[Evaluation of the 2.5 mg fentanyl patch, applied using the half-side application procedure in patients with cancer pain].

Occasionally, pain control with the fentanyl patch may lead to overdose at an initial dose of 2.5 mg, as well as during dose increase from 2.5 to 5.0 mg. Respiratory depression and other adverse drug reactions associated with fentanyl overdose have been observed in several of our patients. We developed a procedure for applying one-half of the fentanyl patch formulations and evaluated the new mode of application by examining the fentanyl concentration in 32 patients with cancer-related pain who had been using the fentanyl patch for pain control. While some patients were treated with the full-sized 2.5-, 5.0-, or 7.5-mg formulations, others were treated with the half-sized 2.5-mg formulation. The fentanyl patch was equally divided by drawing a line on the side on which the product name and dose were written. Tegaderm was applied to the patient's skin, and after detaching from the protective liner, half of the patch was applied to overlap Tegaderm along the line and the other half applied directly to the skin. Blood samples were collected 48-72 h after patch application. The mean serum concentration of fentanyl given in the half-sized 2.5-mg formulation was 0.286 ng/ml, which was approximately one-half of the concentration of the full-sized 2.5-mg formulation, 0.544 ng/ml. Therefore the 2.5-mg fentanyl patch, applied using the one-half procedure we developed, is clinically useful.

[Clinical significance of risedronate for patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy].

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer is associated with bone loss. We investigated the effectiveness of risedronate about a decreasing bone mineral density in patients with prostate cancer on ADT. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective study was conducted in Kitasato University Hospital from April 2004 to October 2006. A total of 69 men with prostate cancer were assigned to receive either oral risedronate or none during ADT (hormone naïve). The treatment group was 58 men and taking 2.5 mg risedronate per day. The control group was 11 men. At baseline, we assessed BMD (bone mineral density) by DEXA and urinary NTX, and measured for these changes every 6 months. RESULT: At baseline, each BMDs had no significant difference at the lumber and total hip. At the first 6-month stage, the change in BMD percentage between the 2 groups was statistically significantly different at lumber (p = 0.002) and total hip (p = 0.038). At the 12-month stage, the change in the BMD percentage between the 2 groups was statistically significantly different at the lumber (p = 0.038). And each difference made out that the risedronate group was preserving BMD. In urinary NTX, bone turn over was statistically significantly decreased with the risedronate group compared with the control group at the 12-month stage (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: We assure the beginning of bone loss at an early date (6 months) with ADT. Daily oral risedronate in patients with receiving ADT reduces bone mineral loss and maintain BMD.

Gemcitabine plus nedaplatin as salvage therapy is a favorable option for patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after two lines of chemotherapy.

This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of gemcitabine and nedaplatin therapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma previously treated with two lines of chemotherapy. Between February 2009 and August 2013, 30 patients were treated with gemcitabine and paclitaxel as a second-line chemotherapy. All had received a first-line chemotherapy consisting of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin. Ten patients who had measurable histologically proven advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder and upper urinary tract received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and nedaplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 2 as a third-line chemotherapy. Tumors were assessed by imaging every two cycles. The median number of treatment cycles was 3.5. One patient had partial response and three had stable disease. The disease-control rate was 40%, the median overall survival was 8.8 months and the median progression-free survival was 5.0 months. The median overall survival times for the first-line and second-line therapies were 29.1 and 13.9 months, respectively. Among disease-controlled patients (n=4), median overall survival was 14.2 months. Myelosuppression was the most common toxicity. There were no therapy-related deaths. Gemcitabine and nedaplatin chemotherapy is a favorable third-line chemotherapeutic option for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Given the safety and benefit profile seen in this study, further prospective trials are warranted given the implications of our results with regard to strategic chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Multidisciplinary treatment including systemic chemotherapy for a malignant phyllodes tumour of the prostate.

A 22-year-old man was referred to our hospital with macroscopic hematuria and consistent anal pain. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed an enlarged prostate tumour invading the bladder and rectum. A biopsy revealed an unclassified spindle cell sarcoma. Subsequently, radical cystoprostatectomy and resection of the rectum were performed. A histopathological examination revealed a prostatic malignant phyllodes tumour with a negative surgical margin. However, a local recurrence was identified 2 months after surgery. Induction therapy included 4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy comprising etoposide with ifosfamide and cisplatin. Although a partial response was observed at the local site, lung metastasis developed. Second-line chemotherapy with ifosfamide and doxorubicin with radiotherapy to the pelvis was administered and led to complete regression; however, its efficacy was transient. Although additional chemotherapy was administered, the patient eventually died due to the rapidly growing, recurrent tumour.

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: We report that a combination of gemcitabine and paclitaxel will effectively treat patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who have been previously treated with methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC). The objective of this study was to assess the tumor responses, toxicity, and overall survival of these patients as second-line treatment. METHODS: Ten eligible patients were enrolled in this study. All patients had been previously treated with MVAC. Patients received paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15. The treatment was repeated every 21 days. Tumors were assessed every two cycles by imaging study. RESULTS: The median number of treatment courses was 4 (range 2-7). Two patients had complete response and five patients had partial response after two courses of treatment. Median overall survival was 10.3 months. Median overall survival from the first MVAC was 19.1 months. Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months. Of the seven responders, median progression-free survival was 7.4 months. Myelosuppression was the most common toxicity. Nonhematologic toxicity consisted of hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel. There were no therapy-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy is a favorable therapeutic alternative for patients with advanced or metastatic UC who have previously been treated with MVAC chemotherapy. Given the safety and benefit profile seen in this study, a large prospective research study is warranted to consider the potential role of gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for urothelial cancer.