This study shows that capecitabine is safe and effective in the elderly breast cancer patient. Based on the overall results, the capecitabine dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily merits consideration as "standard" for older patients who do not have severely impaired renal function.
The WHO classification enables identification of low-grade NET patients who may be suitable for hormonal treatment. Octreotide LAR was seen to be effective in controlling the disease and was well tolerated. However, eight patients failed to respond to the treatment, despite histological evidence of a well differentiated tumour according to the new classification. This suggests that further histological examination should be carried out, especially in patients with visceral metastases and a short disease-free interval.
PurposeThe VICTOR-1 study demonstrated that the all-oral metronomic combination of vinorelbine and capecitabine is highly active and well tolerated in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative patients. The VICTOR-2 study was designed to confirm these results.MethodsPatients received mVNR 40 mg three times a week and mCAPE 500 mg three times a day, continuously. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary endpoints were toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsEighty patients were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis. Median age was 65.3 years; most patients had HR-positive tumors (65 %). The CBR was 45.7 % (95 % CI 28.8–63.4) and 51.1 % (95 % CI 35.8–66.3) in first- and ≥ second-line therapy, respectively. The ORR was 35.5 % in first-line (95 % CI 19.2–54.6) and 25.6 % in ≥second-line (95 % CI 13.5–41.2). The median duration of response was 11.3 and 6.4 months and PFS rates at 1 year were 24.3 and 22.2 %, respectively. In triple-negative breast cancer patients (N = 28, 35 %) a lower, but clinically relevant CBR (35.7, 95 % CI 18.6–55.9) was observed. The main toxicities per cycle were non-febrile neutropenia (1.1 %), hand-foot syndrome (1.0 %), nausea and vomiting (1.0 %), leucopenia (0.8 %), fatigue (0.7 %), and diarrhea (0.4 %).ConclusionThe VICTOR-2 study confirms the clinical activity of mVNR and mCAPE in HER2-negative breast cancer patients, suggesting that the easy schedule of administration, which requires monthly blood tests and limits patients’ dependence on hospitals, and the low cost of the drugs are valuable elements, even for countries with limited access to innovative or expensive drugs.
Measurement of chromogranin A (CgA) plays a major role in the management of neuroendocrine tumors (NET); however, reliable assaying of CgA is made difficult by the rapid hydrolysis following its release into the bloodstream. This study was aimed at the assessment of two assays for CgA in NET patients. CgA was measured in 93 patients by means of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an immunoradiometric assay (IRMA). The specificity and sensitivity of CgA were evaluated in relation to tumor histology. The clinical accuracy of the two assays was evaluated by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Regression analysis demonstrated different immunoreactivity for CgA of the antibodies used in the two kits (r = 0.61). The two assays had different accuracy also in classifying patients according to their clinical condition (91% vs 64% specificity and 79% vs 79% sensitivity for the ELISA and IRMA assay, respectively) and tumor histology (81% vs 85% sensitivity for the ELISA and IRMA assays, respectively, in carcinoids; 92% vs 67% sensitivity for the ELISA and IRMA assays, respectively, in pancreatic islet cell tumors). The different clinical accuracy of the two assays was confirmed by the ROC analysis (AUC = 0.90 vs AUC = 0.87 for the ELISA and IRMA assays, respectively). In conclusion, because of the poor standardization of the commercially available measurement tools the clinical accuracy of CgA measurement depends on the assay used. This makes it difficult to compare CgA values measured with different kits and affects the clinical accuracy of the different assays for CgA.
Prostate cancer represents one of the most important health problems in industrialized countries. It is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Therapeutic options are different according to the stage of the disease at the diagnosis. Patients with localized disease may be treated with surgery or radiation, whereas the treatment for patients with a metastatic disease is purely palliative. Hormonal treatment represents the standard therapy for stage IV prostate cancer, but patients ultimately become unresponsive to androgen ablation and are classified as hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. The molecular mechanisms involved in progression in hormone resistance are characterized by mutations, down and up-regulation in the androgen receptor gene, mutations in p53 and over-expression of Bcl2 and other alterations in genes and in gene expression. The important thing is that we understand these mechanisms to define potential therapeutic agents for the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Conventional options for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer include secondary hormone therapy, radiotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy. The commonest antineoplastic agents are mitoxantrone, estramustine and taxanes. Despite an improvement in the palliative benefit, none of these agents has demonstrated a beneficial impact on the overall survival of patients. Therefore, there is no standard therapy for these patients, thus we need new approaches which should be studied in clinical trials. The evaluation and incorporation of new agents into current treatment regimens could have a role in the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer, but their efficacy has not yet been demonstrated.
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.