Frequency and network analysis of depressive symptoms in patients with cancer compared to the general population

Stress and Psychopatholog

High efficacy and low toxicity of weekly docetaxel given as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer

Background: Docetaxel is one of the most effective antitumor agents currently available for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This phase II multicenter study prospectively analyzed the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel given on a weekly schedule as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods: All patients received docetaxel, 35 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of rest. Subsequent cycles ( 3 weeks of treatment, 2 weeks of rest) were given until a maximum of 5 cycles or disease progression. Premedication consisted of 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously 30 min prior to the infusion of docetaxel. Results: Fifty-four patients at a median age of 58 years with previously untreated MBC were included in the study. A median of 10 doses ( median cumulative dose 339 mg/m(2)) was administered ( range: 2 - 18). The overall response rate was 48.1% ( 95% CI: 34 - 61%, intent-to-treat). Median survival was 15.8 months and median time to progression was 5.9 months ( intent-to-treat). Hematological toxicity was mild with absence of neutropenia-related complications. Grade 3 neutropenia was observed in 3.7% of patients and grade 3 and 4 anemia was observed in 5.6 and 1.9% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: The weekly administration of docetaxel is highly efficient and safe as first-line treatment for MBC and may serve as an important treatment option specifically in elderly patients and patients with a reduced performance status. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

Exploring Pompeii: discovering hospitality through research synergy

Hospitality research continues to broaden through an ever-increasing dialogue and alignment with a greater number of academic disciplines. This paper demonstrates how an enhanced understanding of hospitality can be achieved through synergy between archaeology, the classics and sociology. It focuses on classical Roman life, in particular Pompeii, to illustrate the potential for research synergy and collaboration, to advance the debate on hospitality research and to encourage divergence in research approaches. It demonstrates evidence of commercial hospitality activities through the excavation hotels, bars and taverns, restaurants and fast food sites. The paper also provides an example of the benefits to be gained from multidisciplinary analysis of hospitality and tourism

Treatment of Older Patients with Mantle-Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND: The long-term prognosis for older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma is poor. Chemoimmunotherapy results in low rates of complete remission, and most patients have a relapse. We investigated whether a fludarabine-containing induction regimen improved the complete-remission rate and whether maintenance therapy with rituximab prolonged remission. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients 60 years of age or older with mantle-cell lymphoma, stage II to IV, who were not eligible for high-dose therapy to six cycles of rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) every 28 days or to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) every 21 days. Patients who had a response underwent a second randomization to maintenance therapy with rituximab or interferon alfa, each given until progression. RESULTS: Of the 560 patients enrolled, 532 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for response, and 485 in the primary analysis for response. The median age was 70 years. Although complete-remission rates were similar with R-FC and R-CHOP (40% and 34%, respectively; P=0.10), progressive disease was more frequent with R-FC (14%, vs. 5% with R-CHOP). Overall survival was significantly shorter with R-FC than with R-CHOP (4-year survival rate, 47% vs. 62%; P=0.005), and more patients in the R-FC group died during the first remission (10% vs. 4%). Hematologic toxic effects occurred more frequently in the R-FC group than in the R-CHOP group, but the frequency of grade 3 or 4 infections was balanced (17% and 14%, respectively). In 274 of the 316 patients who were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, rituximab reduced the risk of progression or death by 45% (in remission after 4 years, 58%, vs. 29% with interferon alfa; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.87; P=0.01). Among patients who had a response to R-CHOP, maintenance therapy with rituximab significantly improved overall survival (4-year survival rate, 87%, vs. 63% with interferon alfa; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: R-CHOP induction followed by maintenance therapy with rituximab is effective for older patients with mantle-cell lymphom

Phase II study of weekly oxaliplatin plus infusional fluorouracil and folinic acid (FUFOX regimen) as first-line treatment in metastatic gastric cancer

Oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/FA) every 2 weeks has shown promising activity in advanced gastric cancer. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of weekly oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/FA (FUFOX regimen) in the metastatic setting. Patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer received oxaliplatin (50 mg m−2) plus FA (500 mg m−2, 2-h infusion) followed by 5-FU (2000 mg m−2, 24-h infusion) given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 5-week cycle. The primary end point of this multicentre phase II study was the response rate according to RECIST criteria. A total of 48 patients were enrolled. Median age was 62 years and all patients had metastatic disease, with a median number of three involved organs. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhoea (17%), deep vein thrombosis (15%), neutropenia (8%), nausea (6%), febrile neutropenia (4%), fatigue (4%), anaemia (4%), tumour bleeding (4%), emesis (2%), cardiac ischaemia (2%) and pneumonia (2%). Grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy occurred in 67% of patients but there were no episodes of grade 3 neuropathy. Intent-to-treat analysis showed a response rate of 54% (95% CI, 39–69%), including two complete responses. At a median follow-up of 18.1 months (range 11.2–26.2 months), median survival is 11.4 months (95% CI, 8.0–14.9 months) and the median time to progression is 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.9–9.2 months). The weekly FUFOX regimen is well tolerated and shows notable activity as first-line treatment in metastatic gastric cancer

A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: The AIO KRK 0110 Trial/ML22011 Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m²bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m²BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m²(d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01249638">NCT01249638</a></p> <p>EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38</p

Prospective Observational Study of Pazopanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (PRINCIPAL Study)

Background: Real-world data are essential to accurately assessing efficacy and toxicity of approved agents in everyday practice. PRINCIPAL, a prospective, observational study, was designed to confirm the real-world safety and efficacy of pazopanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Subjects, Materials, and Methods: Patients with clear cell advanced/metastatic RCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib treatment within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. Primary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), relative dose intensity (RDI) and its effect on treatment outcomes, change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. We also compared characteristics and outcomes of clinical-trial-eligible (CTE) patients, defined using COMPARZ trial eligibility criteria, with those of non-clinical-trial-eligible (NCTE) patients. Secondary study objectives were to evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and RDI in patient subgroups. Results: Six hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of pazopanib. Median PFS and OS were 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2–12.0) and 29.9 months (95% CI, 24.7 to not reached), respectively, and the ORR was 30.3%. HRQoL showed no or little deterioration over time. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interest occurred in 64 (9.7%), and 399 (60.7%) patients, respectively. More patients were classified NCTE than CTE (85.2% vs. 14.8%). Efficacy of pazopanib was similar between the two groups. Conclusion: PRINCIPAL confirms the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in a real-world clinical setting. Implications for Practice: PRINCIPAL is the largest (n = 657) prospective, observational study of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma, to the authors’ knowledge. Consistent with clinical trial results that often contain specific patient types, the PRINCIPAL study demonstrated that the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib is similarly safe and effective in patients with advanced kidney cancer in a real-world clinical setting. The PRINCIPAL study showed that patients with advanced kidney cancer who are treated with first-line pazopanib generally do not show disease progression for approximately 10 months and generally survive for nearly 30 months

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care