Gastric cancer is the second most common among cancer-related deaths in the world. Systemic chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer has limited impact on overall survival. We performed a ...retrospective analysis of the efficacy and side effects of Docetaxel and Cisplatin Plus Fluorouracil (DCF) versus Modified-Dose Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil (mDCF) in the metastatic gastric cancer with first-line chemotherapy treated patients. Retrospectively were reviewed 107 locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer patients who were treated DCF or mDCF as first-line treatment from June 2007 to August 2011 in Dicle University Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology.The DCF protocol included 75 mg/m2 docetaxel and cisplatin on day 1 and 750 mg/m2/day 5-FU infusion for 5 days, repeated every 3 weeks. The mDCF protocol included 60 mg/m² docetaxel and cisplatin on day 1 and 600 mg/m² 5-Fluorouracil continuous infusion per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks.Patients were treated using DCF arm 85 (M: 56, F: 29), the mDCF arm 22 (M: 13, F: 9) After treatment toxicities were: Grade III-IV neutropenia (48.2% vs 13.6% p=0.003), anemia (21.2% vs 4.5% p=0.06), nausea (44.7% vs 13.6% p=0.008) and vomiting (31.8% vs 4.5%, p=0.01) was higher in the DCF arm. Other toxicities profile was similar in both groups (p>0.05). The rate of response was similar in both arm. Among patients with the DCF and mDCF arm rate complete response (10.3% vs 6.7%, p>0.05), partial response (35.3% vs 40.0%, p>0.05), stable disease (32.4% vs 33.3%, p>0.05), progressive disease (22.1% vs 20.0%, p>0.05) and overall response (45.6% vs 46.7%, p>0.05) did not have a statistically difference (p>0.05). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were more favorable in the DCF arm than mDCF arm, but the difference was not significant statistically (9.9 vs 8.6, 7.4 vs 6.5 p>0.05)In conclusion, the response rate, median PFS and median OS are similar in both arms, while the mDCF regimen are more favorable than the DCF for toxicity profile regimen in advanced gastric cancer patients who were undergoing first-line palliative treatment. Therefore, a prospective and larger clinical trials are needed.
Abstract Background The aim of this explorative phase II study was to evaluate the activity and safety of lapatinib in combination with intravenous vinorelbine in women with HER2 positive metastatic ...or recurrent breast cancer. Methods Twenty-nine patients were enrolled. The primary objectives were response and clinical benefit (CB) rates, secondary objectives were toxicity, response duration and progression free survival. Patients received 1250 mg oral lapatinib continuously once daily and intravenous vinorelbine 20–25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Results Although 25 patients were evaluable for response, according to intend to treat analysis of 28 patients; 14% had confirmed partial response (PR) and 36% had stable disease more than 24 weeks with a CB rate of 50%. Sixty four percent of the patients suffered from grade 3–4 hematologic and 18% from grade 3 extra-hematologic toxicities. Conclusion The results of this trial provide evidence to further investigate the potential of this combination for patients unsuitable for trastuzumab or who become refractory to trastuzumab.
Oxidative stress is known to be implicated in the pathogenesis of malignancies including gastric cancer (GC). Paraoxonase 1(PON1) is a member of antioxidant defense system which acts by hydrolysing ...peroxidases. Our aim is to assess the levels PON1 activity in different stages and localizations of GC and analyze the predictive role of PON1 activity on overall survival in GC.
One hundred and twenty six patients with GC were enrolled to the study. Patients were divided into two groups; group I (nonmetastatic GC, n=65) and group II (metastatic GC, n=61). Paraoxonase 1 activity, albumine and lactate dehidrogenase levels and whole blood count were analyzed. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer system was used for staging procedure.
Patients at advanced N or M stage have significantly lower levels of PON1 (34.26 U/L and 29.88 U/L, p=0.04 and p=0.03; respectively). Gender, Lauren's classification, grade, localization and T stage of tumor have nonsignificant impact on PON1 activity. PON1 activity was a significant prognostic factor in GC as well as metastasis, localization of tumor and low hemoglobine or albumine level.
Lower levels of paraoxonase 1 activity in patients with metastatic gastric cancer may reflect the presence of enhanced oxidative stress in advanced stages of the disease. PON1 activity is a significant and independent predictor of overall survival. Identifying novel prognostic markers can help to establish appropriate therapeutic strategies, to determine preventive measures and to improve survival rates.
