Evaluation of serum HER2 extracellular domain in early breast cancer patients: correlation with clinicopathological parameters and survival.

BACKGROUND: We explored the correlation between serum human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) extracellular domain (ECD) and tissue HER2 status, their relationship with clinicopathological parameters and their impact on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival in early breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective trial included patients with stage I-III breast cancer. Serum HER2 ECD levels were measured by two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays before surgical treatment. Tissue HER2 status was analyzed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in all tumors; FISH assay was utilized in HER2 2+ tumors by IHC. RESULTS: From May 2000 to July 2005, 256 consecutive stage I-III breast cancer patients were included in this study. High serum HER2 ECD levels (>or=15 ng/ml) were reported in 23 patients (9.0%) and HER2-positive status in tumor tissue was observed in 42 patients (16.4%) with a concordance of 87.1%. High HER2 ECD levels were significantly associated with high histological grade (P = 0.003), stage III (P = 0.008), lymph node involvement (P = 0.035) and negativity of both estrogen (P = 0.016) and progesterone (P = 0.007) receptors. At multivariate analysis, high serum HER2 ECD levels were a significant independent prognostic factor of worse DFS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant association was observed between high serum HER2 ECD levels and worse DFS in early breast cancer patients.

Antiemetic activity of high doses of metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in cisplatin-treated cancer patients: a randomized double-blind trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

We designed a multicenter, double-blind randomized study to determine the safety and antiemetic effectiveness of intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone (P) combined with high-dose IV metoclopramide (MTC) v MTC alone in 200 untreated cancer patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. One hundred eighty-five patients were evaluable for treatment efficacy. MTC plus P was significantly superior to MTC alone in reducing the number and length of vomiting episodes (P = .001 and P = .0008, respectively) and the maximal intensity of nausea (P = .0124 with a score system; P = .0155 with a linear analogue scale) and length of nausea (P = .0056). The subgroup with a major incidence of nausea and vomiting was women, especially young women, outpatients, and those treated with higher doses of cisplatin. Side effects were low and equally distributed between the two treatment groups. We conclude that MTC plus P has greater antiemetic activity than MTC alone in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.

Ondansetron.

Ondansetron is the first selective antagonist of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (type 3) marketed for the prevention of emesis induced by antineoplastic agents. Ondansetron has been shown to be more active and less toxic than high-dose metoclopramide in patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy. Furthermore, when dexamethasone was added to ondansetron, its antiemetic efficacy increased significantly. In the prevention of emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin or by repeated low doses, ondansetron combined with dexamethasone has been shown to be the more efficacious and less toxic antiemetic treatment. However, in the prevention of delayed emesis from cisplatin, its role is still to be defined. In patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents, ondansetron has shown an efficacy superior or equal to standard doses of metoclopramide, but is less toxic. Moreover, when compared with dexamethasone, its antiemetic efficacy and tolerability is similar; in this group of patients ondansetron should be used only when steroids fail. Ondansetron toxicity is generally mild; in particular, it does not induce extrapyramidal reactions. The most frequent side-effects are headache and constipation.

Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients.

Two studies were sequentially conducted to validate a new questionnaire which takes into consideration the most important variables which could influence quality of life evaluation. Particular attention was given to the methodology employed to collect data and to the patients' characteristics. In the first study 80 consecutive cancer patients were randomised to twice fill in one of four different types of questionnaire, each one characterised by a different polarisation of semantic and syntactic extreme values of the visual linear analogue (for instance, "very much" always on the right, regardless of the semantic value of the answer; positive semantic value always on the right, regardless of whether it was "very much" or "not at all"; and so on). The second study, conducted on 60 lung cancer patients, consisted in testing the reliability (by measuring the reproducibility in different ways) and the validity (by performing a factor analysis) of the type of questionnaire indicated by the first study as the most reliable. The internal coherence was also evaluated by measuring the effects of physical and psychological conditions on the responses.

Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.

A phase II antiemetic combination (COMD) for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

Thirteen patients resistant to high-dose metoclopramide (greater than or equal to 5 emetic episodes in 24 h following chemotherapy) were treated in the subsequent course of CDDP chemotherapy with COMD (chlorpromazine, orphenadrine, metoclopramide, dexamethasone). A statistically significant reduction in the number of vomiting episodes was obtained, and 69% of patients showed a better acceptance of CDDP treatment. Subsequently, the same antiemetic combination was administered to 31 untreated patients receiving CDDP alone for the first time: 67.7% obtained complete protection from vomiting with minimal toxicity. According to our experience, COMD is an efficacious and well-tolerated antiemetic combination in cisplatin-treated patients; however, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required to confirm these preliminary results.

