33 research outputs found

    Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

    Get PDF
    Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) comprise ∼80 entities defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) classification based on a combination of distinctive morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features.1 These ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS (European Society for Medical Oncology; European Reference Network for Rare Adult Solid Cancers; European Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) will cover STSs, with the exception of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) that are covered in the ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS GIST CPGs.2 EURACAN and GENTURIS are the European Reference Networks connecting European institutions, appointed by their governments, to cover rare adult solid cancers and genetic cancer risk syndromes, respectively. Extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma, round cell sarcoma with EWSR1-non-ETS fusion and sarcomas with CIC rearrangements and BCOR genetic alterations are covered by the ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS–ERN PaedCan (European Reference Network for Paediatric Oncology) bone sarcomas CPG.3 Kaposi's sarcoma, embryonal and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma are not discussed in this manuscript, while pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma is viewed as a high-grade, adult-type STS. Finally, extraskeletal osteosarcoma is also a considered a high-grade STS, whose clinical resemblance with osteosarcoma of bone is doubtful. The methodology followed during the consensus meeting is specified at the end of the manuscript in a dedicated paragraph

    Randomized comparison of etoposide pharmacokinetics after oral etoposide phosphate and oral etoposide

    No full text
    Etoposide phosphate is a water-soluble prodrug of etoposide. The plasma pharmacokinetics of etoposide following oral administration of etoposide phosphate or oral etoposide were compared. Seventeen patients with solid tumours were enrolled to receive oral etoposide phosphate 125 mg m(-2) on days 1-5 every 3 weeks, with escalation to 175 mg m(-2) from course 3 when possible. Patients were randomized to receive oral etoposide phosphate or oral etoposide on day 1 of course 1 and the alternative compound on day 1 of course 2. Fifteen patients received two or more courses and were evaluable for pharmacokinetic comparisons. The median AUC(inf) (area under the concentration vs time curve from zero to infinity) of etoposide was 77.7 mg l(-1) h after etoposide phosphate (95% CI 61.3-100.5) and 62.0 mg l(-1) h after oral etoposide (95% CI 52.2-76.9). The difference in favour of etoposide phosphate was borderline significant: median 9.9 mg l(-1) h (95% CI 0.1-32.8 mg l(-1) h; P = 0.05). However, the inter-patient variability of etoposide AUC(inf) was not improved (coefficients of variation 42.3% and 48.4%). Etoposide phosphate was undetectable in plasma after oral administration. Toxicities of oral etoposide phosphate were not different from those known for etoposide. In conclusion, oral etoposide phosphate does not offer a clinically relevant benefit over oral etoposide

    EFFICACY AND TOXICITY OF 2 DOSES OF TRIMETHOPRIM-SULFAMETHOXAZOLE AS PRIMARY PROPHYLAXIS AGAINST PNEUMOCYSTIS-CARINII PNEUMONIA IN PATIENTS WITH HUMAN-IMMUNODEFICIENCY-VIRUS

    No full text
    The efficacy and toxicity of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) as primary prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection was assessed by comparing the effects of two dosages (480 or 960 mg once a day) of the drug. The multicenter trial involved 260 HIV-infected patients with CD4 cell count
    corecore