Prevention and treatment of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) is a well recognized target organ adaptation to longstanding uncontrolled hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors. It is also a strong and independent predictor of many cardiovascular disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: This focused review explores the current concepts in screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of LVH in patients with hypertension. Currently, the primary screening and diagnostic tools for LVH are ECG and 2D echocardiography. Implementing machine learning in the diagnostic modalities can improve sensitivity in the detection of LVH. Lifestyle modifications, blood pressure control with antihypertensive therapy, and management of comorbidities aid in preventing and reversing LV remodeling. SUMMARY: LVH is a common and often silent complication of hypertension. Prevention and reversal of LV remodeling are crucial for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with hypertension.

Comparison of different methods used in drugs of abuse for sample validity testing including pH methods, specific gravity methods, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip and oxidant assay.

Objectives: In the absence of sample validity testing, a healthcare provider may fail to identify a patient's adulteration of their urine sample. This study compared different methods for specific gravity (SG), pH, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip (dipstick) and oxidant assay to explain the differences and also make an informative decision on method selection. Methods: Creatinine, SG and pH measurements are essential in sample validity testing. SG and pH automated chemical methods are compared against pH meter method, SG refractometer and dipstick method. Also, oxidant assay was compared against dipstick method. Results: SG chemical method agreement with refractometer is 81.9% and with dipstick method is 64.7%. The refractometer method agreement with dipstick method is 66.1%. pH chemical method agreement with pH Meter method is 74.3% and with dipstick method is 81.4%. pH meter method agreement is 85.7% with dipstick method. Results were analysed using Deming regression analysis and F-test. SG chemical method correlated better with refractometer than the dipstick method. Oxidant assay correlated well with dipstick method in detecting adulterants such as pyridinium chlorochromate, nitrite and bleach. Conclusions: Varying degrees of differences were seen in the SG and pH measurements. These differences were both method and instrument dependent. The automated chemical methods are recommended alongside oxidant assay for consistency, accuracy and faster turn-around time as part of sample validity testing for drugs of abuse.

Modification of the No-Touch Technique during Renal Artery Stenting.

Renal artery stenting has been established as the primary form of renal artery stenosis revascularization procedure. The no-touch technique is proposed in order to avoid renal artery injury and atheroembolism during renal artery stenting. We describe a modification of the no-touch technique by using an over-the-wire (OTW) balloon or a Quickcross 0.014'' catheter with a 0.014'' coronary wire inside, instead of the rigid 0.035'' J wire. The reported technique, while it prevents direct contact of the guiding catheter with the aortic wall, at the same time it allows for a closer contact with the renal arterial ostium and a more favorable guiding catheter orientation, compared to what is achieved with the use of the more rigid 0.035'' J wire, thus improving visualization, reducing the amount of contrast required, and potentially decreasing complications.

Decreased plasma ghrelin levels in patients with advanced cancer and weight loss in comparison to healthy individuals.

BACKGROUND: Ghrelin is a growth hormone-releasing acylated peptide found to be an appetite stimulant and low levels of it are detected in cachexia. The aim of the present study was to investigate the plasma ghrelin levels in cancer patients with a low performance status and weight loss and compare them with those of healthy individuals without weight loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (median age 65 years) with different malignancies, mainly pancreatic and gastric, and 27 healthy individuals (median age 62 years) were examined. The gender of both groups was well balanced. Plasma ghrelin was measured by a radioimmunoassay kit that uses a polyclonal antibody which recognizes the C-terminal of ghrelin. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the plasma ghrelin levels of the patients vs. the controls, with the patients having much lower levels (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The notable reduction of ghrelin levels might be due to the severity and progression of the disease.

Survival after cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with advanced hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a phase II study.

