Cesar Mendiola
Complutense University of Madrid
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Cesar Mendiola.
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2010
Ignace Vergote; Claes G. Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B. Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H.M. Verheijen; Maria E. L. van der Burg; A.J. Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G. Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; L Verleye; Gavin Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick Reed
BACKGROUND Primary debulking surgery before initiation of chemotherapy has been the standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian-tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma to primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy or to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery (so-called interval debulking surgery). RESULTS Of the 670 patients randomly assigned to a study treatment, 632 (94.3%) were eligible and started the treatment. The majority of these patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at primary debulking surgery (metastatic lesions that were larger than 5 cm in diameter in 74.5% of patients and larger than 10 cm in 61.6%). The largest residual tumor was 1 cm or less in diameter in 41.6% of patients after primary debulking and in 80.6% of patients after interval debulking. Postoperative rates of adverse effects and mortality tended to be higher after primary debulking than after interval debulking. The hazard ratio for death (intention-to-treat analysis) in the group assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking, as compared with the group assigned to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, was 0.98 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.13; P=0.01 for noninferiority), and the hazard ratio for progressive disease was 1.01 (90% CI, 0.89 to 1.15). Complete resection of all macroscopic disease (at primary or interval surgery) was the strongest independent variable in predicting overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was not inferior to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma in this study. Complete resection of all macroscopic disease, whether performed as primary treatment or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, remains the objective whenever cytoreductive surgery is performed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003636.)
European Journal of Cancer | 2003
R E N van Rijswijk; J.B. Vermorken; N.S. Reed; G. Favalli; Cesar Mendiola; F Zanaboni; Giorgia Mangili; Ignace Vergote; Jean Paul Guastalla; W.W. ten Bokkel Huinink; A.J. Lacave; H Bonnefoi; S Tumulo; R Rietbroek; I. Teodorovic; Corneel Coens; Sergio Pecorelli
Carcinosarcomas of the female genital tract are highly malignant tumours composed of carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. In the past, these tumours were frequently treated as sarcomas. However, a number of arguments, including the sensitivity of these tumours to platinum-based chemotherapy, suggest that these tumours behave more like poorly differentiated carcinomas. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Gynaecological Cancer Group therefore decided to perform a prospective phase II study in patients with advanced or metastatic carcinosarcoma with an approach such as that used in gynaecological carcinomas. Eligible patients could have primary or recurrent disease, but prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy was not allowed. The treatment plan recommended upfront debulking, followed by chemotherapy with cisplatin, ifosfamide and doxorubicin. Patients who could be debulked to non-measurable disease remained eligible for the study, but the response assessment was restricted to patients who had measurable disease before the start of chemotherapy. A total of 48 patients (39 primary disease, 9 recurrent disease) were registered, 41 of them being eligible. In 9 patients, all macroscopic lesions could be removed, 32 patients were left with residual disease and were assessable for response. The overall response rate was 56%: a complete response (CR) was observed in 11 (34%) patients and partial response (PR) in 7 (22%) patients. No change occurred in 5 patients and progression in 2 patients. In 7 patients, response could not be assessed. Median survival for all of the 41 eligible patients was 26 months. Severe leucopenia and thrombocytopenia were common and necessitated dose reductions or delays in 60% of patients. From a clinical point of view, the most severe non-haematological toxicity was renal dysfunction, and one patient died of this complication in the absence of disease progression. The results of this study are in-line with the hypothesis that carcinosarcomas are chemosensitive, in particular for the currently investigated regimen. The treatment also included upfront cytoreduction when feasible. Considering the observed toxicities, alternative platinum-based regimens with more favourable toxicity profiles should be explored.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | 2017
