The combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine is not more effective than single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are implicated in the metastatic process of malignant tumors. However, no data are currently available on the biological relationship between these molecules in colorectal cancer.We studied whether CXCR4 andVEGF expression could predict relapse and evaluated in vitro the contribution of CXCR4 in promoting clonogenic growth,VEGF secretion, and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) expression of colorectal cancer cells. Experimental Design: CXCR4 and VEGF were studied in colorectal cancer tissues and in Lovo, HT29, and SW620 colorectal cancer cell lines by immunohistochemistry. Correlations with baseline characteristics of patients and tumors were analyzed by m 2 test.VEGF secretion induced by CXCL12 was measured by ELISA. The effect of CXCL12 on ICAM-1expression was evaluated by flow cytometry. Clonogenic growth induced by CXCL12 was determined by clonogenic assays. Functional effects induced by CXCL12 were prevented by the administration in vitro of AMD3100, a bicyclam noncompetitive antagonist of CXCR4. Results: Seventy-two patients, seen between January 2003 and January 2004, were studied. CXCR4 was absent in16 tumors (22.2%); it was expressed in V50% of cells in 25 (34.7%) tumors and in >50% of cells in 31 (43.0%) tumors. VEGF was absent in 17 (23.6%) tumors; it was expressed in V50% of cells in16 (22.2%) tumors and in >50% of cells in 39 (54.2%) tumors. There was a significant association between CXCR4 expression and lymph nodal status (P = 0.0393). There were significant associations between VEGF and tumor invasion (P = 0.0386) and lymph nodal involvement (P = 0.0044). American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (P = 0.0016),VEGF expression (P = 0.0450), CXCR4 expression (P = 0.0428), and VEGF/CXCR4 expression (P = 0.0004) had a significant prognostic value for disease-free survival with univariate analysis. The predictive ability of the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage and of the concomitant and high expression of VEGF and CXCR4 was confirmed by multivariate analysis. Prognosis is particularly unfavorable for patients whose primary tumors express CXCR4 and VEGF in >50% of cells (median disease-free survival in relapsed patients, 5.8 months; hazard ratio of relapse, 8.23; 95% confidence interval, 7.24-14.29). In clonogenic assays, CXCL12 (20 ng/mL/d) significantly increased the number of clones in SW620, HT29, and Lovo cells at 7 and 14 days. Again, CXCL12 was able to stimulate VEGF secretion in SW620, HT29, and Lovo cells as well as up-regulated ICAM-1. These effects were prevented by the administration of AMD3100 (1 Amol/L). Conclusions: We have shown that concomitant and high expression of CXCR4 and VEGF is a strong and independent predictor of early distant relapse in colorectal cancer. CXCR4 triggers a plethora of phenomena, including stimulation of clonogenic growth, induction of VEGF release, and ICAM-1 up-regulation. These data support the inhibition of CXCR4 to prevent the development of c...

Pain is a highly distressing symptom for patients with advanced cancer. WHO analgesic ladder is widely accepted as a guideline for its treatment. Our aim was to describe pain prevalence among patients diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), impact of pain on quality of life (QoL) and adequacy of pain management. Data of 1021 Italian patients enrolled in three randomised trials of chemotherapy for NSCLC were pooled. QoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13. Analgesic consumption during the 3 weeks following QoL assessment was recorded. Adequacy of pain management was evaluated by the Pain Management Index (PMI). Some pain was reported by 74% of patients (42% mild, 24% moderate and 7% severe); 50% stated pain was affecting daily activities (30% a little, 16% quite a bit, 3% very much). Bone metastases strongly affected presence of pain. Mean global QoL linearly decreased from 64.9 to 36.4 from patients without pain to those with severe pain (Po0.001). According to PMI, 616 out of 752 patients reporting pain (82%) received inadequate analgesic treatment. Bone metastases were associated with improved adequacy and worst pain with reduced adequacy at multivariate analysis. In conclusion, pain is common in patients with advanced NSCLC, significantly affects QoL, and is frequently undertreated. We recommend that: (i) pain self-assessment should be part of oncological clinical practice; (ii) pain control should be a primary goal in clinical practice and in clinical trials; (iii) physicians should receive more training in pain management; (iv) analgesic treatment deserves greater attention in protocols of anticancer treatment.

IntroductionComplementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) include a wide range of products (herbs, vitamins, minerals, and probiotics) and medical practices, developed outside of the mainstream Western medicine. Patients with cancer are more likely to resort to CAM first or then in their disease history; the potential side effects as well as the costs of such practices are largely underestimated.Patients and methodWe conducted a descriptive survey in five Italian hospitals involving 468 patients with different malignancies. The survey consisted of a forty-two question questionnaire, patients were eligible if they were Italian-speaking and receiving an anticancer treatment at the time of the survey or had received an anticancer treatment no more than three years before participating in the survey.RESULTSOf our patients, 48.9% said they use or have recently used CAM. The univariate analysis showed that female gender, high education, receiving treatment in a highly specialized institute and receiving chemotherapy are associated with CAM use; at the multivariate analysis high education (Odds Ratio, (OR): 1.96 95% Confidence Interval, CI, 1.27-3.05) and receiving treatment in a specialized cancer center (OR: 2.75 95% CI, 1.53-4.94) were confirmed as risk factors for CAM use.ConclusionRoughly half of our patients receiving treatment for cancer use CAM. It is necessary that health professional explore the use of CAM with their cancer patients, educate them about potentially beneficial therapies in light of the limited available evidence of effectiveness, and work towards an integrated model of health-care provision.