METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).

RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).

CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.

DESIGN: Two cross-sectional studies using the WHO STEPS methodology.

SETTING: Both the urban and rural areas of the Yangon Region, Myanmar.

PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1370 men and women aged 25-74 years participated based on a multistage cluster sampling. Physically and mentally ill people, monks, nuns, soldiers and institutionalised people were excluded.

RESULTS: Compared with rural counterparts, urban dwellers had a significantly higher age-standardised prevalence of hypercholesterolaemia (50.7% vs 41.6%; p=0.042) and a low HDL level (60.6% vs 44.4%; p=0.001). No urban-rural differences were found in the prevalence of hypertriglyceridaemia and high LDL. Men had a higher age-standardised prevalence of hypertriglyceridaemia than women (25.1% vs 14.8%; p<0.001), while the opposite pattern was found in the prevalence of a high LDL (11.3% vs 16.3%; p=0.018) and low HDL level (35.3% vs 70.1%; p<0.001).Compared with rural inhabitants, urban dwellers had higher age-standardised mean levels of total cholesterol (5.31 mmol/L, SE: 0.044 vs 5.05 mmol/L, 0.068; p=0.009), triglyceride (1.65 mmol/L, 0.049 vs 1.38 mmol/L, 0.078; p=0.017), LDL (3.44 mmol/L, 0.019 vs 3.16 mmol/L, 0.058; p=0.001) and lower age-standardised mean levels of HDL (1.11 mmol/L, 0.010 vs 1.25 mmol/L, 0.012; p<0.001). In linear regression, the total cholesterol was significantly associated with an urban location among men, but not among women.