A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and acupuncture in women treated with cisplatin.

A total of 26 women who submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy received as antiemetic treatment a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. Acupuncture according to traditional Chinese medicine was also carried out. The results were compared with those obtained in a similar group of women with cancer, who were treated in the same setting with the same antiemetic combination but without additional acupuncture. Acupuncture was shown to increase complete protection from nausea and to decrease the intensity and duration of nausea and vomiting. However, the difficulties of performing acupuncture routinely in daily practice are a hindrance to its wider use.

A double-blind trial comparing antiemetic efficacy and toxicity of metoclopramide versus methylprednisolone versus domperidone in patients receiving doxorubicin chemotherapy alone or in combination with other antiblastic agents.

Nausea and vomiting are reported in approximately 60% of neoplastic patients treated with doxorubicin used alone at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 or in combination with other noncisplatin antiblastic agents. In a double-blind study we compared the efficacy and tolerability of metoclopramide (MTC) versus Domperidone (DMP) versus methylprednisolone (MP) administered intravenously (i.v.) to inpatients. Forty-four patients entered the trial. The three antiemetic regimens were found equally effective. A complete protection from vomiting/nausea was obtained in 14/11 (93.3%/73.3%) of patients treated with MTC, in 15/14 (100%/93%) of those treated with MP and in 11/11 (78.6%/78.6%) of those treated with DMP. Side effects were slight and not significantly different among the three regimens. In conclusion, i.v. MTC and MP (DMP is no longer available in i.v. formulation) as single agents are an adequate treatment for prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by doxorubicin alone or in combination with other noncisplatin antiblastic agents.

Antiemetic activity of high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients. A randomized double-blind study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

In a double-blind randomized trial, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose (2 mg/kg X 4) intravenous metoclopramide (MTC) versus metoclopramide plus high-dose (250 mg X 2) intravenous methylprednisolone (MP) administered for the first 2 days in untreated patients submitted to dacarbazine chemotherapy for 5 days. Thirty-four patients entered the study. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was achieved in the majority of patients all through the study period with both antiemetic treatments, with slightly greater efficacy at day 2 for the combination. However, after suspension of the antiemetic therapy, there was a relapse of vomiting in patients. Side effects were not different between the two treatments, but extrapyramidal reactions were significantly increased on the second day of antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, high-dose MTC with or without MP can give good antiemetic protection and the combination seems to be slightly more efficacious. However, the relapse of vomiting after discontinuing antiemetic treatment and the high incidence of extrapyramidal reactions justify further studies to find a better antiemetic treatment.

Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin-treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone. A randomized single-blind study.

To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

Antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients.

The antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients was compared in a double-blind crossover study. Regimen A consisted of metoclopramide [2 mg/kg x 4 intravenously (i.v.)] plus methylprednisolone (250 mg x 2 i.v.) plus diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 i.v.). Regimen B consisted of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 i.v.) plus dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.) and diphenhydramine (50 mg i.v.). Both treatments were administered for the first 2 days of 5-day dacarbazine chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) affected by melanoma and sarcoma were entered in the study. Complete protection against nausea and vomiting for the first 2 days of chemotherapy in both antiemetic regimens was not significantly different. Patient preference and tolerance of the two antiemetic treatments were similar. Regimen B, employing a lower dosage of metoclopramide and steroids and using a more simple schedule of administration should be the preferred treatment.

Long-term results in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma treated with a combination of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide.

