A randomized double-blind trial to compare the clinical efficacy of granisetron with metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis

Background: The prophylactic use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons), after the first 24 h (acute phase) of exposure to emetic chemotherapy, to decrease the incidence of ‘delayed phase' emesis increases costs. We designed a study to evaluate the efficacy of a setron (granisetron) in the delayed phase, compared with metoclopramide, each combined with a corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Patients on their first course of single-day emetic chemotherapy (cisplatin, carboplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and others) received granisetron 2 mg p.o. and dexamethasone 8 mg p.o. on day 1, followed for 5 days by dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. od combined with either metoclopramide 20 mg p.o. tds or granisetron 1 mg bd in a double-blinded double-dummy protocol. Patients evaluated the results using a diary card. Randomization was stratified by institution, sex, emetic chemotherapy naïve versus previous, alcohol consumption and platinum versus non-platinum regimen. Results: 131 evaluable patients received granisetron in the delayed phase, and 127 received metoclopramide. Control of acute emesis in both arms was similar (86% granisetron; 85% metoclopramide). The 35 patients experiencing acute emesis had poor control in the delayed phase, with only four granisetron and three metoclopramide patients having no or mild nausea and no vomiting. Conclusions: In daily practice, a combination of oral dexamethasone and oral granisetron achieves an extremely high control of acute emesis (86% protection). Our data suggest that routine prescription of setrons for delayed phase control is not advisable as it increases costs without any benefit for the majority of patients. Delayed emesis in the rare patients with acute phase emesis remains an unsolved proble

Elective surgery for colorectal cancer in the aged: a clinical-economical evaluation.

A series of 56 consecutive patients, referred for surgery to a specialized institute, had elective laparotomies with various surgical procedures aimed at curing locoregional colorectal cancer. Data defining patient and tumour-related preoperative, operative and postoperative variables, including costs, were collected. The study group was divided into two age groups (< 65 vs > or = 65 years), which were similar in terms of patient- and tumour-related variables. Differences were not statistically significant (Pounds 440; 95% exact CI; Pounds -50; 1800). There is no evidence to suggest that there are any total charge differences in treating the two age groups, as confirmed by the cost analysis

Doxorubicin versus doxorubicin and cisplatin in endometrial carcinoma: definitive results of a randomised study (55872) by the EORTC Gynaecological Cancer Group

BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy yields better response rates which do not always lead to a survival advantage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reported differences in the efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) versus combination therapy with cisplatin (CDDP) in endometrial adenocarcinoma lead to significant advantage in favour of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically-proven advanced and/or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma and were chemo-naïve. Treatment consisted of either DOX 60 mg/m(2) alone or CDDP 50 mg/m2 added to DOX 60 mg/m2, every 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were entered and median follow-up is 7.1 years. The combination DOX-CDDP was more toxic than DOX alone. Haematological toxicity consisted mainly of white blood cell toxicity grade 3 and 4 (55% versus 30%). Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 3 and 4 alopecia (72% versus 65%) and nausea/vomiting (36 % versus 12%). The combination DOX-CDDP provided a significantly higher response rate than single agent DOX (P <0.001). Thirty-nine patients (43%) responded on DOX-CDDP [13 complete responses (CRs) and 26 partial responses (PRs)], versus 15 patients (17%) on DOX alone (8 CR and 7 PR). The median overall survival (OS) was 9 months in the DOX-CDDP arm versus 7 months in the DOX alone arm (Wilcoxon P = 0.0654). Regression analysis showed that WHO performance status was statistically significant as a prognostic factor for survival, and stratifying for this factor, treatment effect reaches significance (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.03, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to single agent DOX, the combination of DOX-CDDP results in higher but acceptable toxicity. The response rate produced is significantly higher, and a modest survival benefit is achieved with this combination regimen, especially in patients with a good performance status

Effect of treatment with epoetin-β on survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events in patients with cancer: an updated meta-analysis of 12 randomised controlled studies including 2301 patients

