty JA, Holscher

MA (1991) The relative nephrotoxicity of cisplatin, _cis_-[Pt(NH3)2(guanosine)2]2+, and the hydrolysis product of cisplatin in the rat. _Cancer Chemother Pharmacol_ 29: 29–32 Article  CAS 

Google Scholar  * Lagrange JL, Médecin B, Etienne MC, Pivot X, Cassuto-Viguier E, Reneé N, Thyss A, Ferrero JM, Otto J, François E, Milano G (1997) Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: a multivariate

analysis of potential predisposing factors. _Pharmacother_ 17: 1246–1253 CAS  Google Scholar  * Laurell G, Jungnelius U (1990) High-dose cisplatin treatment: hearing loss and plasma

concentrations. _Laryngoscope_ 100: 724–734 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Litterst CL (1981) Alterations in the toxicity of _cis_-dichlorodiammineplatinum-II and in tissue localization of

platinum as a function of NaCl concentration in the vehicle of administration. _Toxicol Appl Pharmacol_ 61: 99–108 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Maytin M, Leopold J, Loscalzo J (1999)

Oxidant stress in the vasculature. _Curr Atheroscler Rep_ 1: 156–164 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Merouani A, Davidson SA, Schrier RW (1997) Increased nephrotoxicity of combination taxol

and cisplatin chemotherapy in gynecologic cancers as compared to cisplatin alone. _Am J Nephrol_ 17: 53–58 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Nagai N, Kinoshita M, Ogata H, Tsujino D, Wada Y,

Someya K, Ohno T, Masuhara K, Tanaka Y, Kato K, Nagai H, Yokoyama A, Kurita Y (1996) Relationship between pharmacokinetics of unchanged cisplatin and nephrotoxicity after intravenous

infusions of cisplatin to cancer patients _. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol_ 39: 131–137 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Nagai N, Ogata H (1997) Quantitative relationship between

pharmacokinetics of unchanged cisplatin and nephrotoxicity in rats: importance of area under the concentration – time curve (AUC) as the major toxicodynamic determinant _in vivo_. _Cancer

Chemother Pharmacol_ 40: 11–18 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ozols RF, Corden BJ, Jacob J, Wesley MN, Ostchega Y, Young RC (1984) High-dose cisplatin in hypertonic saline. _Ann Intern Med_

100: 19–24 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pinzani V, Bressolle F, Haug IJ, Galtier M, Blayac JP, Balmès P (1994) Cisplatin-induced renal toxicity and toxicity-modulating strategies: a

review. _Cancer Chemother Pharmacol_ 35: 1–9 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting AST, Kho GS, van der Burg MEL, Goey SH, Schellens JHM, van den Bent MJ, van der Gaast A, de Boer-Dennert

M, Stoter G, Verweij J (1997a) A phase II study of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with oral etoposide in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. _Cancer Chemother Pharmacol_ 40: 347–352

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting AST, de Mulder PHM, de Graeff A, Verweij J (1997b) Phase II study of weekly high-dose cisplatin for six cycles in patients with locally advanced

squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. _Eur J Cancer_ 33: 61–65 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting AST, Schellens JHM, Goey SH, van der Burg MEL, de Boer-Dennert M, Stoter G,

Verweij J (1994) Weekly high-dose cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma. _Ann Oncol_ 5: 373–374 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting AST, van der Burg MEL, de Boer-Dennert M,

Stoter G, Verweij J (1993) Phase I/II study of a short course of weekly cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumours. _Br J Cancer_ 68: 789–792 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting

AST, van der Burg MEL, de Boer-Dennert M, Stoter G, Verweij J (1995a) Phase I study of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long term oral etoposide in advanced solid tumors. _Ann Oncol_

6: 190–192 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Planting AST, van der Burg MEL, Goey SH, Schellens JHM, van den Bent MJ, de Boer-Dennert M, Stoter G, Verweij J (1995b) Phase II study of a short

course of weekly high-dose cisplatin combined with long term oral etoposide in pleural mesothelioma. _Ann Oncol_ 6: 613–615 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Reddel RR, Kefford RF, Grant JM,

