Recurrent pneumonia due to an appendiceal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma: a rare presentation of a rare malignancy.

Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix is a rare malignancy. This is a report of a 74-year-old man who presented with recurrent pneumonia which turned out to be a postobstructive pneumonia complicating a large mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix with massive retroperitoneal and intrathoracic extension. Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix is a low-grade malignancy characterized by expansive growth due to progressive accumulation of mucinous fluid produced by the cancer cells. The tendency of this tumor to expand massively is well demonstrated by this case. The unusual retroperitoneal location of appendix in this patient probably allowed the tumor to expand massively in the retroperitoneal space and the thoracic cavity. In addition to computed tomography, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET) was used as an ancillary method for staging in this patient. The value of (18)F-FDG PET in the diagnosis of mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix has not been determined yet, but it might be promising. The most common presentation of this tumor is abdominal pain or a palpable ileocoecal mass. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first report of an appendiceal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma with expansion into the thoracic cavity presenting with recurrent pneumonia.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 820 patients with advanced colorectal cancer to receive either first-line treatment with capecitabine, second-line irinotecan, and third-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (sequential treatment; n=410) or first-line treatment capecitabine plus irinotecan and second-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (combination treatment; n=410). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00312000. FINDINGS: 17 patients (nine in the sequential treatment group, eight in the combination group) were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis. 675 (84%) patients died during the study: 336 in the sequential group and 339 in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.3 (95% CI 14.3-18.1) months for sequential treatment and 17.4 (15.2-19.2) months for combination treatment (p=0.3281). The hazard ratio for combination versus sequential treatment was 0.92 (95% CI 0.79-1.08; p=0.3281). The frequency of grade 3-4 toxicity over all lines of treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, which occurred more often with sequential treatment than with combination treatment (13%vs 7%; p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: Combination treatment does not significantly improve overall survival compared with the sequential use of cytotoxic drugs in advanced colorectal cancer. Thus sequential treatment remains a valid option for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Effectiveness of early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in severe community acquired pneumonia: multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of an early switch to oral antibiotics with the standard 7 day course of intravenous antibiotics in severe community acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals and 2 university medical centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 302 patients in non-intensive care wards with severe community acquired pneumonia. 265 patients fulfilled the study requirements. INTERVENTION: Three days of treatment with intravenous antibiotics followed, when clinically stable, by oral antibiotics or by 7 days of intravenous antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical cure and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 302 patients were randomised (mean age 69.5 (standard deviation 14.0), mean pneumonia severity score 112.7 (26.0)). 37 patients were excluded from analysis because of early dropout before day 3, leaving 265 patients for intention to treat analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 4% in the intervention group and 6% in the control group (mean difference 2%, 95% confidence interval -3% to 8%). Clinical cure was 83% in the intervention group and 85% in the control group (2%, -7% to 10%). Duration of intravenous treatment and length of hospital stay were reduced in the intervention group, with mean differences of 3.4 days (3.6 (1.5) v 7.0 (2.0) days; 2.8 to 3.9) and 1.9 days (9.6 (5.0) v 11.5 (4.9) days; 0.6 to 3.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in patients with severe community acquired pneumonia is safe and decreases length of hospital stay by 2 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00273676 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Isolated lung perfusion with melphalan for resectable lung metastases: a phase I clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current 5-year survival after complete resection of pulmonary metastases is 20% to 40%, and many patients develop intrathoracic recurrences. Isolated lung perfusion is an experimental technique to deliver high-dose chemotherapy to the lung without systemic exposure. A phase I trial of isolated lung perfusion with melphalan (MN) combined with pulmonary metastasectomy for resectable lung metastases was conducted to define the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose. METHODS: From May 2001 to August 2003, 16 patients underwent isolated lung perfusion with MN, followed by surgical resection of lung metastases. Patients were treated with increasing MN doses (15, 30, 45, and 60 mg). For each dose level, normothermia (37 degrees C) and hyperthermia (42 degrees C) were evaluated (n = 3 per level). Serum samples were obtained during the procedure. Pulmonary, hematologic, and nonhematologic toxicities were recorded. The primary tumor was colorectal in 7 patients, renal in 5, sarcoma in 3, and salivary gland in 1. Isolated lung perfusion was performed unilaterally in 11 patients, and staged bilaterally in 5. RESULTS: In total, 21 procedures of isolated lung perfusion with complete metastasectomy were performed without technical difficulties. Operative mortality was 0%, and no systemic toxicity was encountered. Grade 3 pulmonary toxicity developed at a dose of 60 mg of MN at 37 degrees C in 2 of 3 patients at this dose, terminating the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated lung perfusion with MN combined with pulmonary metastasectomy is feasible. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at a dose of 60 mg of MN at 37 degrees C, and the maximum tolerated dose was set at 45 mg of MN at 42 degrees C.

The relationship between aromatase in primary breast tumors and response to treatment with aromatase inhibitors in advanced disease.

Aromatase inhibitors are proving to be more effective than tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. Estrogen concentrations in the breast are similar in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, and several fold higher than circulating levels in postmenopausal women. In order to investigate the importance of intratumoral aromatase in stimulating the proliferation of the tumor, we used immunocytochemistry to determine the extent of aromatase expression in relationship to the response of the patient to aromatase inhibitor treatment. The relationship between positive staining for aromatase in the primary tumor and response to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor was investigated in a retrospective study of 102 patients with advanced breast cancer. Immunohistochemical staining using a monoclonal antibody against aromatase was performed on paraffin embedded tumor tissue. Response was evaluated using UICC criteria. Nine out of 13 patients with objective response to treatment stained positive and 49 of 89 patients with stable or progressive disease stained positive. No significant relationship between positive staining and objective response to treatment could be found. When patients with 'clinical benefit' (i.e. objective response plus prolonged stable disease of at least 6 months) were considered, also no relationship could be found. Further analysis of subgroups with positive hormone receptors, treatment with newer generation aromatase inhibitors, single metastatic site, non-visceral metastases and previous treatment only with tamoxifen did not show any relationship. Tumor aromatase expression did not correlate with response of patients with advanced breast cancer to aromatase inhibitor treatment. Most patients had relapsed from other treatments before receiving an aromatase inhibitor. It seems likely that many of these patients had tumors that may have progressed to hormone independence at this stage of the disease. Research in patients who have received treatment with aromatase inhibitors in earlier stages of disease (first line and adjuvant treatment) may provide further information on the relationship between tumor aromatase, steroid receptors and response to inhibitor treatment.