Palonosetron seems to have no acute arrhythmogenic potential.

IntroductionStandard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) includes concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) that typically controls localized disease. However, most patients develop distant metastasis, ultimately leading to death.ObjectiveTo determine the role of adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel for clinical outcomes in patients with LACC.MethodsBetween 2010 and 2017, 109 patients with LACC were retrospectively evaluated. All patients received cisplatin (40 mg/m2) with concurrent external-beam radiotherapy (up to 50.4 Gy), followed by intra-cavitary brachytherapy. Forty-six of 109 patients received a median of six cycles (range 3–6 cycles) of adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (CRT + chemotherapy group; area under the curve 5). The remaining 63 patients did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT group).ResultsDisease-free survival and overall survival after a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range 2.6–94.75 months) were 93.5% and 95.7% and 69.8% and 82.5 % for the CRT + chemotherapy and CRT groups, respectively (p = 0.001, p = 0.012, respectively). No acute grade 3/4 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities were seen during CRT. During adjuvant chemotherapy, the most troublesome side effects were hematologic and neurologic toxicities; however, most were manageable. No chronic grade 3/4 genitourinary toxicities were seen.DiscussionAdjuvant chemotherapy in patients with LACC significantly improved both disease-free survival and overall survival without increasing unmanageable toxicity. Future larger prospective trials are warranted to verify these findings.

Concomitant use of tamoxifen with RT seems to increase radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity. However, the use of both anastrozole and letrozole appears to be safe with concomitant RT, without increasing the risk of pulmonary fibrosis. This finding should be clarified with further clinical studies.

Background Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the intravenous perfusion of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib therapy had failed. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 70 sites in 11 countries. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with one or more previous systemic therapies, including sorafenib, were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg/m² doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (30 mg/m² group), 20 mg/m² doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (20 mg/m² group), or standard care using a computer-generated randomisation list prepared by the funder and stratified by geographic region. Patients in the experimental groups received perfusion of the drug every 4 weeks and those in the control group received any systemic anticancer therapy (except sorafenib) as per investigator decision. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655693.

receiving salvage SBRT, met inclusion criteria (median follow up of 21 months). No significant differences (p¼0.77) were observed between maximum point doses to BP, SCV, and SCA. Within one year post-SBRT, two patients (3%) developed BPX (grade 2); both patients had exceeded 32 Gy to the BP and were treated with salvage SBRT. No patient treated with definitive SBRT (91%) developed BP, despite 17 of these exceeding recommended maximum doses. Conclusion: No BPX was observed for patients that exceeded a maximum dose of 32 Gy to the BP, unless they were treated as salvage SBRT. This suggests higher doses to the BP may be considered when clinically required for definitive SBRT. However, salvage SBRT may require more conservative BP constraints than used in the definitive setting.