This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 plus docetaxel 60 mg2/m administered on day 1, every 2 weeks with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (G-CSF, 5 microg/kg/day, days 3-7) as primary prophylaxis in patients with histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and previously treated with anthracyclines in the adjuvant or in the first-line setting. A total of 48 patients received 352 cycles (median 8, range 2-10). All patients were included in the efficacy and safety evaluation on an intent-to-treat analysis. Eight patients (17%) showed a complete response and 14 patients (29%) showed a partial response. Overall response rate was 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33-60]. The median duration of response was 10.0 months. With a median follow-up of 18.0 months, the median time to progression was 11.9 months and the median overall survival was 27.1 months. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was neutropenia (19% of patients, 4% of cycles). Febrile neutropenia was reported in six patients (13%) and 7 cycles (2%), but no toxic deaths were reported. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity was asthenia (17% of patients, 6% of cycles) and nail toxicity (15% of patients, 3% of cycles). In conclusion, biweekly docetaxel plus vinorelbine with G-CSF support is active and well tolerated as chemotherapy for patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines. G-CSF support is recommended for lowering the incidence and severity of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.
ResumenLa emesis producida por la quimioterapia y radioterapia puede afectar significativamente la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer.La emesis anticipatoria es una respuesta condicionada que aparece en pacientes antes de recibir el ciclo de quimioterapia ya que se basa en un aprendizaje de una experiencia negativa con dicho tratamiento.El objetivo de este artículo es revisar los tratamientos eficaces, farmacológicos y psicoló-gicos, para el control de la emesis anticipatoria.El mejor tratamiento para prevenir la emesis anticipatoria es el control de la emesis aguda y tardía. Los nuevos fármacos antieméticos, como el palonosetrón o el aprepitant, suelen evitar las náuseas y los vómitos por la quimioterapia, pero no mejoran las náuseas y vómitos anticipatorios.Las intervenciones conductuales, como la relajación muscular progresiva y el entrenamiento en desensibilización sistemática, deben considerarse métodos importantes para la prevención y el tratamiento de la emesis anticipatoria.Palabras clave: Emesis, quimioterapia, náu-seas y vómitos anticipatorios, desensibilización sistemática. Correspondencia: Laura María Haro Martínez Asociación Española contra el Cáncer de Cuenca Calle Las Encinas 36 4ºC. 16002 Cuenca E-mail: laura.haro@aecc.es AbstractChemotherapy-induced or radiotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting can significantly affect patients´ quality of life.Anticipatory emesis is a conditioned response which occurs before patients receive their next chemotherapy cycle. It is based on the learning of a patient´s negative experience.The aim of this article is to review effective treatments, pharmacological and psychological, for the control of anticipatory emesis.The best treatment to prevent anticipatory emesis is the control of acute and delayed emesis.The new antiemetic drugs, palonosetron and aprepitant, are usually able to prevent nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, but not to improve anticipatory nausea and vomiting.Behavioral interventions such as pro gressive muscle relaxation training and systematic desensitization should be considered important methods for preventing and treating anticipatory emesis.
e20645 Background: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a key component of the treatment approach for older cancer patients, but it is time consuming. In this study, we have evaluated the validity of a brief frailty screening tool, the Barber test (BT), for identifying disability in older patients with early breast cancer (BC) in the University General Hospital in Elche. Methods: Between January 2007 and December 2007, a total of 41 patients older than 65 years who were actively receiving chemotherapy for early BC, were enrolled in our study. Eligible patients were screened with the Barber test and completed a standardized CGA (Activities of Daily Living measured by Barthel Scale, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living measured by Lawton-Brody Scale, cognitive evaluation measured by Pfeiffer Test, comorbidity (Charlson´s index), risk of malnutrition (Nutritive Initiative Screening), and ECOG). The validity of the BT in this population was assessed by comparing the BT results with results from a simultaneous CGA. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed. The ROC evaluated the BT as a screening measure for impairment compared with the CGA (using the definition of impairment on the CGA as deficits on ≥2 individual tests within the battery, and on the BT as a score >0). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to reflect the predictive value of the BT for identifying impairment. Results: Forty-one women were recruited. Median age was 72.88 years (range 65.03 to 85.46). 30 patients (73.2%) were older than 70 years. 36.6% were dependent in Barthel Scale, and 46,3% were dependent in Lawton-Brody Scale. 19,5% had cognitive impairment. The Barber test was moderate predictive for identifying impairment compared with the CGA, with an AUC of 0.730 (standard error, 0.081; 95% confidence interval for detecting asymptomatic normals, 0.571–0.889); p=0.012). Conclusions: Functional impairments are prevalent among older patients with early BC who receive adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. The current results indicate that the brief Barber test performed nearly as well as a conventional CGA in detecting geriatric impairment in this population. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.