Integration of a smoking cessation program in the treatment protocol for patients with head and neck and lung cancer

Smoking is the main causative factor for development of head and neck and lung cancer. In addition, other malignancies such as bladder, stomach, colorectal, kidney and pancreatic cancer have a causative relation with smoking. Continued smoking after having been diagnosed with cancer has many negative consequences: effectiveness of radiotherapy is diminished, survival time is shortened and risks of recurrence, second primary malignancies and treatment complications are increased. In view of the significant health consequences of continued smoking, therefore, additional support for patients to stop smoking seems a logical extension of the present treatment protocols for smoking-related cancers. For prospectively examining the effect of nursing-delivered smoking cessation programme for patients with head and neck or lung cancer, 145 patients with head and neck or lung cancer enrolled into this programme over a 2-year period. Information on smoking behaviour, using a structured, programme specific questionnaire, was collected at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. At 6 months, 58 patients (40%) had stopped smoking and at 12 months, 48 patients (33%) still had refrained from smoking. There were no differences in smoking cessation results between patients with head and neck and lung cancer. The only significant factor predicting success was whether the patient had made earlier attempts to quit smoking. A nurse-managed smoking cessation programme for patients with head and neck or lung cancer shows favourable long-term success rates. It seems logical, therefore, to integrate such a programme in treatment protocols for smoking-related cancers

Resting energy expenditure in children at risk of hypothalamic dysfunction

Objective: Children with suprasellar brain damage are at risk of hypothalamic dysfunction (HD). HD may lead to decreased resting energy expenditure (REE). Decreased REE, however, is not present in all children with HD. Our aim was to assess which children suspect for HD have low REE, and its association with clinical severity of HD or radiological hypothalamic damage. Patients and methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Measured REE (mREE) of children at risk of HD was compared to predicted REE (pREE). Low REE was defined as mREE <90% of predicted. The mREE/pREE quotient was associated to a clinical score for HD symptoms and to radiological hypothalamic damage. Results: In total, 67 children at risk of HD (96% brain tumor diagnosis) with a mean BMI SDS of +2.3 ± 1.0 were included. Of these, 45 (67.2%) had low mREE. Children with severe HD had a significant lower mean mREE/pREE quotient compared to children with no, mild, or moderate HD. Mean mREE/pREE quotient of children with posterior hypothalamic damage was significantly lower compared to children with no or anterior damage. Tumor progression or tumor recurrence, severe clinical HD, and panhypopituitarism with diabetes insipidus (DI) were significant risk factors for reduced REE. Conclusion: REE may be lowered in children with hypothalamic damage and is associated to the degree of clinical HD. REE is, however, not lowered in all children suspect for HD. For children with mild or moderate clinical HD symptoms, REE measurements may be useful to distinguish between those who may benefit from obesity treatment that increases REE from those who would be better helped using other obesity interventions

Long-term safety and anti-tumour activity of olaparib monotherapy after combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast, ovarian or fallopian tube cancer

Background: Olaparib (AZD2281), a PARP-1/2 inhibitor, has been extensively investigated in clinical trials. However, limited clinical data are available about its long-term safety and anti-tumour activity.Methods: Patients had first participated in a phase I study of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. They continued with olaparib monotherapy in their best interest if they failed to tolerate the combination due to the treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Safety data were collected by physical examination and regular laboratory evaluations. Disease evaluations were performed by CT scan.Results: At data cutoff, 21 patients were included; 10 with breast, 9 with ovarian and 2 with fallopian tube cancer of whom 16 patients had a BRCA mutation (13 BRCA1; 3 BRCA2). TRAEs were mostly haematological and most prominent shortly after switching from combination to monotherapy, probably due to carry-over effects of chemotherapy. Over time, both severity and frequency of TRAEs decreased. Responses to olaparib were durable with a median treatment duration of 52 (range 7-183) weeks. In total, nine (43%) patients were still on study at data cutoff.Conclusion: Continued long-term daily olaparib was found to be safe and tolerable. Encouragingly, patients who showed a favourable response on earlier combination therapy maintained this response on olaparib monotherapy

Phase i and pharmacological trial of lapatinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer

Summary: Background Lapatinib has proven efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) overexpressing HER2 and/or EGFR. Gemcitabine also has anti-tumor activity in MBC and a favourable toxicity profile. In this phase I study lapatinib and gemcitabine were combined. Methods Female patients with advanced BC were given lapatinib once daily (QD) in 28-day cycles with gemcitabine administered on day 1, 8 and 15. Physical examinations, vital signs and blood sampling for hematology, clinical chemistry and pharmacokinetics (PK) and radiological assessments of disease were performed at regular intervals. Results In total, 33 patients were included. Six dose-limiting toxicities were observed, mostly grade 3 increases in liver function tests. Most common toxicities were fatigue (73 %), nausea (70 %), diarrhea (58 %), increases in ALAT and ASAT (55 and 52 %, respectively) and rash (46 %). The maximum tolerated dose was lapatinib 1250 mg QD with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2. Lapatinib and gemcitabine PK did not appear to be influenced by each other. Anti-tumor activity was observed with one patient (4 %) showing complete response and six (23 %) partial response. Conclusion Despite a slightly increased toxicity profile compared to their respective monotherapies, lapatinib and gemcitabine can be safely combined while showing signs of anti-tumor activity

RARE-07. Low resting energy expenditure is associated with clinical and radiological hypothalamic damage in children surviving a suprasellar brain tumor

Analysis and Stochastic