Publication: EMA vs EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
3
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
10956859
00908258
00908258
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85084383715
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Gynecologic Oncology. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Nida Jareemit, Neil S. Horowitz, Donald P. Goldstein, Ross S. Berkowitz, Kevin M. Elias EMA vs EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecologic Oncology. (2020). doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.699 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/56325
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
EMA vs EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
Abstract
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. Objective: To compare experiences with EMA versus EMACO in the treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Methods: The medical records of women diagnosed with GTN at the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center from 1986 to 2019 were reviewed, and women receiving EMA or EMACO as their first multiagent regimen were eligible. Clinical characteristics, treatment, outcomes, and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Results: We identified 44 and 39 patients who received EMA and EMACO, respectively. The complete remission rate was significantly higher in the EMA group (97.7%) than in the EMACO group (71.8%) (p = 0.001). However, patients receiving EMACO were more likely to have adverse prognostic factors such as higher median prognostic risk score (8 vs 4, p < 0.001), non-molar antecedent pregnancy (59 vs 27.3%, p = 0.014) and distant metastasis (64.1 vs 47.7%, p = 0.017). Time to complete remission was also similar (p = 0.947) with a median of 12 weeks with EMA and 13.1 weeks with EMACO. There was no significant difference in treatment delays or use of adjuvant surgery. After multivariate analysis, chemotherapy regimen (EMA or EMACO) did not retain prognostic significance for remission. Overall toxicities were more frequent in EMA (60.2 vs 32.7%, p < 0.001), especially neutropenia, but this did not delay treatment and likely resulted from less growth factor support (18.2 vs 48.7%, p = 0.003). Conclusions: When controlling for other prognostic factors, outcomes with EMA appear similar to EMACO. It may be worthwhile to investigate whether EMA, a simpler and less costly regimen, may be as effective as EMACO in the treatment of GTN.