Skip Navigation

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007 37(3):224-229; doi:10.1093/jjco/hym009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hofmann, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Trefzer, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hofmann, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Trefzer, U.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2007 Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research

Complex Combination Biochemotherapy Regimen in Advanced Metastatic Melanoma in a Non-intensive Care Unit: Toxicity or Benefit?

Maja A. Hofmann, Wolfram Sterry and Uwe Trefzer

Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Centre, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

For reprints and all correspondence: Maja Ann Hofmann, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Centre, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: maja.hofmann{at}charite.de

Received September 13, 2006; accepted November 8, 2006

Background: There is currently no chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy regimen that has shown impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Different biochemotherapy protocols showed promise with high response rates, but again without significant impact on survival.

Methods: We report the results of a retrospective analysis of a regimen consisting of dacarbazine, cisplatin, vindesine, interleukin-2 and interferon-{alpha}2b in 25 consecutively treated patients with regard to toxicity, efficacy and practicability. The treatment was performed on a regular dermatological ward.

Results: Grade III and IV toxicities were mainly haematological, with few cases of infection because of neutropenia seen. Best overall responses were CR 2/25, PR 2/25 and SD 9/25. The median progression free interval was 4 months (range 0–19) for all patients and the median survival time was 12 months (range 2–26). From a safety and practical point of view, there was no draw-back on treating patients in a non-intensive care unit. The median survival time is in the range of the one reported for monochemotherapy regimen. While there are some responding patients, the responses are short lived and go in parallel with high toxicity and impaired performance status.

Conclusion: This complex and highly toxic chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen should not be considered as standard therapy in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma.

Key Words: metastatic melanoma • survival • chemoimmunotherapy • toxicity


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
V. A. Trinh
Current management of metastatic melanoma
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., December 15, 2008; 65(24_Supplement_9): S3 - S8.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.