Journal of chemotherapy
-
Journal of chemotherapy · Feb 2002
Comparative StudyRetrospective comparison of single-agent chemotherapy with weekly 5-fluorouracil or weekly irinotecan in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
This study is a retrospective analysis of response, toxicity and freedom from progression of two single-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Thirty-five patients with histologically confirmed measurable metastatic colorectal cancer received chemotherapy after failure of first-line 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin treatment. The median age was 61 years. Twenty-seven patients had liver metastases, 6 had local recurrence, 1 had retroperitoneal lymph node metastases and 1 had lung metastases. Eighteen patients received weekly 2600 mg/m2 5-FU and 17 patients received weekly 125 mg/m2 irinotecan (CPT-11). Treatment was given until disease progression. Total number of cycles was 202 for 5-FU and 248 for CPT-11. The relative dose intensity was 1.0 for 5-FU and 0.84 for CPT-11. No grade 3-4 toxicity was registered in patients who received 5-FU. Grade 3-4 toxicity rates were as follows in those who received CPT-11: vomiting 1 (5.9%) patient in 1 cycle, diarrhea 3 (17.7%) patients in 3 cycles and neutropenia in 3 (17.7%) patients in 3 cycles. No patients manifested febrile neutropenia. Two patients (11.8%) needed hospital admission because of toxicity: 1 for vomiting and 1 for diarrhea. No objective responses were observed in the 5-FU group of patients. Three patients (17.6%) who received CPT-11, achieved partial response with a median duration of 8 months. Stable disease was registered in 3 (17.6%) and 9 (52.9%) patients in 5-FU and CPT-11 groups respectively (p=0.05). Median time to progression was 3.3 months for patients who received 5-FU and 4.2 months for those treated with CPT-11 (not significant). One-year survival was 22.2% and 54.3% respectively (p=0.05). ⋯ Weekly chemotherapy with CPT-11 is tolerated with acceptable toxicity and leads to a better response rate than weekly high dose 5-FU. It also significantly improves survival but does not prolong freedom from progression.
-
Journal of chemotherapy · Feb 2002
Questionnaire survey of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in Italian surgical departments.
Correct antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of postoperative infections. 600 questionnaires on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis were sent to Italian Surgical Departments. Each questionnaire included a series of 17 multi-choice-questions concerning the specific approach of the department to: organization, type, timing, duration, auditing of prophylaxis. 435 departments (72.5%) responded to the questionnaire; 50 of these were blank, so 385 out of 435 (88.5%) were suitable for statistical evaluation. Results were as follows: 90.5% of departments perform some form of prophylaxis under the control, in 90.5% of cases, of surgeons; 89.3% differentiate antibiotics according to class of operation; 67.4% give the antibiotic preoperatively and prefer i.v. injection (61.0%), mostly in the ward (56.2%); in 33.3% of cases the prophylaxis is standard (more than 2 doses), but 55.8% of Italian surgeons do not give a boost-dose in operations longer than 3 h; 54.2% of patients receive a cephalosporin (mostly III generation), with a rotation of molecules in 53.9% of cases; 71.7% of departments register the incidence of infections, but only 43.2% control the patients 30 days after surgery; finally, 54.2% of departments work together with a bacteriology laboratory active 24 hours, while in 81.7% of cases the hospital has an Infection Committee which meets together usually without a programmed date (60.3%). In conclusion, antibiotic prophylaxis in Italian Surgery Departments appears adequate, even though some problems still remain regarding time-dose-duration-schedule, rotation of molecules, excess of cephalosporins, availability of a 24-h bacteriological laboratory and infection surveillance after discharge.
-
Journal of chemotherapy · Nov 2001
Review Comparative StudyMechanisms of tissue injury in sepsis: contrasts between gram positive and gram negative infection.
Sepsis is the systemic response to infection, and is caused by gram positive and gram negative bacteria in approximately equal numbers. In recent years it has become increasingly clear that there are significant differences between sepsis caused by gram positive and gram negative infections, both in the microbial components that initiate the injury, and the host responses that follow it. These differences will assume greater importance in developing targeted therapeutic interventions to severe sepsis.
-
Journal of chemotherapy · Nov 2001
ReviewDe-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy in critically III patients: pros and cons.
In spite of advances in critical care, nosocomial infections still have a considerable impact on Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, mortality and costs. Several authors suggest that antibiotic therapy should be instituted as soon as sepsis is suspected in critically patients. Over the last two decades the rates of occurrence for pathogens have significantly changed under selective pressure from broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. ⋯ Such a regimen should be administered before definitive proof of infections and until the results of microbial investigation are available (de-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy). On the other hand, several authors do not recommend glycopeptide administration in an attempt to limit nosocomial outbreaks of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and staphylococci (VRS) and to avoid secondary drawbacks, such as nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. De-escalation antimicrobial chemotherapy should be tailored to critically ill patients according to their clinical status, severity of illness and suspicion of sepsis or nosocomial pneumonia.
-
Journal of chemotherapy · Nov 2001
ReviewAntibiotic induced endotoxin release and clinical sepsis: a review.
Sepsis and peritonitis have not lost much of their danger for patients. The mortality rate in peritonitis has only marginally decreased during the last 30 years despite aggressive surgical and sophisticated intensive care treatment. In intra-abdominal infection and peritonitis source control remains the mainstay of treatment, although general principles and denominators of successful source control need to be established. ⋯ In conclusion, the clinical significance of antibiotic-induced endotoxin release remains to be clarified. Type of pathogen and its virulence may be more important than recently suggested. gram-positive pathogens were just recently recognized as an important factor for the development of the host response. In case of fever of unknown origin in intensive care patients either failure of treatment, e.g., failure of source control in intra-abdominal infection, or a side effect of antibiotic treatment, e.g., endotoxin release, should be considered as a cause of the fever.