Sequential administration of 5-fluorouracil (5FU)/leucovorin (LV) followed by irinotecan (CPT-11) at relapse versus CPT-11 followed by 5-FU/LV in advanced colorectal carcinoma. A phase III randomized study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the differences in the sequence of administration of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) followed by irinotecan (CPT-11), or CPT-11 followed by 5-FU/LV in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with ACC were allocated to the following treatment groups: group A, a bolus of 20 mg/m(2) LV and 425 mg/m(2) 5-FU for 5 days until progression/relapse, and upon progression treatment with weekly CPT-11 (100 mg/m(2)), and group B, CPT-11 followed at progression/relapse by 5-FU/LV at the same doses and schedules as in group A. RESULTS: 120 patients were randomized to receive one of the two treatment sequences and their pretreatment characteristics were equally balanced between treatment arms. No statistically significant difference was found in the objective response rate to CPT-11 (p = 0.45); partial response (PR) was 23.3% for group A patients and 33.3% for group B. Following documented progression and second line treatment there was a significant difference between the response rate in group A (23.3%) and group B where no patients were found to respond to second-line treatment with 5-FU/LV (p = 0.024). The median overall survival was 42.0 weeks (range, 36.6-47.4 weeks) for group A and 32.0 weeks (range, 28.2-35.8 weeks) for group B. The median time to progression for patients in group A following first-line 5-FU/LV was 18 weeks (range, 10-36 weeks) and 12 weeks (range, 10-16 weeks) for group B following first-line CPT-11 (p = 0.0005). Toxicity, according to WHO, was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treating patients with CPT-11 upon progression to 5-FU/LV treatment seems to be superior to the opposite sequence. We used these treatments as sequential monotherapies (at progression/relapse), and the best results are gained when 5-FU/LV is followed by CPT-11 at disease progression or relapse.

Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: anatomic or functional syndrome?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study is to present our clinical experience in the diagnosis and treatment of young athletes with popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. DESIGN: Retrospective Case Series. METHODS: We report our experience with 5 patients with lower leg pain in a population of 2000 athletes in whom popliteal artery entrapment diagnosed with the use of duplex ultrasonography, computed tomography, digital subtraction angiography or conventional arteriography. Posterior surgical approach performed to offer better view of the anatomic structures compressing the popliteal artery. RESULTS: In 4 patients in whom compression had not yet damaged the arterial wall, no anatomical abnormalities found within the popliteal fossa during surgical exploration. Hypertrophy of gastrocnemius muscle was the only finding. In the fifth patient an anatomical abnormality found in which the artery following the classic aberrant course, looped medially to and then beneath the medial head of gastrocnemius. All patients recovered completely. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that physicians who encounter athletes with progressive lower leg pain should consider functional popliteal artery entrapment surgery, which can prevent the disease's progression. We discuss clinical symptoms of the syndrome, radiological and ultrasonographical findings, and diagnostic criteria. Early diagnosis is of great importance in order to avoid vascular complications, and aid in athletes' early rehabilitation.