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) makes up 80-85% of all lung cancers cases. Lung cancer in older individuals is frequently undertreated. Patients eligible for cisplatin- based chemotherapy should ...be selected carefully. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in elderly (≥65 years) patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
We retrospectively reviewed 110 elderly patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had been administered cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy between December 2004 and November 2011. Seventeen potential prognostic variables were chosen for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with OS.
Among the 17 variables of univariate analysis, 4 were identified to have prognostic significance for OS: comorbidities (p<0.001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) (p=0.02), first-line chemotherapy cycles (p<0.001) and serum albumin level (p=0.04). Multivariate analysis showed that only ECOG PS (p=0.01) was independent prognostic factor for OS.
PS was important prognostic factor in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. The findings of this study may facilitate pretreatment prediction of OS and therefore can be used for selecting the most appropriate treatment for elderly patients.
The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer is of advanced disease. Several randomized Phase II and III trials suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) response rates ...were higher than Gemcitabine (Gem) alone, however the trials were not enough powered to indicate a statistically significant prolongation of survival in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study is to evaluated the efficiency of Gem alone versus GemCis in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma .A total of 406 patients, from fourteen centers were evaluated retrospectively. All patients received Gem or GemCis as first-line treatment between September 2005 to March 2011. Primary end of this study were to evaluate the toxicity, clinical response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the arms. There were 156 patients (M: 98, F: 58) in Gem arm and 250 patients (M: 175, F: 75) in the combination arm. Gemcitabin arm patients older than the combination arm ( median 63 vs 57.5, p=0.001). In patients with the combination arm had a higher dose reduction (25.2% vs 11.3%, p=0.001) and dose delay (34% vs 16.8%, p=0.001). Among patients with the combination and Gemcitabin arm gender, diabetes mellitus, performance status, cholestasis, grade, stage did not have a statistically difference (p>0.05). Clinical response rate to the combination arm was higher than the Gem arm (69.0% vs 49.7%, p=0.001). PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance (8.9 vs 6.0, p=0.08). OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm (12.0 vs 10.2, p>0.05). Grade III-IV hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were higher in the combination arm. PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance. OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm.
Women under 40 years of age comprise a small proportion of patients with breast cancer. Clinical and pathological features of the disease in these patients are different from those in older patients ...with this type of cancer. In the present study we investigated the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors in young patients with breast cancer.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 249 consecutive breast cancer patients who were admitted to our department between August 2001 and December 2005. Clinicopathological features were determined both in patients under and over 40 years of age.
106 (42.5%) patients were under and 143 (57.5%) were over 40 years. The mean age was 35.2 years for those under 40 years and 54 for those older than 40 years. At diagnosis, 10.4% of the patients in the younger age group and 7.0% in the older age group had metastasis (p=0.500). Patients in the younger age group exhibited higher estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (48.1 vs. 37.1%) (p=0.425) and a higher percentage of family history of breast cancer (4.7 vs. 2.8%) (p=0.651). Breast cancer in younger women was more frequently associated with other poor prognostic factors such as perineural and/or lymphovascular invasion. The 5-year overall survival was 6.3% for the younger patients and 22.2% for the older ones (p=0.004).
This study demonstrates that breast cancer in younger patients has significantly more poor prognostic features compared to older ones.
The purpose of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the prognostic implication on overall survival (OS) of the F-18 FDG PET scan in locally advanced or metastatic non small cell ...lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
We retrospectively reviewed 120 locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients (December 2004-November 2011) treated/followed at the Dicle University, School of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology. SUVmax and other potential prognostic variables (n=18) were chosen for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors for OS.
Among 18 variables of univariate analysis, 6 were identified to bear prognostic significance: sex (p=0.01), performance status (PS) (p =0.03), stage (p=0.04), bone metastases (p=0.002), serum albumin (p=0.01) and blood glucose level (p=0.03). Multivariate analysis showed that PS, bone metastases and serum albumin level were independent prognostic factors for OS (p=0.01, p=0.004, p=0.003, respectively).
PS, serum albumin levels and bone metastases were independent prognostic factors, while FDG uptake of the primary lesion was not associated with prognosis of OS in locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients.
PDF
