Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-5, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 1, actinomycin D 0.6 mg/m(2) day 2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 4, EMACP) was compared to EMA/CO (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) days 1-2, methotrexate 300 mg/m(2) day 1 and actinomycin D 0.5 mg i.v. bolus day 1 and 0.5 mg/m(2) day 2, alternating with cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) day 8 and vincristine 1 mg/m(2) day 8) for the treatment of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).Patients and methods: In the Netherlands, 83 patients were treated with EMACP and 103 patients with EMA/CO. Outcome measures were remission rate, median number of courses to achieve normal human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) concentrations, toxicity, recurrent disease rate and disease specific survival.Results: Remission rates were similar (EMACP 91.6%, EMA/CO 85.4%). The median number of courses of EMA/CO to reach hCG normalisation for single-agent resistant disease and primary high-risk disease was three and five courses, respectively, compared to 1.5 (p = 0.001) and three (p < 0.001) courses of EMACP. Patients treated with EMACP more often developed fever, renal toxicity, nausea and diarrhoea compared to patients treated with EMA/CO. Patients treated with EMA/CO more often had anaemia, neuropathy and hepatotoxicity.Conclusion: EMACP combination chemotherapy is an effective treatment for high-risk GTN, with a remission rate comparable to EMA/CO. However, the difference in duration of treatment is only slightly shorter with EMACP. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the form of EMACP in this study was not proven more effective than EMA/CO. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Serous peritoneal papillary carcinoma (SPPC), though managed according to ovarian cancer therapeutic principles, has been variably considered as an ovarian cancer counterpart, a peritoneal malignancy with distinct characteristics or a cancer of unknown primary (CUP).We systematically reviewed all publications studying molecular pathophysiology, clinical presentation, management and outcome of at least 10 patients with SPPC from 1980 to 2008 in anglophone medical journals and critically analysed the data.Molecular profiling of CUP was performed in eight papers reporting on 211 patients with stage III/IV SPPC by means of immunohistochemistry or PCR-based assays. Twenty-five clinical series, mostly retrospetive, reported management and outcome of 579 patiens with SPPC, in several cases matched to advanced ovarian cancer controls. Though we did not identify statistically significant differences in molecular biology, clinical presentation, management and outcome of SPPC and ovarian cancer cases, some subtle differences emerged: patterns of loss of heterozygosity at several chromosomal loci differed from those seen in ovarian cancer, while the overexpression of the HER2 oncogene was encountered more often. Serous peritoneal tumours affected older patients and were more frequently multifocal or exhibited virulent clonal expansion in metastatic sites. Diffuse micronodular spread formed a high total load of malignancy in omental, peritoneal surfaces, difficult to debulk optimally. Despite effective chemotherapeutic cytoreduction and occasional long-term remissions, SPPC patients survived 2–6 months less than ovarian cancer patients.Patients with SPPC should not be classified in the poor-risk CUP category, in view of the therapeutic and prognostic differences. Still, the assimilation of the SPPC entity by ovarian cancer hindered further research into its genotypic and phenotypic characteristics that may differ from ovarian cancer. Subgroup analyses of large ovarian cancer trials may shed light in this issue.