A Randomized Trial Comparing Immediate versus Delayed Treatment of Anemia with Once-Weekly Epoetin Alfa in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Scheduled to Receive First-Line Chemotherapy

Introduction:This study evaluated the safety/efficacy of once-weekly (QW) epoetin alfa measured by quality of life (QOL), hemoglobin (Hb), transfusion incidence, tumor response, and survival in patients with chemotherapy-naïve, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients with Hb ≥11 to <15 g/dl scheduled for at least 8 weeks of first-line chemotherapy were randomized to subcutaneously receive 40,000 U of epoetin alfa QW at chemotherapy initiation (immediate) or no epoetin alfa unless Hb decreased to ≤10 g/dl (delayed). The primary efficacy variable was change in QOL for immediate versus delayed intervention. Target accrual was 320 patients.Results:The study was terminated early because of slow accrual; of 216 patients enrolled, 211 were evaluable for efficacy. Hb was maintained in the immediate group, but it decreased in the delayed group (12.9 versus 11.6 g/dl final values, respectively). Numerically, fewer immediate patients required transfusions versus delayed patients. Mean QOL scores, modestly declining in both groups from baseline to final measurement, were not significantly different between groups. Tumor response and median overall survival were similar between groups. Epoetin alfa was well tolerated, with a similar thrombovascular event rate between groups.Conclusion:Epoetin alfa in subcutaneous doses of 40,000 U QW, given immediately at chemotherapy initiation for advanced NSCLC, was well tolerated, and it effectively maintained Hb, leading to a reduced transfusion incidence versus delayed epoetin alfa. Overall QOL scores were higher than typical in this population, decreasing slightly during treatment in both groups. Overall survival was similar between groups, with no evidence of a negative effect by early epoetin alfa intervention

Consommation de produits d'origine animale dans la concession forestière 039/11 de la SODEFOR à Oshwe (R.D. Congo)

Consumption of Products of Animal Origin in the Forest Concession 039/11 of the SODEFOR to Oshwe (D.R. Congo). To identify the main foods of animal origin consumed by people living in the concession 039/11 of the forest Development Company (SODEFOR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to specify the determinants of consumption, 120 households in 3 villages (Taketa, Ikala 1 and Mombele) and in the base of Nteno were surveyed for 30 days. The results show that bush meat represents 72.00% of the number of meals followed by fish (24.00%), and livestock products finally (3.10%). In total, 30 species of animals including 4 which are legally banned from hunting have been identified, for a total biomass of 1235 kg. Mammals represent 97.00% of animals consumed with a predominance of artiodactyls (71.60%), primates (15.40%), and rodents (9.10%). The duikers, the bushes and the atherure are the most represented. The choice of consumption is guided by the availability of the product, taste, and eating habits. The majority of households are supplied by intermediaries to whom they primarily buy animal parts. This study suggests a long term follow-up of hunting with an assessment of the abundance of animal species to guide the SODEFOR in the decision-making

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis after Pemetrexed and Cisplatin for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Patient with Sharp Syndrome

Background: Pemetrexed is an antifolate drug approved for maintenance and second-line therapy, and, in combination with cisplatin, for first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The side-effect profile includes fatigue, hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity, an increase in hepatic enzymes, sensory neuropathy, and pulmonary and cutaneous toxicity in various degrees. Case Report: We present the case of a 58-year-old woman with history of Sharp's syndrome and adenocarcinoma of the lung, who developed toxic epidermal necrolysis after the first cycle of pemetrexed, including erythema, bullae, extensive skin denudation, subsequent systemic inflammation and severe deterioration in general condition. The generalized skin lesions occurred primarily in the previous radiation field and responded to immunosuppressive treatment with prednisone. Conclusion: Although skin toxicity is a well-known side effect of pemetrexed, severe skin reactions after pemetrexed administration are rare. Caution should be applied in cases in which pemetrexed is given subsequent to radiation therapy, especially in patients with pre-existing skin diseases