Amit M. Oza; Frédéric Selle; Irina Davidenko; Jacob Korach; Cesar Mendiola; Patricia Pautier; Ewa Chmielowska; Aristotelis Bamias; Andrea Decensi; Zanete Zvirbule; Antonio Gonzalez-Martin; Roberto Hegg; Florence Joly; Claudio Zamagni; Angiolo Gadducci; Nicolas Martin; Stephen Robb; Nicoletta Colombo
Objective The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of extending bevacizumab therapy beyond 15 months in nonprogressive ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods In this multinational prospective single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01239732), eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IV or grade 3 stage I to IIA ovarian cancer without clinical signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess within the preceding 6 months. Prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy was permitted. After debulking surgery, patients received bevacizumab 15 (or 7.5) mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) with 4 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel (investigator’s choice of 175 mg/m2 q3w or 80 mg/m2 weekly) plus carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 q3w. Single-agent bevacizumab was continued until progression or for up to 24 months. The primary end point was safety. Results Between December 2010 and May 2012, 1021 patients from 35 countries began study treatment. Bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg in 89% of patients and for more than 15 months in 53%. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range, 1–50 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were hypertension (55% of patients), neutropenia (49%), and alopecia (43%). The most common grade 3 or higher-grade adverse events were neutropenia (27%) and hypertension (25%). Bevacizumab was discontinued because of proteinuria in 5% of patients and hypertension in 3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7–27.6 months). Conclusion Extended bevacizumab demonstrated increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension compared with 12 or 15 months of bevacizumab in previous trials, but these rarely led to bevacizumab discontinuation. Median PFS is the longest reported for frontline bevacizumab-containing therapy. The longer bevacizumab duration beyond 15 months in this study may improve PFS without substantially compromising safety.
Annals of Oncology | 2003
M S Aapro; F H van Wijk; Giorgio Bolis; Bernard Chevallier; M.E.L. van der Burg; Andres Poveda; C. F. De Oliveira; S Tumolo; Scotto di Palumbo; Martine Piccart; Massimo Franchi; F Zanaboni; A.J. Lacave; R. Fontanelli; G. Favalli; Paolo Zola; Jean Paul Guastalla; R Rosso; Christian Marth; M. Nooij; M. Presti; Claudio Scarabelli; Ted A.W. Splinter; E. Ploch; L V A Beex; W.W. ten Bokkel Huinink; M Forni; M. Melpignano; P. Blake; Pierre Kerbrat
Proceedings ASCO | 2001
Hal Hirte; Ignace Vergote; J Jeffrey; N Grimshaw; Gavin Stuart; Cesar Mendiola; D Vrobiof; Mark S. Carey; S Coppieters; B Schwartz; Dongsheng Tu; A Sadura; L Seymour
Clinical & Translational Oncology | 2007
Andres Poveda; R. Salazar; J. M. del Campo; Cesar Mendiola; Javier Cassinello; Belén Ojeda; J. A. Arranz; J. García-Foncillas; M. Rubio; A. González Martín
Clinical & Translational Oncology | 2013
Luis Manso; N. Valdiviezo; J. Sepúlveda; Eva Ciruelos; Cesar Mendiola; Ismael Ghanem; E. Vega; R. Manneh; M. Dorta; Hernán Cortés-Funes
Clinical & Translational Oncology | 2013
A. González Martín; Andrés Redondo; M. Jurado; A. De Juan; Ignacio Romero; Isabel Bover; J. M. del Campo; A. Cervantes; Yolanda Álvarez García; José Antonio López-Guerrero; Cesar Mendiola; José Palacios; M. Rubio; A. Poveda Velasco
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2016
Frédéric Selle; Nicoletta Colombo; Jacob Korach; Cesar Mendiola; Nicolas Martin; Stephen Robb; Amit M. Oza
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2015
Eva Ciruelos; Noelia Martínez; Blanca Cantos; Maria Jose Echarri; Santos Enrech; Coralia Bueno; Juan Antonio Guerra; Luis Manso; Tomás Pascual; Cesar Mendiola; Cristina Dominguez; Juan Francisco Gonzalo; Cristina Rodriguez de Antona; María Apellániz-Ruiz; Juan Luis Sanz; Juan Manuel Sepúlveda
Collaboration
Dive into the Cesar Mendiola's collaboration.
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
View shared research outputs