From 1984 to 1988, thirty-nine untreated patients with epithelial ovarian cancer received Cisplatin 50 mg/m2, Doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and Cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 (CAP), at 3 weekly intervals. All patients had FIGO stage III or IV tumors except 2 patients with stage IIb and IIc, respectively. After initial surgery 23 patients had residual disease > 2 cm in diameter. Twenty-five patients (64%) were evaluable for response to chemotherapy. Objective responses were observed in 13 out of 25 patients (52%, 95% confidence intervals (CI), 32.42% to 71.58%), 6 patients had a cCR (24%) and 7 had a cPR (28%). Seventeen out of the 39 patients (44%) had a second-look laparotomy. A pCR was achieved in 5 out of 17 patients (29%); a pPR was obtained in 8 patients (47%). Median duration of survival was 41,5 months (range 2-107+); median duration of time to failure was 21 months (range 2-107+). Median disease-free survival was 86 months (range 3,5-107+). Eleven patients (28%) are alive and 9 patients (23%) are free of recurrence at median follow-up of 86 months. Only 4 of 11 long-term survivors had a pCR. In univariate analysis, histology, clinical response to chemotherapy, and the presence of ascites at the time of diagnosis, achieved a significant correlation with survival and time to failure (TTF); in addition, TTF was significantly affected by pathological response to induction chemotherapy. The only important predictors of disease-free survival (DFS) were tumor grade and stage of disease. In multivariate analysis, the presence of ascites was the only significant prognostic factor with respect to survival and TTF. Our study confirms the effectiveness of CAP in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer and the relatively poor long term prognosis.

Chemotherapy with cis-platin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP) in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Thirty-three evaluable patients with metastatic breast cancer (12 previously treated with adjuvant chemotherapy) were treated with a combination of cis-platin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP). cis-Platin was given intravenously, 20 mg/m2, on days 1-3, doxorubicin, 40 mg/m2 i.v., on day 1, and cyclophosphamide, 200 mg/m2 i.v., on days 1-3. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. A complete response (CR) was obtained in 3 patients (9%) and a partial response (PR) in 18 (54%). The highest response rate was observed in soft tissue and in liver metastases. Median response duration was 48 weeks and median survival 93 weeks. Toxicity was moderate and consisted of alopecia (100%), gastrointestinal toxicity (86%), and myelosuppression (60%). We conclude that this regimen is active in the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma, with a generally acceptable tolerance, but further evaluations in Phase III studies are required.

Molecular weight of chitosan influences antimicrobial activity in oil-in-water emulsions.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficiency of chitosans in oil-in-water emulsions. Model emulsions were prepared with 20% corn oil, 1.5% Tween 20, 1.5% Trypticase soy broth, 0.58% acetic acid, and chitosan polysaccharide or chitosan oligosaccharide in concentrations of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.7%. A control containing HCl was included to determine the role of acetic acid in the overall antibacterial activity. The pH of samples and controls was adjusted to 4.5. Emulsions were inoculated with Listeria monocytogenes (strains Scott A and 310) or Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 (strains 2486 and 2576) at a level of 10(7) CFU/ml. Inoculated emulsions were incubated at 10 and 25 degrees C for 4 days and analyzed for bacterial count every 24 h. Both tested Salmonella strains were more susceptible to acetic acid than Listeria. However, L. monocytogenes was more affected by chitosan than either Salmonella strain. During the storage at 25 degrees C, initial inoculum in the emulsions with 0.58% acetic acid and 0.1% chitosan polysaccharide was reduced to below the detection limits after 24, 48, 72, or 96 h for L. monocytogenes 310, Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 2576, Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 2486, or L. monocytogenes Scott A, respectively. Chitosan oligosaccharide was less effective against all tested bacteria and showed a concentration-dependent effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan was reduced at 10 degrees C, and reduction of microbial loads was delayed for approximately 24 h compared with 25 degrees C. Results suggest that addition of 0.1% chitosan polysaccharide would be sufficient to ensure the microbial safety of oil-in-water emulsions regardless of storage temperature.

[Recent improvements in antiemetic therapy]. / Ottimizzazione della terapia antiemetica.

In the past few years important progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has been made mainly thanks to the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in clinical practice (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron). In the prevention of acute emesis induced by cisplatin, an intravenous combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus single dose dexamethasone (20 mg) should be considered the treatment of choice. This is also the case in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (intravenous cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, carboplatin, used alone or in combination), but high and repeated doses of dexamethasone should be used (8 mg intravenously plus 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses starting contemporarily to chemotherapy administration). Several-well conducted double-blind comparative studies among intravenously administered 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been carried out. Almost all showed that they have identical antiemetic activity and tolerability. Therefore, the choice among 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should be based only on their acquisition cost in each country. In the prevention of delayed emesis (from day 2 to day 4) induced by cisplatin oral metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg or 20 mg every 6 hours for four doses daily) and oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily), both combined with dexamethasone, showed similar antiemetic efficacy. Metoclopramide plus dexamethasone should be considered the antiemetic regimen of choice due to its lower cost. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is a valid alternative regimen that should be preferred in patients who not tolerate metoclopramide and in patients who suffer from acute vomiting. In the prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy oral dexamethasone or oral ondansetron showed a good antiemetic efficacy, but the results from a recently published study seem suggest the necessity to treat only patients who present acute vomiting or moderate-severe nausea. In fact, patients obtaining complete protection from vomiting and nausea (or at most mild acute nausea) have a very low incidence of delayed emesis.

