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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted in Penang General Hospital on 534 anemic solid cancer patients who were admitted between 2003 and 2009. The main statistical tests used were Chi-square test and Logistic regression test for categorical data. While for continues data the main statistical tests were Linear regression and correlation test. The significance of the result will be when the P<0.05, while the confidence interval for this study was 95%.
RESULTS: FEC, 5-FU+5-FU, Docetaxel and Cisplatin+ 5-FU regimen has strong association and correlation with anemia onset and severity. However the associations and correlations with anemia severity were stronger than those with the onset. Different doses of 5-FU, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel and cisplatin play a critical role in anemia onset and severity.
CONCLUSION: Monitoring and determination of hemoglobin levels for cancer patients treated with FEC, 5-FU+5-FU, Docetaxel, Cisplatin+ 5-FU specifically with high doses must be emphasized and a focus of particular attention.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with GCTs and treated with at least two cycles of BEP chemotherapy between January 2003 and Oct 2009 were eligible for this study. Patients received 4-6 cycles of bleomycin 30,000IU IV D1, D8 and D15 and either etoposide 100mg/m2 IV D1- D5 and cisplatin 20mg/m2 IV D1- D5 (5 day BEP regimen) or etoposide 165 mg/m2 D1- D3 and cisplatin 50mg/m2 D1-3 (3 day BEP regimen) every three weeks per cycle. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) from days 6 to 10 of each cycle. The overall response rates, 2 year progression-free survival and overall survival of the whole cohort were assessed.
RESULTS: Thirty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Non-seminomatous GCTs comprised 93.3% of cases and gonadal and mediastinal primary sites were the most common. Sixty percent were classified as IGCCCG poor risk disease. Median follow-up was 26.6 months. The overall response rate (CR+PR) was 70%. The two year PFS and OS were 70% and 66%. There was a significant difference in terms of the overall response rate (85% vs 40%, p = 0.03) and in PFS (94.7% vs 50%, p = 0.003) between gonadal and extragonadal primary sites.
CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve outcomes similar to those in international clinical trials with close monitoring and good supportive care of patients undergoing BEP chemotherapy. There is a strong argument for patients with IGCCCG poor prognosis disease to be treated in specialist tertiary centres to optimize treatment outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study looked at patients who had palliative chemotherapy with either cisplatin/5FU or carboplatin/5FU for metastatic and recurrent SCCHN and NPC. It included patients who were treated at UKMMC from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 with either palliative IV cispaltin 75 mg/m2 D1 only plus IV 5FU 750 mg/m2 D1-5 infusion or IV Carboplatin AUC 5 D1 only plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 infusion plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 bolus. The specific objectives were to determine the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy in terms of overall response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and to evaluate the toxicities of both regimens.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were eligible for this study. There were 17 in the cisplatin/5FU arm and 24 in the carboplatin/5FU arm. The ORR was 17.7 % for cisplatin/5FU arm and 37.5 % for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.304). The median PFS was 7 months for cisplatin/5FU and 9 months for carboplatin/5FU (p-value=1.015). The median OS was 10 months for cisplatin/5FU arm and 12 months for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.110). There were 6 treatment-related deaths (6/41=14.6%), four in the carboplatin/5FU arm (4/24=16.7%) and 2 in the cisplatin/5FU arm (2/17=11.8%). Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity was also more common with carboplatin/5FU group, this difference being predominantly due to grade 3-4 granulocytopenia (41.6% vs. 0), grade 3-4 anemia (37.5% vs. 0) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs. 0).
CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin/5FU is not inferior to cisplatin/5FU with regard to its efficacy. However, there was a high rate of treatment-related deaths with both regimens. A better alternative needs to be considered.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients below 18 years of age with iGCTs treated at the University Malaya Medical Center (UMMC) from 1998 to 2017.
RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified, with a median follow-up of 3.54 years. Sixteen (47%) patients had pure germinoma tumors (PGs), and the remaining patients had nongerminomatous germ cell tumors (NGGCTs). The median age was 12 years, with a male:female ratio of 4.7:1. Abnormal vision, headache with vomiting, and diabetes insipidus were the commonest presenting symptoms. Twenty-eight patients received initial surgical interventions, 24 were treated with chemotherapy, and 28 received radiotherapy. Eight patients experienced relapses. The 5- and 10-year event-free survival rates were similar at 61.1%±12.6% and 42.9%±12.1% for PG and NGGCT, respectively. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were the same at 75.5%±10.8% and 53.3%±12.3% for PG and NGGCT, respectively. Four patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Most of the survivors experienced good quality of life with satisfactory neurologic status.
CONCLUSIONS: The survival rate of childhood iGCTs in UMMC was inferior to that reported in developed countries. Late diagnosis, poor adherence to treatment, and treatment-related complications were the contributing factors. Although these results highlight a single institution experience, they most likely reflect similar treatment patterns, outcomes, and challenges in other centers in Malaysia.