Results of paclitaxel (day 1 and 8) and carboplatin given on every three weeks in advanced (stage III-IV) non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Both paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) have significant activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The weekly administration of P is active, dose intense, and has a favorable toxicity profile. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 51 consecutive patients receiving C and day 1 and 8 P chemotherapy (CT) regimen in advanced stage NSCLC to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: Patients treated in our institutions having pathologically proven NSCLC, no CNS metastases, adequate organ function and performance status (PS) ECOG 0–2 were given P 112.5 mg/m(2 )intravenously (IV) over 1 hour on day 1 and 8, followed by C AUC 5 IV over 1 hour, repeated in every three weeks. PC was given for maximum of 6 cycles. RESULTS: Median age was 58 (age range 39–77) and 41 patients (80%) were male. PS was 0/1/2 in 29/17/5 patients and stage was IIIA/IIIB/IV in 3/14/34 patients respectively. The median number of cycles administered was 3 (1–6). Seven patients (14%) did not complete the first 3 cycles either due to death, progression, grade 3 hypersensitivity reactions to P or lost to follow up. Best evaluable response was partial response (PR) in 45% and stable disease (SD) in 18%. Twelve patients (24%) received local RT. Thirteen patients (25%) received 2nd line CT at progression. At a median follow-up of 7 months (range, 1–20), 25 (49%) patients died and 35 patients (69%) progressed. Median overall survival (OS) was 11 ± 2 months (95% CI; 6 to 16), 1-year OS ratio was 44%. Median time to progression (TTP) was 6 ± 1 months (95% CI; 4 to 8), 1-year progression free survival (PFS) ratio was 20%. We observed following grade 3 toxicities: asthenia (10%), neuropathy (4%), anorexia (4%), anemia (4%), hypersensitivity to P (2%), nausea/vomiting (2%), diarrhea (2%) and neutropenia (2%). Two patients (4%) died of febrile neutropenia. Doses of CT were reduced or delayed in 12 patients (24%). CONCLUSIONS: P on day 1 and 8 and C every three weeks is practical and fairly well tolerated outpatient regimen. This regimen seems to be comparably active to regimens given once in every three weeks

Maintenance therapy in NSCLC: why? To whom? Which agent?

Maintenance therapy is emerging as a treatment strategy in the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Initial trials addressing the question of duration of combination chemotherapy failed to show any overall survival benefit for the prolonged administration over a fixed number of cycles with an increased risk for cumulative toxicity. Nowadays several agents with different ways of administration and a different pattern of toxicity have been formally investigated in the maintenance setting. Maintenance strategies include continuing with an agent already present in the induction regimen or switching to a different one. Taking into consideration that no comparative trials of maintenance with different chemotherapy drugs or targeted agents have been conducted, the choice and the duration of maintenance agents is largely empirical. Furthermore, it is still unknown and it remains an open question if this approach needs to be proposed to every patient in the case of partial/complete response or stable disease after the induction therapy. Here, we critically review available data on maintenance treatment, discussing the possibility to tailor the right treatment to the right patient, in an attempt to optimize costs and benefits of an ever-growing panel of different treatment options

Clinical relevance of "withdrawal therapy" as a form of hormonal manipulation for breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been shown in in-vitro experiments that "withdrawal" of tamoxifen inhibits growth of tumor cells. However, evidence is scarce when this is extrapolated into clinical context. We report our experience to verify the clinical relevance of "withdrawal therapy".</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Breast cancer patients since 1998 who fulfilled the following criteria were selected from the departmental database and the case-notes were retrospectively reviewed: (1) estrogen receptor positive, operable primary breast cancer in elderly (age > 70 years), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer; (2) disease deemed suitable for treatment by hormonal manipulation; (3) disease assessable by UICC criteria; (4) received "withdrawal" from a prior endocrine agent as a form of therapy; (5) on "withdrawal therapy" for ≥ 6 months unless they progressed prior.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen patients with median age of 84.3 (53.7-92.5) had "withdrawal therapy" as second to tenth line of treatment following prior endocrine therapy using tamoxifen (n = 10), an aromatase inhibitor (n = 5), megestrol acetate (n = 1) or fulvestrant (n = 1). Ten patients (58.8%) had clinical benefit (CB) (complete response/partial response/stable disease ≥ 6 months) with a median duration of Clinical Benefit (DoCB) of 10+ (7-27) months. Two patients remain on "withdrawal therapy" at the time of analysis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>"Withdrawal therapy" appears to produce sustained CB in a significant proportion of patients. This applies not only to "withdrawal" from tamoxifen, but also from other categories of endocrine agents. "Withdrawal" from endocrine therapy is, therefore, a viable intercalating option between endocrine agents to minimise resistance and provide additional line of therapy. It should be considered as part of the sequencing of endocrine therapy.</p