British journal of cancer
-
British journal of cancer · May 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialGranisetron compared with prednisolone plus metopimazine as anti-emetic prophylaxis during multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel study compared the anti-emetic efficacy and tolerability of the serotonin antagonist granisetron with prednisolone plus the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine during nine cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy naive women with stage I or II breast cancer scheduled to intravenous cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil every 3 weeks were included. Patients received a single intravenous dose of granisetron 3 mg or a 3-day oral treatment with prednisolone 25 mg once a day plus metopimazine 30 mg four times a day. ⋯ The median number of cycles completed with granisetron was five (95% confidence interval 4-6) compared with two (95% confidence interval 2-2) for prednisolone plus metopimazine (P = 0.0019). Constipation and rash were reported more frequently with granisetron (P < 0.001 and P = 0.043 respectively) and palpitations more frequently with prednisolone plus metopimazine (P = 0.015). In conclusion, the number of cycles completed with granisetron was significantly higher than the number completed with prednisolone plus metopimazine, but the anti-emetic efficacy of both treatments declined during multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
-
British journal of cancer · May 1999
Multicenter Study Clinical TrialPhase II study of docetaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a Japanese cooperative study. Cooperative Group of Docetaxel for Pancreatic Cancer in Japan.
Docetaxel has been reported to show promising anti-tumour activity in pancreatic ductal cancer (PC). This study was conducted to evaluate the activity and toxicity of moderate-dose (60 mg m(-2)) docetaxel in Japanese chemo-naive patients with measurable metastatic PC. The patients had a performance status of 0-2. ⋯ The main grade 3-4 toxicities by patient were leucocytopenia (67%) and neutropenia (86%). Other grade 3-4 toxicities included anaemia (10%), thrombocytopenia (5%), nausea/vomiting (29%), anorexia (29%), GOT/GPT increase (10%), alkaline phosphatase increase (14%), malaise/fatigue (33%) and alopecia (24%). In conclusion, docetaxel, administered on this schedule, did not show significant anti-tumour activity in patients with metastatic PC.
-
British journal of cancer · May 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialCost-effectivenes of paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/cisplatin, compared with standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We obtained the primary survival and resource utilization data from a large three-arm randomized trial comparing: paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) by 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion + cisplatin; paclitaxel 250 mg m(-2) by 24-h i.v. infusion + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); and standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC. We also modelled the regimens with paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) + cisplatin administered as an outpatient by 3-h infusion, as clinical data suggest that this is equivalent to 24-h infusion. ⋯ However, when modelled as an outpatient 3-h infusion, paclitaxel/cisplatin was moderately cost-effective at $30,619 per LYG. When compared with historical controls treated with best supportive care, this regimen of paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $4539 per LYG. Assuming a 3-h paclitaxel infusion yields the same survival advantage as the 24-h infusion did in the randomized trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin is a cost-effective improvement over standard etoposide/cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
-
British journal of cancer · May 1999
Comparative StudyImproving the letters we write: an exploration of doctor-doctor communication in cancer care.
Referral and reply letters are common means by which doctors exchange information pertinent to patient care. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring the views of oncologists, referring surgeons and general practitioners. Twenty-seven categories of information in referral letters and 32 in reply letters after a consultation were defined. ⋯ Reply letters include more information regarding patient history/background than the recipients would like. Referring surgeons and family doctors want information regarding the proposed treatment, expected outcomes, and any psychosocial concerns, yet these items are often omitted. Consultants and referring doctors need to review, and modify their letter writing practices.