Epoetin-β is used to treat patients with metastatic cancer undergoing chemotherapy to alleviate the symptoms of anaemia, reduce the risk of blood transfusions and improve quality of life. This meta-analysis of 12 randomised, controlled studies evaluated the impact of epoetin-β on overall survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events (TEEs). A total of 2297 patients were included in the analysis (epoetin-β, n=1244; control, n=1053; 65% solid and 35% nonmyeloid haematological malignancies). A prespecified subgroup analysis assessed the effects in patients with a baseline Hb⩽11 g dl−1, corresponding to current European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. No statistically significant effect on mortality was observed with epoetin-β vs control, both overall (hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.46; P=0.355) and in patients with baseline Hb⩽11 g dl−1 (HR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.47; P=0.579). A trend for a beneficial effect on tumour progression was seen overall (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.01; P=0.072) and in patients with an Hb⩽11 g dl−1 (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.99; P=0.041). An increased frequency of TEEs was seen with epoetin-β vs control (7 vs 4% of patients); however, TEEs-related mortality was similar in both groups (1% each). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that when used within current EORTC treatment guidelines, epoetin-β has no negative impact on survival, tumour progression or TEEs-related mortality

Single-dose palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing steroids: results of a phase II study from the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi (GISL)

PURPOSE: The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids. METHODS: Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0-120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids

Erythropoiesis-Stimulating agents in the management of anemia in chronic kidney disease or cancer: a historical perspestive.

Anemia is common in patients with cancer or with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has transformed the management of anemia, their use has been complicated by a number of factors including frequent guideline updates, safety concerns and, in the United States, a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which aimed to ensure that the benefits of ESAs outweigh the risks. Many previous concerns around ESA use in cancer and CKD have been addressed by the reassuring results of post-approval studies, and biosimilar ESAs have been used in Europe for many years, with safety and efficacy profiles similar to originator products. This review describes the evolution of the use of ESAs from approval to the present day, discussing results from clinical studies of ESAs in cancer and CKD, and the influence of these findings on product labeling and guideline updates. We also discuss the impact of the introduction of ESA biosimilars in Europe, bringing cost savings and increased access to patients

Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: recommendations of an international expert panel

Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancer

Evolution of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia: a retrospective multicentric study

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are used intravenously to treat cancer-related conditions for the prevention of pathological fractures. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) is a rare complication reported in 4–15% of patients. We studied, retrospectively, 55 patients with multiple myeloma or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia followed up from different haematological departments who developed BRONJ. All patients were treated with BPs for bone lesions and/or fractures. The most common trigger for BRONJ was dental alveolar surgery. After a median observation of 26 months, no death caused by BRONJ complication was reported. In all, 51 patients were treated with antibiotic therapy, and in 6 patients, this was performed in association with surgical debridement of necrotic bone, in 16 with hyperbaric O2 therapy/ozonotherapy and curettage and in 12 with sequestrectomy and O2/hyperbaric therapy. Complete response was observed in 20 cases, partial response in 21, unchanged in 9 and worsening in 3. The association of surgical treatment with antibiotic therapy seems to be more effective in eradicating the necrotic bone than antibiotic treatment alone. O2 hyperbaric/ozonotherapy is a very effective treatment. The cumulative dosage of BPs is important for the evolution of BRONJ. Because the most common trigger for BRONJ was dental extractions, all patients, before BP treatment, must achieve an optimal periodontal health

Underrepresentation of Elderly People in Randomised Controlled Trials. The Example of Trials of 4 Widely Prescribed Drugs

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the representation of elderly people in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on trials of 4 medications--pioglitazone, rosuvastatin, risedronate, and valsartan-frequently used by elderly patients with chronic medical conditions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We selected all reports of RCTs indexed in PubMed from 1966 to April 2008 evaluating one of the 4 medications of interest. Estimates of the community-based "on-treatment" population were from a national health insurance database (SNIIR-AM) covering approximately 86% of the population in France. From this database, we evaluated data claims from January 2006 to December 2007 for 1,958,716 patients who received one of the medications of interest for more than 6 months. Of the 155 RCT reports selected, only 3 studies were exclusively of elderly patients (2 assessing valsartan; 1 risedronate). In only 4 of 37 reports (10.8%) for pioglitazone, 4 of 22 (18.2%) for risedronate, 3 of 29 (10.3%) for rosuvastatine and 9 of 67 (13.4%) for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was within or above that treated in clinical practice. In 62.2% of the reports for pioglitazone, 40.9% for risedronate, 37.9% for rosuvastatine, and 70.2% for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was lower than half that in the treated population. The representation of elderly people did not differ by publication date or sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients are poorly represented in RCTs of drugs they are likely to receive