In the past, it was believed that when advanced-stage prostate cancer became resistant to hormonal management, no chemotherapy should be administered, as survival was not prolonged. Mitoxanthrone and prednisone were mostly administered, while recently, other agents such as docetaxel or paclitaxel have been tested both with and without hormonal treatment. The objective of the present phase II study was to determine the survival and the response rate of patients after the chemotherapy was administered. Sixty-five patients with advanced prostate cancer were included. The inclusion criteria involved histological confirmation of adenocarcinoma and resistance to hormonal therapy. The majority of the patients had stage IVa or IVb disease and a performance status of 0-1 to 2. The treatment involved chemotherapy in combination with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) or dexamethasone or estramustine. The hormone treatment preceded the cytotoxic administration and no amelioration in the patients nor prostate serum antigen (PSA) reduction was observed. The initial cytotoxic agents administered were docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) in 25 patients, mitoxanthrone 10 mg/m(2) in 15 patients, epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) in 15 patients and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) in 10 patients, all repeated every 3 weeks. The response rate was documented by bone scan, CT scan of the abdomen (and occasionally of the chest) and by the PSA serum value. Clinical benefit was also estimated. Thirty-three (50.77%) patients achieved a partial response; stable disease was observed in 24 (36.92%) patients and disease progression in 8 (12.31%). Twenty-two (33.85%) experienced clinical benefit. A significant PSA reduction was seen in 35 (53.85%) patients. The median survival was 18 months and the range 3-84 months. One, 2, 3 and five-year survival was 75.38, 23.07, 12.30 and 4.66%, respectively. Toxicity was well-tolerated. Patients with hormone-resistant advanced prostate cancer do have good prospects for receiving substantial benefit with the addition of chemotherapy, as observed in the present trial.

Comparison of cisplatin-paclitaxel combination versus cisplatin-etoposide in patients with small-cell lung cancer: a Phase III study.

Cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-etoposide combination therapies were compared in limited and extensive disease in patients with small-cell lung cancer. The primary objectives were to determine median and overall survival, time to tumor progression and tolerance and the secondary objective, the response rate. From January 2003 till July 2007, 108 patients were enrolled in the study. All patients had histologically- or cytologically-confirmed small-cell lung cancer. All patients were chemotherapy and radiotherapy naive. The patients were designated to receive six cycles: in the investigational Arm A, cisplatin, 80 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) were infused on day 1 (1 cycle) and repeated every 3 weeks. In the control Arm B, cisplatin, 80 mg/m(2) was administered on day 1 and etoposide, 120 mg/m(2) per day was given on days 1-3 (1 cycle), every 3 weeks. In Arm A, 6 (11.3%) patients achieved a complete response and 32 (58.1%), a partial response; in Arm B, 7 (12.7%) patients achieved a complete response and 32 (58.2%) a partial response. The median survival time in Arm A patients was 12 months and in Arm B, 13 months, p=0.354. The time to tumor progression (TTP) was 8 and 6 months for Arms A and B, respectively (p=0.060). Toxicity, although common in both Arms, was acceptable. Neutropenia, anemia and diarrhea were higher in the control Arm. The cisplatin-paclitaxel combination is not superior to cisplatin-etoposide with respect to survival, TTP, toxicity and response rate. The former combination could be applied as an alternative chemotherapy regimen for patients with limited or advanced small-cell lung cancer.

Present treatment and future expectations in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer is an incurable disease. The main treatment is chemotherapy with cytotoxic agents. On the basis of our experience in clinical trials, the objectives have been to determine response rate, life prolongation and clinical benefit. In our trials and in those of other authors, all of these objectives have been met. Responses remain low; 5-25% of patients have a partial response, life prolongation is significantly achieved versus best supportive care, and clinical benefit is observed in 40-60% of patients. Rarely do patients survive for over 2 years and no patient is cured. The standard cytotoxic treatment is the agent gemcitabine. The addition of other agents, such as cisplatin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin and taxanes, in combination with gemcitabine, has shown higher response rates but overall survival has not significantly increased. Research related to monoclonal or gene therapies for pancreatic cancer has created hope. The horizon has been broadened by a recent report on a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) which has shown significantly longer median survival, when combined with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone. Other anti-angiogenic agents, such as cetuximab and the anti-Her-2, herceptin, are now being tested in ongoing trials. Farnesyl transferase inhibitors represent another direction which research is taking; this is related to the Ras-oncogenes (K-, H- and N-ras) which are known to be involved in signal transduction pathways regulating cell growth and differentiation in many human cancers including pancreatic. Trials of these and other targeting therapies have not produced the expected effectiveness. The combination of monoclonal and/or gene therapies with cytotoxic agents suggests there is hope for the future.

Metastatic renal cancer and patient survival as a criterion of treatment response.

