Evaluation et prise en charge de la dénutrition dans le service d'oncologie médicale du C.H.U. de Limoges (étude prospective sur 345 patients)

La dénutrition est fréquente en cancérologie, avec une prévalence qui varie selon la localisation et l'extension de la tumeur. Elle résulte de l'intrication de plusieurs mécanismes : réduction des apports alimentaires, pertubations métaboliques complexes, effets secondaires des traitements anti-néoplasiques. L'importance des répercussions de la dénutrition et sa valeur pronostique propre impliquent une évaluation nutritionnelle systématique et précoce. Elle nécessite une prise en charge à chaque étape de traitement. La préservation de l'alimentation orale est fondamentale. Une nutrition artificielle doit s'envisager en période péri-opératoire pour les patients cancéreux dénutris. Au cours de la radio-chimiothérapie, le bénéfice d'une nutrition artificielle systématique demeure débattu. Certaines approches innovantes ouvrent de nouvelles perspectives thérapeutiques. Nous nous sommes intéressés à l'évaluation et à la prise en charge de la dénutrition chez les patients hospitalisés en unité conventionnelle d'oncologie médicale. Le poids et l'évolution pondérale sont des paramètres fondamentaux de l'évaluation nutritionnelle. Au travers de notre étude, nous mettons en évidence certaines catégories de malades "à risque" de dénutrition, qui méritent une attention particulière. De plus, les résultats nous suggèrent que si on s'occupe des dénutris, ils prennent du poids. Le rôle de la diététicienne apparaît fondamental. Il reste à affiner les caractéristiques de cette prise de poids par une évaluation complémentaire. Enfin, il apparaît intéressant d'envisager une étude randomisée de patients non dénutris en début de traitement, qui évaluerait les bénéfices d'une prise en charge diététique précoce et régulièreLIMOGES-BU Médecine pharmacie (870852108) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Prise en charge des neutropenies fébriles dans le service d'oncologie médicale du CHRU de Limoges (étude rétrospective sur 51 cas)

Les molécules de chimiothérapie présentent un index thérapeutique faible, avec par conséquent un risque élevé de neutropénies qui sont l'un des effets secondaires les plus fréquents de ce type de traitement. Ces dernières conduisent à une majoration du risque infectieux, et ce principalement lorsque les polynucléaires neutrophiles chutent en dessous de 500/mm3. La survenue d'une fièvre dans ces circonstances fait de la neutropénie fébrile une urgence thérapeutique. Elle nécessite la mise en place rapide d'un traitement antibiotique. De nombreux "guidelines" proposent des recommandations. Toutefois cette prise en charge ne peut être standardisée. Elle doit en effet tenir compte de paramétres variables, tel le profil des patients (avec ses antécédents infectieux, ses allergies, l'évolution de sa maladie...) et l'écologie bactérienne des services. Nous avons donc dans notre travail voulu évaluer, sur les données de l'année 2006, l'efficacité du protocole antibiotique en cours (Augmentin® - Tobramycine®) dans le service d'oncologie médicale du C.H.U. de Limoges. Protocole qui avait été mis en place après une concertation tripartite entre infectiologues, bactériologistes et oncologues : tout ceci en tenant bien évidemment compte de l'écologie bactérienne du service. Après analyse, il s'avère que l'efficacité est de 69,5%, ce qui peut-être considérée comme satisfaisant, dans une population qui n'était pas sélectionnée ; l'apyrexie médiane étant pour sa part obtenue rapidement au terme de 2 jours. Ces résultats renforcent donc l'attitude d'un travail collégial pour l'élaboration et le suivi des protocoles d'antibiothérapie utilisés lors des épisodes de neutropénie fébrile.LIMOGES-BU Médecine pharmacie (870852108) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

International audienceBACKGROUND:Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer.METHODS:We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731.FINDINGS:We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths.INTERPRETATION:Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival.FUNDING:Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer

Patients' self-assessment versus investigators' evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15)

BACKGROUND: Toxicity, which is a key parameter in the evaluation of cancer treatments, can be underestimated by clinicians. We investigated differences between patients and physicians in reporting adverse events of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in a multicentre phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: The 385 patients included were invited to complete a 26-symptom questionnaire 3 and 6months after the start of treatment, among which eighteen symptoms were also assessed by physicians, reported in medical records and graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. Positive and negative agreements as well as Kappa concordance coefficients were computed. FINDINGS: Data were available for 220 and 165 patients at 3 and 6months respectively. Physicians systematically under-reported patients' symptoms. Positive agreement rates (at respectively 3 and 6months) for the five most commonly reported symptoms were: 61.0% and 64.3% hot flushes, 50.0% and 43.6% fatigue, 29.4% and 31.1% sexual dysfunction, 24.4% and 14.4% weigh gain/loss, 16.7% and 19.3% for joint/muscle pain. For symptoms most frequently reported as disturbing or very disturbing by patients, the clinicians' failure to report them ranged from 50.8% (hot flushes) to 89.5% (joint/muscle pain) at 3months, and from 48.2% (hot flushes) to 88.4% (joint/muscle pain) at 6months. INTERPRETATION: Physicians often failed to report treatment-related symptoms, even the most common and disturbing ones. Patients' self-evaluation of toxicity should be used in clinical trials to improve the process of drug assessment in oncology. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, Astra-Zeneca, and Amgen

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Noncastrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Validation of the Glass Model and Development of a Novel Simplified Prognostic Model.

BACKGROUND: The Glass model developed in 2003 uses prognostic factors for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer (NCMPC) to define subgroups with good, intermediate, and poor prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To validate NCMPC risk groups in a more recently diagnosed population and to develop a more sensitive prognostic model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: NCMPC patients were randomized to receive continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in the GETUG-15 phase 3 trial. Potential prognostic factors were recorded: age, performance status, Gleason score, hemoglobin (Hb), prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), metastatic localization, body mass index, and pain. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: These factors were used to develop a new prognostic model using a recursive partitioning method. Before analysis, the data were split into learning and validation sets. The outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For the 385 patients included, those with good (49%), intermediate (29%), and poor (22%) prognosis had median OS of 69.0, 46.5 and 36.6 mo (p=0.001), and 5-yr survival estimates of 60.7%, 39.4%, and 32.1%, respectively (p=0.001). The most discriminatory variables in univariate analysis were ALP, pain intensity, Hb, LDH, and bone metastases. ALP was the strongest prognostic factor in discriminating patients with good or poor prognosis. In the learning set, median OS in patients with normal and abnormal ALP was 69.1 and 33.6 mo, and 5-yr survival estimates were 62.1% and 23.2%, respectively. The hazard ratio for ALP was 3.11 and 3.13 in the learning and validation sets, respectively. The discriminatory ability of ALP (concordance [C] index 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.71) was superior to that of the Glass risk model (C-index 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66). The study limitations include the limited number of patients and low values for the C-index. CONCLUSION: A new and simple prognostic model was developed for patients with NCMPC, underlying the role of normal or abnormal ALP. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed clinical and biological factors that could affect overall survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. We showed that normal or abnormal alkaline phosphatase at baseline might be useful in predicting survival

Very Long‐Term Complete Remission Can Be Achieved in Men With High‐Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and a Very High PSA Value: An Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Trial

International audienceIntroduction: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not fully established. Patients and Methods: Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions. Results: The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events. Conclusions: Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy

Relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia retreated with rituximab in daily practice: final results of the PERLE study

IF2.644 (2017)Lettre à l'éditeur ("Leukemia and lymphoma")https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10428194.2018.1533130?journalCode=ilal2