Evaluation of the antiemetic activity of bromopride in cancer patients treated with i.v. CMF.

In more than 70% of patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer with histologically positive lymph nodes, precautional therapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) causes nausea and vomiting. At the present time, the optimal antiemetic therapy has not been found. From May 1983 to March 1984, 35 patients, of whom 34 were evaluable, were entered in a randomized double blind antiemetic treatment with either bromopride (16 patients), a procainamide derivative structurally similar to metoclopramide, or placebo (18 patients). Bromopride (20 mg) and the placebo were administered in a 3-min i.v. injection half an hour before chemotherapy and at 3 1/2 and 7 1/2 following chemotherapy. A complete antiemetic protection was obtained in 9 patients (56.3%) treated with bromopride compared to 5 patients (27.8%) treated with the placebo. A major antiemetic (less than or equal to 2 vomiting episodes) was obtained in 3 patients (18.7%) treated with bromopride compared to 5 patients (27.8%) treated with the placebo. Statistical analysis showed a trend in favor of bromopride (P = 0.058). The most frequent side effect was sedation reported in 6 patients (37.5%) treated with bromopride and 2 patients (11.1%) treated with the placebo (P = 0.06). The study was interrupted when several patients presented vomiting episodes more than 12 h after CMF administration, and thus beyond the foreseeable protective effect of the antiemetic treatment. It is our opinion that the search for an optimal antiemetic regimen in the course of i.v. CMF therapy should consider the administration of antiemetic drugs at least until 12 h after chemotherapy.

Lonidamine in advanced colorectal cancer: a phase II study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (GOIRC).

Twenty-one patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, all previously treated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease, were treated with lonidamine (LDN). The major toxicity encountered was muscular (myalgias in 48%) and gastro-intestinal (nausea and/or vomiting in 52%). Other toxicities included abdominal pain, somnolence, fever, arthralgia and ototoxicity. In the 14 patients evaluable for response we observed no complete or partial remission, 8 stable disease and 6 progressive disease. LND has no clinically worthwhile activity against colorectal carcinoma refractory to conventional chemotherapy.

Results of a prospective study with high-dose etoposide, thiotepa and carboplatin and peripheral blood stem cell rescue for high-risk stage II-IIIA and selected stage IV breast cancer patients.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To investigate the safety and efficacy of a high-dose chemotherapy regimen with etoposide, carboplatin and thiotepa in high-risk stage II-IIIA breast cancer and in responsive metastatic patients. STUDY DESIGN: From April 1992 to December 1998, 24 patients with high-risk stage II-IIIA breast cancer (> or = 9 positive nodes) and 9 responsive metastatic patients were enrolled in the trial. After induction chemotherapy with an anthracycline-based regimen, peripheral blood stem cells were mobilized with cyclophosphamide (7 g/m2) and G-CSF (5-16 microg/kg/s.c./day). The high-dose chemotherapy regimen consisted of etoposide (1000 mg/m2), carboplatin (800 mg/m2) and thiotepa (500 mg/m2). At the end of the high-dose chemotherapy, all stage II-IIIA patients received radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall and draining nodes; stage IV patients were irradiated to sites of disease, if feasible. All ER+ and/or PgR+ patients were treated with hormone therapy. RESULTS: For stage II-IIIA high-risk patients, the median follow-up was 4.36 years (range, 1.93-6.94), and the Kaplan-Meier estimate at 5 years of disease-free survival and overall survival was 54.8 +/- 11% SE and 76.73 +/- 9.4% SE, respectively. For metastatic patients, the median follow-up was 4.93 years (range, 4.15-7.95), and the Kaplan-Meier estimate at 5 years of progression-free survival and overall survival was 22.2 +/- 13.9% SE and 76.2 +/- 14.8% SE, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are comparable to those obtained in other high-dose chemotherapy trials but do not seem to be superior to conventional-dose therapy given to similar patients.