Advanced metastatic renal cancer is an incurable disease, unless a successful excision of metastatic lesions can be performed. No effective treatment has yet been found. In the last few years, targeting therapies have been developed. In the past, the main treatment was based on cytokines (interferon-alpha or interleukin-2). Our objective was to determine the median and overall survival in the 66 patients who were studied and reviewed. All had histologically confirmed advanced renal cancer. There were 41 male and 25 female patients, with a median age of 60 years. In 68.18% of the patients, the treatment was mainly interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) given 3 times a week for a median time duration of 6 months (range 3-12 months). Four patients received interleukin-2 (IL-2) and 17 patients received chemotherapy, 15 of whom had hormonal treatment. Eleven patients underwent palliative radiation therapy (in the bone or brain). Seven patients received no treatment apart from supportive care. A partial response was achieved in 11.11% of the patients treated with IFN-alpha. No response was observed in patients treated with chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. The median survival of all the patients was 20 months (95% CI 14.96-25.04). These results are discussed in comparison with the survival results of modern targeting treatment studies. In the latter studies, despite the high response rates (31-40%), the survival was 16.4 months. Our data indicate that the response rate as a criterion is not adequate in determining drug effectiveness.

Pemetrexed combined with paclitaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I-II trial.

Pemetrexed, a novel multi-targeted agent established for the treatment of mesothelioma, has been under investigation for other malignancies, and in recent years particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the present trial we investigated pemetrexed in combination with paclitaxel as front-line treatment in advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Our objectives were to determine the response rate, median and overall survival and toxicity. From April 2005 until May 2006, 51 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled and 48 were considered evaluable. There were 39 males and nine females, median age 62 years (range 37-81 years), one patient stage IIIA N(2), 23 patients, IIIB and 24, stage IV. All patients had a cytologically- or histologically-confirmed diagnosis. Pemetrexed was administered at a standard dose of 500mg/m(2) and paclitaxel at an escalating dose starting at 135mg/m(2), then 150mg/m(2) and ending at a dose of 175mg/m(2); the level was increased every three patients. Both agents were administered on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks for six courses. A 39.6% partial response rate was observed with a median survival of 14 months. Toxicity was mild with 8.3% grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and other very mild hematologic and non-hematologic adverse reactions. The combination of pemetrexed and paclitaxel at doses of 500mg/m(2) and 175mg/m(2), respectively, has been shown to be an effective combination with very limited toxicity.

Liposomal cisplatin combined with gemcitabine in pretreated advanced pancreatic cancer patients: a phase I-II study.

The present trial is a phase I-II study based on a new liposomal cisplatin (lipoplatin). Previous preclinical and clinical data (phase I pharmacokinetics) led to the investigation of a combined treatment modality involving lipoplatin and gemcitabine. The gemcitabine dose was kept standard at 1000 mg/m2 and the lipoplatin dose was escalated from 25 mg/m2 to 125 mg/m2. The treatment was administered to advanced pretreated pancreatic cancer patients who were refractory to previous chemotherapy which included gemcitabine. Lipoplatin at 125 mg/m2 was defined as dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and 100 mg/m2 as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in combination with 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine. Preliminary objective response rate data showed a partial response in 2/24 patients (8.3%), disease stability in 14 patients (58.3%) for a median duration of 3 months (range 2-7 months) and clinical benefit in 8 patients (33.3%). Liposomal cisplatin is a non-toxic alternative agent to bare cisplatin. In combination with gemcitabine, it has an MTD of 100 mg/m2 and shows promising efficacy in refractory pancreatic cancer.

