The monobloc hydrogel breast implant, experiences and ideas

This study is focused on the properties of the monobloc hydrogel (MH) breast implant, which has been around for more than 30 years, and to see how it behaves with regard to health complaints as sometimes seen in some patients who had received silicone gel (SG) breast implants. Patients responded to a questionnaire examining their experience with breast implants. Three groups were included. First, the control group (n = 34) of women without breast implants. Second, a C group of women (n = 42) who began and remained on the MH implant. Third, the B group of women who had their silicone gel implant replaced by the MH implant. In the B1 subgroup (n = 22), a capsulectomy was also performed. In the B2 subgroup (n = 13), the replacement was carried out without a capsulectomy. The C group behaved very much like the control group. The women of the B group experienced an improvement of their complaints and the improvement was even better after a capsulectomy. The only difference between the MH and SG implants is the content of the implant. The satisfaction of women with MH implants is generally high and not or hardly associated with health complaints. In women with SG implants and health complaints, these complaints can be relieved by replacement of the implants by MH implants

A phase i pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours

Background: The vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin shows synergy with docetaxel in vivo. Recommended phase II doses were determined in a dose escalation study in advanced solid tumours. Methods: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1) followed by docetaxel (1-h infusion, day 2) every 3 weeks was explored. Ombrabulin was escalated from 11.5 to 42 mg m -2 with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel, then from 30 to 35 mg m -2 with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Recommended phase II dose cohorts were expanded. Results: Fifty-eight patients were treated. Recommended phase II doses were 35 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel (35/75 mg m -2; 13 patients) and 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel (30/100 mg m -2; 16 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (two patients; 42/75, 35/100), grade 3 neutropaenic infection (25/75), grade 3 headache (42/75), grade 4 febrile neutropaenia (30/100), and grade 3 thrombosis (35/100). Toxicities were consistent with each agent; mild nausea/vomiting, asthaenia/fatigue, alopecia, and anaemia were common, as were neutropaenia and leukopaenia. Diarrhoea, nail disorders and neurological symptoms were frequent at 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Pharmacokinetic analyses did not show any relevant drug interactions. Ten patients had partial responses (seven at 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin), eight lasting >3 months. Conclusions: Sequential administration of ombrabulin with 75 or 100 mg m -2 docetaxel every 3 weeks is feasible

Randomised phase II study of ASA404 combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

ASA404 (5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid or DMXAA) is a small-molecule tumour-vascular disrupting agent (Tumour-VDA). This randomised phase II study evaluated ASA404 plus standard therapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomised to receive ⩽6 cycles of carboplatin area under the plasma concentration–time curve 6 mg ml−1 min and paclitaxel 175 mg m−2 (CP, n=36) or standard therapy plus ASA404 1200 mg m−2 (ASA404-CP, n=37). There was little change in the systemic exposure of either total or free carboplatin or paclitaxel on addition of ASA404. Safety profiles were similar and manageable in both groups, with most adverse effects attributed to standard therapy. Tumour response rate (31 vs 22%), median time to tumour progression (5.4 vs 4.4 months) and median survival (14.0 vs 8.8 months, hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.39, 1.38) were improved in the ASA404 combination group compared with the standard therapy group. In conclusion, this study establishes the feasibility of combining ASA404 with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated, advanced NSCLC, demonstrating a manageable safety profile and lack of adverse pharmacokinetic interactions. The results indicate that there may be a benefit associated with ASA404, but this needs to be evaluated in a larger trial

A Systems Approach for Tumor Pharmacokinetics

Recent advances in genome inspired target discovery, small molecule screens, development of biological and nanotechnology have led to the introduction of a myriad of new differently sized agents into the clinic. The differences in small and large molecule delivery are becoming increasingly important in combination therapies as well as the use of drugs that modify the physiology of tumors such as anti-angiogenic treatment. The complexity of targeting has led to the development of mathematical models to facilitate understanding, but unfortunately, these studies are often only applicable to a particular molecule, making pharmacokinetic comparisons difficult. Here we develop and describe a framework for categorizing primary pharmacokinetics of drugs in tumors. For modeling purposes, we define drugs not by their mechanism of action but rather their rate-limiting step of delivery. Our simulations account for variations in perfusion, vascularization, interstitial transport, and non-linear local binding and metabolism. Based on a comparison of the fundamental rates determining uptake, drugs were classified into four categories depending on whether uptake is limited by blood flow, extravasation, interstitial diffusion, or local binding and metabolism. Simulations comparing small molecule versus macromolecular drugs show a sharp difference in distribution, which has implications for multi-drug therapies. The tissue-level distribution differs widely in tumors for small molecules versus macromolecular biologic drugs, and this should be considered in the design of agents and treatments. An example using antibodies in mouse xenografts illustrates the different in vivo behavior. This type of transport analysis can be used to aid in model development, experimental data analysis, and imaging and therapeutic agent design.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (grant T32 CA079443