Coates AS, Fox RM, Tattersall HN (1982) Ototoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin: importance of dose and method of drug administration. _Cancer Treat Rep_ 66: 19–23 PubMed  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Reece PA, Stafford I, Russell J, Khan M, Gill PG (1987) Creatinine clearance as a predictor of ultrafilterable platinum disposition in cancer patients treated with cisplatin:

relationship between peak ultrafilterable platinum plasma levels and nephrotoxicity. _J Clin Oncol_ 5: 304–309 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Rowinsky EK, Gilbert MR, McGuire WP, Noe DA,

Grochow LB, Forastiere AA, Ettinger DS, Lubejko BG, Clark B, Sartorius SE, Cornblath DR, Hendricks CB, Donehower RC (1991) Sequences of taxol and cisplatin: a phase I and pharmacologic

study. _J Clin Oncol_ 9: 1692–1703 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Schaeffer SD, Post JD, Close LG, Wright CG (1985) Ototoxicity of low- and moderate-dose cisplatin. _Cancer_ 56: 1934–1939

Article  Google Scholar  * Stewart DJ, Dulberg CS, Mikhael NZ, Redmond D, Montpetit VAJ, Goel R (1997) Association of cisplatin nephrotoxicity with patient characteristics and cisplatin

administration methods. _Cancer Chemother Pharmacol_ 40: 293–308 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * van den Bent MJ, Pronk L, Sillevis Smitt PA, Vecht CJ, Eskens FA, Verweij J (1999) Phase II

study of weekly dose-intensified cisplatin chemotherapy with oral etoposide in recurrent glioma. _J Neuro-oncol_ 44: 59–64 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * van den Bent MJ, van Putten WLJ,

Hilkens PHE, de Wit R, van der Burg MEL (2002) Retreatment with dose-dense weekly cisplatin after previous cisplatin chemotherapy is not complicated by significant neuro-toxicity. _Eur J

Cancer_ 38: 387–391 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * van der Burg MEL, de Wit R, Stoter G, Verweij J (1998) Phase I study of weekly cisplatin and weekly or 4-weekly taxol: a highly active

regimen in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer _. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol_ 17: abstract 1370 Google Scholar  * van der Burg MEL, de Wit R, van Putten WLJ, Logmans A, Kruit WHJ, Stoter G,

Verweij J (2002) Weekly cisplatin and daily oral etoposide is highly effective in platinum pretreated ovarian cancer. _Br J Cancer_ 86: 19–25 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  Download

references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Medical Oncology, Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 5201, Rotterdam,

3008, AE, The Netherlands F E de Jongh, R N van Veen, S J Veltman, R de Wit, M E L van der Burg, ASTh Planting, G Stoter & J Verweij * Department of Neuro-Oncology, Daniel den Hoed

Cancer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3008, AE, The Netherlands M J van den Bent * Department of Biostatistics, Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Erasmus

University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3008, AE, The Netherlands W J Graveland Authors * F E de Jongh View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * R N van Veen View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * S J Veltman View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * R de Wit View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * M E L van der Burg View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * M J van den Bent View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * ASTh Planting View author publications You can

also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * W J Graveland View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * G Stoter View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * J Verweij View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Correspondence to J Verweij. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Dr. de Jongh's current address: Department of Internal Medicine, Ikazia Hospital Rotterdam, 3083 AN Rotterdam, The Netherlands RIGHTS

AND PERMISSIONS From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a

copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE de Jongh, F., van Veen, R., Veltman, S. _et al._

Weekly high-dose cisplatin is a feasible treatment option: analysis on prognostic factors for toxicity in 400 patients. _Br J Cancer_ 88, 1199–1206 (2003).

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600884 Download citation * Received: 26 July 2002 * Revised: 27 January 2003 * Accepted: 29 January 2003 * Published: 15 April 2003 * Issue Date: 22 April

2003 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600884 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link

is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * cisplatin * chemotherapy * toxicity * prognostic

factors