VinO showed benefits over VinIV for both patients and caregivers, particularly in health related quality of life and burden of disease. Because of its observational design, results are only informative.
10605 Background: Optimal chemotherapy (CT) for advanced breast cancer treatment should be effective, well tolerated and convenient. Although the optimum CT is not defined, oral chemotherapy is an attractive option for many patients. Methods: We report a phase II multicentric study, first and second line metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment, at least one measurable lesion, prospectively collected data between 2003 and 2005. Treatment schedule: vinorelbine 60 mg/m2 p.o. day 1 and 8, capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily, day 1–14 q 21 days. Patients: 84 patients with MBC have been registered. Mean age 58.1 years, ranges (39.7 years–71.9 years). All patients had received prior adjuvant anthracycline based chemotherapy (CT). No adjuvant or palliative CT within the last 12 months, no concomitant hormonal treatment. Results: The median number of oral chemotherapy cycles vinorelbine plus capecitabine was 6 cycles (ranges 1 cycle - 19 cycles), total number of cycles was 550. In 84 evaluable pts the objective tumor response was achieved in 46 pts 55%, (ORR = CR + PR), complete response CR was achieved in 11 (13%) pts, partial response in 35 pts (42%), stable disease in 26 pts (31%). Median follow up was 9.7 months. In the intent-to-treat analysis, median time to progression was 6.7 months, median survival not reached, 58 pts (69%) are still alive. Reported NCI grade 3 - 4 toxicities: neutropenia in 4 pts (5%), febrile neutropenia in 4 pts (5%), vomiting in 6 pts (7%) Conclusion: Oral vinorelbine-capecitabine combination shows very promising activity and low toxicity in the MBC treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
A647 month after of the surgery we applied EORTC questionnaires QLQ-C30, PR25, and IN-PATSAT32. The scores for each questionnaire were calculated according formulas and instruction in the EORTC Scoring Manual. We calculated mean and standard deviation for each score. Results: Global Health Status/QoL has a mean score 74.80 (±20.74); the functional scales: physical 87.4 (±18.08); emotional 80.3 (±17.23); role 87.6 (±24.44), social 89.4 (±20.09). Symptoms scales: fatigue 15.6 (±15.48); insomnia, 27.3 (±30.00), pain 12 (±17.27), constipation 18.4 (±27.63), financial difficulties 17 (±29.38) the others symptom scales showed mean scores under 10. For scales in PR25 questionnaire, the scores were: sexual activity 72.7 (±20.68), sexual function 59.0 (±31.45); urinary symptoms 32.5 (±21.57), symptoms related with hormonal therapy 17.5 (±14.13), incontinence support 29.2 (±38.24). About scores for IN-PATSAT32, for doctors: Interpersonal skills 88.30 (±16.72); technical skills 87.23 (±19.95); capacity to bring information 89.01 (±17.29); availability 88.56 (±16.85); for nurse: interpersonal skills 87.41 (±16.74) technical skills 86.52 (±18.51); capacity to bring information 84.40 (±19.00); availability 79.26 (±20.89); other personnel kindness 80.85 (±20.47), access 76.86 (±23.16), waiting time 82.18 (±21.45), exchange of information 77.66 (±22.86), comfort/cleanness 80.85 (±21.62) and general satisfaction 84.57 (±18.46). ConClusions: The functional scales for QLQ-C30 showed a good quality of life, however symptom scales related to sexual function showed a diminished QoL, satisfaction with doctors and nurses is good, but not for other personnel.objeCtives: To determine HRQoL and patient satisfaction scores in prostate cancer patients treated through radical prostatectomy with a curative intent. Methods: Were selected prostate cancer patients treated through radical prostatectomy. One
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.