PATIENTS AND METHODS: APEC was a nonrandomized phase 2 trial conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (n = 289) received once-every-2-weeks cetuximab with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI). The primary end point was best confirmed overall response rate (BORR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the KRAS wt population, BORR was 58.8%, median PFS 11.1 months, and median OS 26.8 months. Expanded RAS mutational analysis revealed that patients with RAS wt mCRC had better outcomes (BORR = 64.7%; median PFS = 13.0 months; median OS = 28.4 months). The data suggest that ETS and DpR may be associated with survival outcomes in the RAS wt population. Although this study was not designed to formally assess differences in outcome between treatment subgroups, efficacy results appeared similar for patients treated with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. There were no new safety findings; in particular, grade 3/4 skin reactions were within clinical expectations.
CONCLUSION: The observed activity and safety profile is similar to that reported in prior first-line pivotal studies involving weekly cetuximab, suggesting once-every-2-weeks cetuximab is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy and may represent an alternative to weekly administration.
METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.
METHODS: After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached.
CONCLUSION: Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.
METHODS: 5-fluorouracil-loaded ethosomes were prepared and subjected to size, zeta potential, morphology, drug content, drug release and skin permeation tests. The molecular characteristics of untreated, microwave and/or ethosome-treated skins were examined by Fourier transform infrared and raman spectroscopy, thermal and electron microscopy techniques.
RESULTS: The skin drug retention was promoted using larger ethosomes with negative zeta potentials that repelled anionic lipids of skin and hindered vesicle permeation into deep layers. These ethosomes had low ethanol content. They were less able to fluidize the lipid and defluidize the protein domains at epidermis to enlarge aqueous pores for drug permeation. Pre-treatment of skin by 2450 MHz microwave for 2.5 min further increased skin drug penetration and retention of low ethanol ethosomes and provided lower drug permeation than cases treated for 1.15 min and 5 min. A 2.5 min treatment might be accompanied by specific dermal protein fluidization via C=O moiety which translated to macromolecular swelling, narrowing of intercellular spaces at lower skin layers, increased drug retention and reduced drug permeation.
CONCLUSION: Ethosomes and microwave synergized to promote skin drug retention.
METHODS: A prospective, non-randomised longitudinal study was conducted in two government integrated hospitals over an 8-month period. Early-stage breast cancer patients who were (1) either already using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or not and (2) who were on a regime of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide were included in the study. Patients who agreed to receive CHM were assigned to receive individualised CHM prescriptions deemed suitable for the individual at a particular time. Those who were not willing to take Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) were assigned to the non-CHM control group. Blood profile and chemotherapy-induced AE were recorded whilst HRQOL assessment was done using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire on first, third, and sixth cycles.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients [32 female vs. 1 male, p = 0.31; mean year of age: 52.2(SD = 7.6), p = 0.28)}] were recruited during the study period. Demographics of both groups were comparable. Fifty percent of respondents reported using some kind of CAM before chemotherapy. Diet supplements (40.6%) were the most common CAM used by the respondents. The study showed that patients using CHM had significantly less fatigue (p = 0.012), nausea (p = 0.04), and anorexia (p = 0.005) during chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in patients' HRQOL (p = 0.79). There were no AEs reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: The use of CHM as an adjunct treatment with conventional chemotherapy have been shown to reduce fatigue, nausea, and anorexia in breast cancer patients but did not reduce chemotherapy-associated hematologic toxicity. The sample size of this study was not powered to assess the significance of HRQOL between two groups of patients.