Radiosensitivity of pimonidazole-unlabelled intratumour quiescent cell population to γ-rays, accelerated carbon ion beams and boron neutron capture reaction.

[Objectives] To detect the radiosensitivity of intratumour quiescent (Q) cells unlabelled with pimonidazole to accelerated carbon ion beams and the boron neutron capture reaction (BNCR). [Methods] EL4 tumour-bearing C57BL/J mice received 5-bromo-2′-deoxyuridine (BrdU) continuously to label all intratumour proliferating (P) cells. After the administration of pimonidazole, tumours were irradiated with γ-rays, accelerated carbon ion beams or reactor neutron beams with the prior administration of a [10]B-carrier. Responses of intratumour Q and total (P+Q) cell populations were assessed based on frequencies of micronucleation and apoptosis using immunofluorescence staining for BrdU. The response of pimonidazole-unlabelled tumour cells was assessed by means of apoptosis frequency using immunofluorescence staining for pimonidazole. [Results] Following γ-ray irradiation, the pimonidazole-unlabelled tumour cell fraction showed significantly enhanced radiosensitivity compared with the whole tumour cell fraction, more remarkably in the Q than total cell populations. However, a significantly greater decrease in radiosensitivity in the pimonidazole-unlabelled cell fraction, evaluated using a delayed assay or a decrease in radiation dose rate, was more clearly observed among the Q than total cells. These changes in radiosensitivity were suppressed following carbon ion beam and neutron beam-only irradiaton. In the BNCR, the use of a[10]B-carrier, especially L-para-boronophenylalanine-[10]B, enhanced the sensitivity of the pimonidazole-unlabelled cells more clearly in the Q than total cells. [Conclusion] The radiosensitivity of the pimonidazole-unlabelled cell fraction depends on the quality of radiation delivered and characteristics of the [10]B-carrier used in the BNCR

A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS^®hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>200 patients with cancer pain (requiring ≤ 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2–9 days, sustained-release for 10–15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS^®hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; <it>p </it>= 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS^®hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS^®hydromorphone.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054</p