Our results support the long-term safety of FEC14 chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. However, this therapy was not associated with improved outcome, but because of the limited statistical power of our study, we cannot rule out a modest improvement in outcome associated with FEC14 therapy.

PURPOSE The aim of this multicenter randomized study was to compare conventional therapy with conventional plus high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) as front-line treatment for poor-prognosis non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between October 1991 and June 1995, 124 patients, aged 15 to 60 years, with diffuse intermediate- to high-grade NHL (Working Formulation criteria), stages II bulky (> or = 10 cm), III, or IV were enrolled. Sixty-one patients were randomized to receive etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and bleomycin (VACOP-B) for 12 weeks and cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (DHAP) as a salvage regimen (arm A), and 63 to receive VACOP-B for 12 weeks plus HDT and ABMT (Arm B). RESULTS There was no significant difference in terms of complete remissions (CRS) in the two groups: 75% in arm A, and 73% in arm B. The median follow-up observation time was 42 months. The 6-year survival probability was 65% in both arms. There was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups. DFS was 60% and 80% (P = .1) and PFS was 48% and 60% (P = .4) for arms A and B, respectively. Procedure feasibility was the major problem. In arm B, 29% of enrolled patients did not undergo HDT and ABMT. A statistical improvement in terms of DFS (P = .008) and a favorable trend in terms of PFS (P = .08) for intermediate-/high- plus high-risk group patients assigned to HDT and ABMT was observed. CONCLUSION In this study, conventional chemotherapy followed by HDT and ABMT as front-line therapy seems no more successful than conventional treatment in terms of overall results. However, our results suggest that controlled studies of HDT plus ABMT should be proposed for higher risk patients.

In the context of chronic physical illness, such as breast cancer, depression is associated with increased morbidity, longer periods of hospitalization, and greater overall disability. Prompt diagnosis and effective treatment is. therefore, essential. Several small studies have established the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in this setting, and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) would appear to be an alternative therapeutic option because of their established efficacy and better tolerability profile. This was a multicenter. double-blind, parallel-group study in which 179 women with breast cancer were randomized to treatment with either the SSRI paroxetine (20-40 mg/day), or the TCA, amitriptyline (75-150 mg/day). After 8-weeks treatment, depressive symptomatology had improved markedly and to a similar extent in both groups on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Clinical global impression (CGI) Global improvement and Patient global evaluation scales indicated that patients were minimally to much improved at study endpoint: a change from moderately/mildly ill to borderline ill on the CGI severity of Illness scale. A steady improvement in quality of life was also observed in both groups. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups. In total, 47 (53.4%) patients in the paroxetine group and 53 (59.6%) patients in the amitriptyline group had adverse experiences, the most common of which were the well-recognized side-effects of the antidepressant medications or chemotherapy. Anticholinergic effects were almost twice as frequent in the amitriptyline group (19.1%) compared with paroxetine (11.4%). This study has demonstrated that paroxetine is a suitable alternative to amitriptyline for the treatment of depression in patients with breast cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

The authors also thank Renata Todeschini, Francesca Diodati, and Eliana Valerani for their secretarial support and Kevin Smart (Link Srl, Milan, Italy) for his linguistic help in preparing the article.

BackgroundRole of KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been recently investigated worldwide. In this population-based study, we evaluated the incidence rates and distribution of such somatic mutations in genetically isolated population from Sardinia.MethodsFrom April 2009 to July 2011, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (N = 478) were prospectively collected from Sardinian CRC patients at clinics across the entire island. Genomic DNA was isolated from tissue sections and screened for mutations in KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA genes by automated DNA sequencing.ResultsOverall, KRAS tumour mutation rate was 30% (145/478 positive cases). Distribution of mutation carriers was surprisingly different within the island: 87/204 (43%) in North Sardinia vs. 58/274 (21%) in Middle-South Sardinia (p<0.001). Among 384 CRC cases whose DNA was available, only one (0.3%) patient carried a mutation in BRAF gene; PIK3CA was found mutated in 67 (17%) patients. A significant inverse distribution of PIK3CA mutation rates was observed within Sardinian population: 19/183 (10%) cases from northern vs. 48/201 (24%) cases from central-southern island (p<0.001). This heterogeneity in frequencies of KRAS/PIK3CA somatic mutations is consistent with already-reported discrepancies in distribution of germline mutations for other malignancies within Sardinian population. Preliminary clinical evaluation of 118 KRAS wild-type patients undergoing anti-EGFR-based treatment indicated lack of role for PIK3CA in predicting response to therapy.ConclusionsOur findings support the hypothesis that differences in patients’ origins and related genetic backgrounds may contribute to even determine the incidence rate of somatic mutations in candidate cancer genes.

No abstract