A 'SMART' way to determine treatment goals in pharmacotherapy education.

AIM: Determining treatment goals is an important part of the treatment decision-making process, but medical students are not trained in a structural way on how to define these goals. 'SMART' criteria are widely used in non-medical professions for determining goals and may improve treatment goal setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of implementation of SMART criteria on medical students' ability to set treatment goals and to analyze the effects on treatment choice and monitoring. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized controlled minimal intervention study with one control and two intervention groups (WHO group and SMART group). Second year medical students had to complete a WHO six step treatment plan for four written case reports of patients with asthma. The treatment plans were assessed using a standard scoring sheet developed by a Delphi procedure among respiratory physicians from all eight university medical centres in the Netherlands. RESULTS: A total of 251 second year medical students participated. The SMART group had significantly higher scores for setting treatment goals than the WHO and control groups (68.5 % vs. 29.6 % and 30.8 %, respectively, both P < 0.001). The SMART group also had significantly better scores for treatment monitoring than the WHO and control groups (34.2 % vs. 19.3 % and 24.6 %, respectively, both P < 0.001). There were no between group differences in treatment choice. Regardless of the study group, better setting of treatment goals was associated with better treatment monitoring, an association not reported earlier. CONCLUSION: SMART criteria improve the setting of treatment goals and treatment monitoring.

Excision Repair Cross-Complementation group 1 (ERCC1) C118T SNP does not affect cellular response to oxaliplatin.

AIMS: ERCC1 is involved in the repair of oxaliplatin-induced DNA damage. Studies for the association of the C118T SNP with clinical response to treatment with platinum drugs have rendered inconsistent results. We investigated the ERCC1 C118T SNP with respect to overall and progression-free survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) treated with oxaliplatin and in vitro DNA repair capacity after oxaliplatin exposure. In addition we discuss discrepancies from other studies concerning ERCC1 C118T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival was determined in 145 ACC patients treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial. For the in vitro studies regarding ERCC1 functionality, we transfected an ERCC1 negative cell line with 118C or 118T ERCC1. Cellular sensitivity and DNA repair capacity after exposure to oxaliplatin was examined by Sulphorodamine B growth inhibition assay, COMET assay and Rad51 foci staining. RESULTS: We found no association between ERCC1 C118T and progression-free or overall survival. In addition, transfection of either 118C or 118T restores DNA-repair capacity of UV20 cells to the same level and chemosensitivity to oxaliplatin was similar in ERCC1 118C and 118T transfected cells. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the ERCC1 C118T variants are not associated with survival in ACC patients treated with oxaliplatin or the in vitro sensitivity and DNA-repair capacity in 118C and 118T transfected cell lines. Therefore, ERCC1 C118T genotyping seems of no value in individualizing oxaliplatin based chemotherapy in ACC.

Correlation of FCGR3A and EGFR germline polymorphisms with the efficacy of cetuximab in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Next to KRAS mutation status, additional predictive markers are needed for the response to cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous studies indicated that germline polymorphisms in specific genes may predict efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab in mCRC patients. METHODS: Germline DNA was isolated from 246 KRAS wild-type mCRC patients who were treated in the phase III CAIRO2 study with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone or with the addition of cetuximab. Associations of epidermal growth factor (EGF) 61A>G, EGF receptor (EGFR) CA(14-22), cyclin D1 (CCND1) 932G>A, fragment-C gamma receptor (FCGR) 2A 535A>G and FCGR3A 818A>C polymorphisms with progression-free survival (PFS) and cetuximab-related skin toxicity were studied. RESULTS: In cetuximab-treated patients, the FCGR3A 818C-allele was associated with decreased PFS compared with the FCGR3A 818AA genotype (median PFS, 8.2 [95%CI, 6.7-10.3] versus 12.8 [95%CI, 10.3-14.7] months, respectively; HR, 1.57 [95%CI, 1.06-2.34]; P=.025). The EGFR20 genotype was associated with decreased PFS compared with the EGFR<20 genotype (median PFS, 7.6 [95%CI, 6.7-10.0] versus 12.4 [95%CI, 10.3-13.4] months, respectively; HR, 1.58 [95%CI, 1.06-2.35]; P=.024). The FCGR3A and EGFR polymorphisms were not associated with PFS in patients treated without cetuximab. None of the polymorphisms were associated with the incidence of grades 2-3 skin toxicity. CONCLUSION: EGFR and FCGR3A germline polymorphisms are associated with PFS in KRAS wild-type mCRC patients treated with cetuximab, bevacizumab and chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacizumab is standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We studied the effect of adding the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody cetuximab to a combination of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 755 patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer to capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CB regimen, 378 patients) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CBC regimen, 377 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. The mutation status of the KRAS gene was evaluated as a predictor of outcome. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.7 months in the CB group and 9.4 in the CBC group (P=0.01). Quality-of-life scores were lower in the CBC group. The overall survival and response rates did not differ significantly in the two groups. Treated patients in the CBC group had more grade 3 or 4 adverse events, which were attributed to cetuximab-related adverse cutaneous effects. Patients treated with cetuximab who had tumors bearing a mutated KRAS gene had significantly decreased progression-free survival as compared with cetuximab-treated patients with wild-type-KRAS tumors or patients with mutated-KRAS tumors in the CB group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab resulted in significantly shorter progression-free survival and inferior quality of life. Mutation status of the KRAS gene was a predictor of outcome in the cetuximab group. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00208546.)

Glutathione-S-transferase pi (GSTP1) codon 105 polymorphism is not associated with oxaliplatin efficacy or toxicity in advanced colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin is detoxified by conjugation to glutathione via the enzyme Glutathione-S-transferase pi (GSTP1). The aim of this study is to investigate the association of GSTP1 Ile105Val genetic polymorphism with oxaliplatin efficacy and toxicity in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 91 ACC patients received capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as a part of a multicentre phase-III study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Tumour response was evaluated according to RECIST, toxicity was graded using CTC, and GSTP1 Ile105Val was determined by pyrosequencing. RESULTS: Overall survival after CAPOX was similar for patients with the Ile/Ile (11.5 mo), Ile/Val (11.6 mo) and Val/Val (12.6 mo) genotypes (p=0.602). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free survival (p=0.252). Overall grades 3-4 toxicity was not related to genotype (p=0.313). There were no differences in any grade or grades 3-4 neurotoxicity amongst the patients who received > or =500 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin (p-values of 0.376 and 0.772, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the GSTP1 genotype is not predictive for progression-free survival or overall survival in ACC patients treated with CAPOX. Moreover, overall neurotoxicity and neurotoxicity in patients receiving 500 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin was not associated with GSTP1 genotype.

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.