Liposomal oxaliplatin in the treatment of advanced cancer: a phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Lipoxal is a liposomal oxaliplatin, which reduces the cytotoxic agent's adverse reactions without reducing effectiveness. Our objectives were to determine the adverse reactions, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lipoxal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced disease of the gastrointestinal system were included in the study. All patients had been pretreated with standard chemotherapy according to established guidelines. At entry, all patients had recurrent or progressive disease (stage IV gastrointestinal cancers: colorectal, gastric and pancreatic). Six lipoxal dose levels (100 mg/m2, 150 mg/m2, 200 mg/m2, 250 mg/m2, 300 mg/m2 and 350 mg/m2) were set and at least 3 patients were included at each level. Eight patients were treated at 300 mg/m2 (MTD). The treatment was given once weekly for 8 weeks. RESULTS: No serious side-effects were observed at the first 4 dose levels (100-250 mg/m2). At levels 5 and 6, mild myelotoxicity and nausea were observed. The most common adverse reaction was grade 2-3 peripheral neuropathy, observed in all 4 patients treated at 350 mg/m2. The 350 mg/m2 dose level was therefore considered as DLT and the 300 mg/m2 level as the MTD. Of the 27 patients, 3 achieved partial response and 18 had stable disease for 4 months, (range 2-9 months). CONCLUSION: The most common toxicity was peripheral neuropathy at the 300 and 350 mg/m2 dose levels. Lipoxal was well-tolerated and greatly reduced all the other side-effects of oxaliplatin, especially myelotoxicity and gastrointestinal tract toxicities. These preliminary results showed adequate effectiveness in pretreated patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of oxaliplatin plus irinotecan 5-fluouracil and leucovorin regimen in advanced stage colorectal cancer patients pretreated with irinotecan 5-fluouracil and leucovorin.

OBJECTIVES: Oxaliplatin has been introduced in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer during the past few years. The pre-existing treatment of leucovorin-5-fluorouracil-irinotecan (IFL), although reasonably effective, has needed novel, active agents to increase the response rate and overall survival. We planned this phase 2 study in patients pretreated with IFL, adding oxaliplatin as second-line treatment: our objectives were to determine response rate and overall survival. METHODS: All patients (median age 65) were designated to receive 6 cycles of chemotherapy: leucovorin 200 mg/m2 infused for 60 minutes, 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 bolus at 30 minutes from the start of the previous infusion, irinotecan 135 mg/m2 infused for 90 minutes, and oxaliplatin 135 mg/m2 for 90 minutes, infused sequentially on day 1 and repeated every 3 weeks. Standard ondansetron antiemetic treatment and dexamethasone 8 mg were administered to all patients. No prophylactic recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was permitted. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were recruited and 54 were evaluable for response, survival, and toxicity. All patients had advanced, inoperable, metastatic disease in the liver and/or lungs, abdominal cavity, and multiple sites. All patients had undergone IFL pretreatment and had no response; 40 had disease progression and 14 had stable disease when entering the present study; 302 chemotherapy cycles (mean 5.92) were administered. There was no treatment delay caused by toxicity (either neutropenia or diarrhea). Irinotecan and oxaliplatin were reduced by 25% in 6 (11.1%) patients. No complete responses were observed; 21 (38.9%) patients achieved partial response, 26 (48.2%) had stable disease, and 7 (13%) had disease progression. Median duration of response was 6 months, time to tumor progression (TTP) 8 months, and median overall survival after the initiation of second-line treatment was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.5-12.6). CONCLUSION: The addition of oxaliplatin to IFL as second-line treatment rendered a prolongation of survival and a response rate of 38.9% in patients in whom IFL pretreatment had failed.

Reliability of nesiritide infusion via non-primed tubing and heparin-coated catheters.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing information for nesiritide mandates priming of intravenous tubing prior to connecting to the patient's intravenous access because the drug may adsorb to the line. As of this writing, no published study has quantified the binding effect of nesiritide to intravenous tubing. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether priming of peripheral intravenous tubing is necessary and whether nesiritide can be reliably delivered through central intravenous lines, including heparin-coated catheters, where priming cannot occur. METHODS: A 23.3-mL bolus of nesiritide followed by a 7-mL/h 2-hour infusion were run through (1) polyvinylchloride (PVC) peripheral intravenous tubing primed with nesiritide, (2) non-primed PVC peripheral intravenous tubing, (3) non-primed polyethylene peripheral intravenous tubing, (4) non-primed PVC peripheral intravenous tubing connected to a central intravenous polyurethane catheter, and (5) non-primed PVC peripheral intravenous tubing connected to a heparin-coated pulmonary artery PVC catheter. Nesiritide concentrations were measured in the intravenous bags and in samples collected from the 5 intravenous settings. RESULTS: Priming of intravenous tubing with nesiritide did not increase drug recovery: at least 94% of the bolus dose and 96% of the total drug were recovered from all intravenous sets. CONCLUSIONS: Infusion of nesiritide via non-primed peripheral and central intravenous tubing, including heparin-coated pulmonary catheter, is reliable. Changes in nesiritide labeling appear to be warranted.

Mesothelioma: treatment and survival of a patient population and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate the survival of patients with pleural and intraperitoneal malignant mesothelioma and, particularly, to estimate the efficacy of chemotherapy as well as radiotherapy and surgery. A review of the literature with respect to these parameters is included. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with malignant mesothelioma (28 with pleural and 7 with intraperitoneal) were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients underwent chemotherapy, 7/35 radiation and 9/35 surgery (2 with pleural and 7 with abdominal disease). Combination chemotherapy included cisplatin-gemcitabine, cisplatin (or carboplatin) with premetrexed and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide. RESULTS: In 2/28 patients with pleural mesothelioma the tumor was excised and in 7 with intraperitoneal disease, surgical therapy was palliative and there was survival prolongation. Radiotherapy was only palliative. Chemotherapy produced a very low response: 2/28 (7.14%) patients achieved a partial response. The median survival was 17 months, 4-year survival, 24.4% and 5-year survival, 12.12%. No serious toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Malignant mesothelioma of the pleura and intraperitoneum is a slow-growing disease which is indicated by the long survival, despite the failure of chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery.

Therapeutic administration of pegfilgrastim instead of prophylactic use.

OBJECTIVES: Pegfilgrastim is a new growth factor which can be administered subcutaneously once (versus multiple doses for days) on the day neutropenia occurs after chemotherapy. Our aims were to determine: (a) the percentage of patients who needed growth factor (pegfilgrastim) supportive treatment, (b) the duration of neutropenia-leukopenia after pegfilgrastim administration, and (c) the safety in using pegfilgrastim as a treatment and not as a prophylactic agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients were evaluated. All patients were scheduled to undergo chemotherapy treatment, which was either first- or second-line, and some patients had previously received granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor (G-CSF): filgrastim on a daily basis. Twenty-five/98 patients required G-CSF support and were treated with pegfilgrastim 6 mg; the first 12 patients were admitted to hospital and remained until recovery from grade 3-4 neutropenia; the other 13 patients were treated on an outpatient basis or at home. Pegfilgrastim was administered when neutropenia appeared (days 6-8 following chemotherapy treatment). RESULTS: Therapeutic administration of pegfilgrastim on the day serious neutropenia occurred was needed by 25/98 patients (25.51%). White blood cell recovery for both grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed within 1-3 days in 75% of the patients treated with pegfilgrastim and in the remaining 25%, within 5 days. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim, an active hemopoietic growth factor with effective slow-absorption properties, can be used safely, not necessarily as a prophylactic agent but on an outpatient basis as a therapy for serious neutropenia.

Pharmacokinetics and adverse reactions of a new liposomal cisplatin (Lipoplatin): phase I study.

Lipoplatin, a new liposomal cisplatin formulation, is formed from cisplatin and liposomes composed of dipalmitoyl phosphatidyl glycerol (DPPG), soy phosphatidyl choline (SPC-3), cholesterol and methoxy-polyethylene glycol-distearoyl phosphatidylethanolamine (mPEG2000-DSPE). Following intravenous infusion, the nanoparticles (110 nm) are distributed into tissues and concentrate preferentially at tumor sites supposedly via extravasation through the leaky tumor vasculature. This study was designed to investigate the pharmacokinetics and the toxicity of this new liposomal cisplatin in patients with pretreated advanced malignant tumors. The drug was infused for 8 h every 14 days at escalating doses. Twenty-seven patients were included and 3-5 patients were selected for each dosage level; levels started at 25 mg/m2 and were increased by 25 to 125 mg/m2. Three patients were also treated at higher dose levels, one each at 200, 250 and 300 mg/m2. Blood was taken at certain time intervals in order to estimate total platinum plasma levels. At level 5 (125 mg/m2), grades 1 and 2 GI tract and hematological toxicities were detected. No nephrotoxicity was observed. Seven additional patients were added at the 4th level (100 mg/m2) for further pharmacokinetic evaluation. Measurement of platinum levels in the plasma of patients as a function of time showed that a maximum platinum level is attained at 6-8 h. The half-life of Lipoplatin was 60-117 h depending on the dose. Urine excretion reached about 40% of the infused dose in 3 days. The data demonstrate that Lipoplatin up to a dose of 125 mg/m2 every 14 days has no nephrotoxicity and it lacks the serious side effects of cisplatin.

Long-term survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer may not be due to the response to chemotherapy.

Our primary objective was to determine the median and overall survival and secondarily the response rate to first- and second-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced colorectal metastatic disease. Three-hundred and seventy-nine patients (median age 60 years, range 30-87 years) were enrolled from April 1993 to March 2000. Median follow-up was 6 years (range 3-10 years), until July 2003. All patients were evaluable for survival and 342 were evaluable for response and toxicity. Thirty-seven patients did not undergo chemotherapy. All patients had confirmed histology as well as metastatic disease based on radiological tests. First-line treatment was administered to 342 patients: leucovorin (LV) 30 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 425 mg/m2. Three different combinations were given as second-line treatment during different chronological periods: i) 5-FU, mitomycin-C and doxorubicin (FAM); ii) 5-FU and cisplatin (CDDP) and iii) 5-FU, LV and irinotecan (CPT-II). Responses were observed as follows: first-line treatment 16.37%, after FAM 25%, following 5-FU-CDDP 26.83% and after 5-FU-LV-CPT-II, 30.61%. Survival of all patients was as follows: median 25 months (range 16.1-33.9 months). The longest survival was of patients on 5-FU-LV-CPT-II. Median survival of patients with stable disease was 19 months and of untreated patients 12 months. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer have a long median (25 months) and overall survival, despite low responsiveness to chemotherapy.

Weekly administration of topotecan and paclitaxel in pretreated advanced cancer patients: a phase I/II study.

PURPOSE: This study was a phase I/II, cohort, dose-escalation trial of topotecan and paclitaxel. Its aim was to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of the combination and to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), as a recommended dose for phase II, as well as to get preliminary data on the efficacy (activity) of the drug in pretreated patients with ovarian cancer, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Included in the study were 52 pretreated patients, 19 with ovarian cancer, 20 with SCLC and 13 with NSCLC. The doses of topotecan were escalated from 1.25 to 2 mg/m2 and of paclitaxel from 60 to 80 mg/m2. A minimum of four patients were included at each of the six levels of dose escalation. RESULTS: We found that DLT due to grade 3 and 4 myelotoxicity was at levels 5 and 6 at doses of 1.75 and 80 mg/m2 (level 5) and 2 and 80 mg/m2 (level 6) for topotecan and paclitaxel, respectively. The MTD and recommended accepted doses are 1.75 mg/m2 for topotecan and 70 mg/m2 for paclitaxel. Of the 52 patients, 17 (33%) showed a response: 1 complete response (1.92%) and 16 partial responses (30.77%). CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan combined with paclitaxel administered once weekly for three consecutive weeks repeated for every 28 days resulted in well-tolerated toxicity at doses of 1.75 and 70 mg/m2, respectively, and a response rate of 33% in pretreated cancer patients.

Paclitaxel and liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) combination in advanced breast cancer patients: a phase II study.

Due to the cumulative cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin in cancer treatment, the tendency of the physician to find a substitute has led to the use of liposomal encapsulated doxorubicin, as well as other similar compounds. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel, two of the most active agents for breast cancer, have often been used in combination for this condition. In the present study we combined liposomal doxorubicin with paclitaxel with the intention of diminishing the toxicity of the cardiac muscle. Twenty-three patients were evaluated for response rate, survival and toxicity. All patients had metastatic disease and were chemotherapy-naïve after generalization of the disease. Liposomal doxorubicin was infused at a dose of 30 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks. The response rate was complete in 2 patients (8.70%) and partial in 14 patients (60.87%) totalling 69.57%. The median duration of response was 6 months (range 2-13+) and median survival was 10 months (range 4-20+). Cardiotoxicity, myelotoxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity were well-tolerated. The high hand-foot adverse reaction (47.83%) inhibited the continuation of treatment in half of the patients and due to this toxicity the trial was terminated after the 23rd patient.