Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Jan;37(1):e13-8.
doi: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000000186.

Phase I clinical trial of ifosfamide, oxaliplatin, and etoposide (IOE) in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Phase I clinical trial of ifosfamide, oxaliplatin, and etoposide (IOE) in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors

Catherine G Lam et al. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Oxaliplatin, although related to cisplatin and carboplatin, has a more favorable toxicity profile and may offer advantages in combination regimens. We combined oxaliplatin, ifosfamide, and etoposide (IOE) and estimated the regimen's maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in children with refractory solid tumors. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and MTD were assessed at 3 dose levels in a 21-day regimen: day 1, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m (consistent dose); days 1 to 3, ifosfamide 1200 mg/m/d (level 0) or 1500 mg/m/d (levels 1 and 2) and etoposide 75 mg/m/d (levels 0 and 1) or 100 mg/m/d (level 2). Course 1 filgrastim/pegfilgrastim was permitted after initial DLT determination, if neutropenia was dose limiting. Seventeen patients received 59 courses. Without filgrastim (n=9), DLT was neutropenia in 2 patients at dose level 1. No DLT was observed after adding filgrastim (n=8). There was no ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity >grade 1, or neurotoxicity >grade 2. One patient experienced a partial response and 9 had stable disease after 2 courses. In conclusion, the IOE regimen was well tolerated. Without filgrastim, neutropenia was dose limiting with MTD at ifosfamide 1200 mg/m/d and etoposide 75 mg/m/d. The MTD with filgrastim was not defined due to early study closure. Filgrastim allowed ifosfamide and etoposide dose escalation and should be included in future studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kung FH, Desai SJ, Dickerman JD, et al. Ifosfamide/carboplatin/etoposide (ICE) for recurrent malignant solid tumors of childhood: a Pediatric Oncology Group Phase I/II study. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1995 Aug;17(3):265–269. - PubMed
    1. van Hoff J, Grier HE, Douglass EC, et al. Etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin therapy for refractory childhood solid tumors. Response and toxicity. Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2966–2970. - PubMed
    1. Cairo MS. The use of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide in children with solid tumors. Semin Oncol. 1995 Jun;22(3 Suppl 7):23–27. - PubMed
    1. Brock PR, Knight KR, Freyer DR, et al. Platinum-induced ototoxicity in children: a consensus review on mechanisms, predisposition, and protection, including a new International Society of Pediatric Oncology Boston ototoxicity scale. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 1;30(19):2408–2417. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skinner R, Parry A, Price L, et al. Persistent nephrotoxicity during 10-year follow-up after cisplatin or carboplatin treatment in childhood: relevance of age and dose as risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Dec;45(18):3213–3219. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms