A randomized study to compare sequential chemoradiotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for unresectable locally advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy can improve outcome in locally advanced esophageal cancer. AIM: This study aimed to compare efficacy and toxicity between concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) in unresectable, locally advanced, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESSC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with unresectable, locally advanced ESCC were randomized into two arms. In the CCRT arm (Arm A), 17 patients received 50.4 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction over 5.6 weeks along with concurrent cisplatin (75 mg m(-2) intravenously on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil (1000 mg m(-2) continuous intravenous infusion on days 1-4 starting on the first day of irradiation and given after 28 days. In the SCRT arm (Arm B), 20 patients received two cycles of chemotherapy, using the same schedule, followed by radiotherapy fractionated in a similar manner. The endpoints were tumor response, acute and late toxicities, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 12.5 months, the complete response rate was 82.4% in Arm A and 35% in Arm B (P = 0.003). Statistically significant differences in frequencies of acute skin toxicity (P = 0.016), gastrointestinal toxicity (P = 0.005) and late radiation pneumonitis (P = 0.002) were found, with greater in the CCRT arm. A modest but non-significant difference was observed in median time to recurrence among complete responders in the two arms (Arm A 13 months and Arm B 15.5 months, P = 0.167) and there was also no significant difference between the Kaplan Meier survival plots (P = 0.641) of disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to sequential chemoradiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy can significantly improve local control rate but with greater risk of adverse reactions.

Primary Lymphoepithelioma-like Carcinoma of the Lung in a 13 year old Girl.

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma, a large cell carcinoma with pronounced lymphocyte infiltration, is a rare entity mostly seen in the nasopharynx. But primary pulmonary LELC in children & adolescents is extremely rare. Here we present a 13 year old girl with chief complaint of fever, cough, shortness of breath and heaviness in the left side of chest. She underwent left upper lobectomy. Histopathological examination of the biopsy specimen confirmed it to be a case of large cell carcinoma of lung, lymphoepithelioma type, invading pleura (stage pT3N0M0) with high serum titre of anti Epstein-Barr virus IgG antibody.

Adverse drug reaction profile of nanoparticle versus conventional formulation of paclitaxel: An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Conventional polyethoxylated castor oil (PCO)-based paclitaxel is associated with major adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Nanoxel, a nanoparticle-based formulation, may improve its tolerability by removing the need for PCO vehicle, and also permit its use in a higher dose. We conducted intensive monitoring of the ADR profile of Nanoxel in comparison with conventional paclitaxel in a public tertiary care set-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ADR data were collected from 10 patients receiving Nanoxel and 10 age-matched controls receiving conventional paclitaxel in this longitudinal observational study, conducted in a medical oncology ward over 18 months. Severity was graded as per US National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: The groups had comparable demography at baseline. The median disease duration and per cycle median dose of paclitaxel were greater in the Nanoxel arm. Total 119 ADRs were noted with Nanoxel and 123 with conventional paclitaxel. Of these, 25 (21.0%, 95% CI 13.69-28.33%) in the Nanoxel and 20 (16.2%, 95% CI 9.74-22.78%) in paclitaxel group were of grade 3/4 severity. Common events included myalgia, nausea, anemia, paresthesia, alopecia, diarrhea, and vomiting with Nanoxel, and paresthesia, anemia, myalgia, anorexia, alopecia, vomiting, diarrhea, stomatitis, and nausea with paclitaxel. Of the less common events (<5%), grade 2 or 3 arthralgia was seen exclusively with Nanoxel while motor neuropathy with muscular weakness was more frequent and severe with conventional paclitaxel. Hypersensitivity reactions were not encountered in either arm, although no antiallergy premedication was employed for Nanoxel. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its ADR profile being statistically comparable to conventional paclitaxel, this observational study suggests that Nanoxel tolerability could be better, considering that a significantly higher dose was employed. This hypothesis needs confirmation through an interventional study.

Double-blind crossover study to assess potential differences in cytochrome P450 3A4 activity in healthy subjects receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone, with and without aprepitant.

PURPOSE: Because glucocorticoids and the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant influence CYP3A4 activity, this study assessed whether aprepitant added to a 5-HT(3) antagonist and glucocorticoid would affect CYP3A4 induction. METHODS: In this double-blind, 2-period crossover study, 12 subjects were randomized to receive a triple regimen (oral aprepitant [A] 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron [O] 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone [D] 12 mg day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg days 2-3; D 8 mg day 4) in 1 of 2 periods, and a dual regimen (O 32 mg and D 20 mg day 1; D 8 mg bid days 2-4); the D dose was adjusted to account for known dexamethasone/aprepitant interaction. Oral (2 mg) and intravenous (1 mg) stable isotope ((13)C(5) (15)N(1))-labeled midazolam were simultaneously given as probes on days -1, 6, 8, 15, and 22 of each period. If the a priori 90% confidence interval for the day 6 geometric mean oral midazolam AUC(0-∞) ratio (triple/dual regimen) of fold-change from baseline was above 0.5, it would be concluded that there was no clinically meaningful between-regimen difference in CYP3A4 activity. RESULTS: Day 6 oral midazolam AUC(0-∞) geometric mean fold-change from baseline was 0.84 (0.30-1.58 with A, 0.46-1.69 without A). The ratio of geometric mean oral midazolam AUC(0-∞) fold-changes was 1.00 (90% confidence interval 0.80, 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant plus a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone is unlikely to have a significant additional inductive effect on CYP3A4 activity beyond that of the dual regimen.

Comparison of vinorelbine with cisplatin in concomitant chemoradiotherapy in head and neck carcinoma.

AIM: Head and neck cancer is one of the most commonly occurring malignancies in the world. In India, the most commonly occurring head and neck cancers are those of the oral cavity and the pharynx. The majority of these cancers present with stage III/IV disease. Surgery and radiation therapy are the main treatment modalities. Concomitant chemoradiation is being investigated with the goal of improved local control that translates into improved survival. In this background, we have started this prospective randomized trial to ascertain the dose, schedule and sequence of therapy and to note whether Vinorelbine as radiosensitizer is equally effective as Cisplatin, comparing compliance, local control and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients of advanced head and neck cancer were randomized into two arms. Arm A received weekly injection Cisplatin 40mg/m(2) along with radiation. Arm B received weekly injection of Vinorelbine 6mg/m(2) along with radiation. Radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 6,600-7,000 Gy in conventional fractionation in a telecobalt machine. RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rate was higher in arm B (90%) than in arm A (70%). Major toxicities included neutropenia, anemia, mucositis and nausea. CONCLUSION: Concomitant chemoradiation with Vinorelbine produced more CR than chemoradiation with Cisplatin in advanced head and neck cancer. Toxicities were more in the Cisplatin arm, but they were manageable. Although a majority of the study was performed using Cisplatin as the radiosensitizer, Vinorelbine can be recommended as radiosensitizer in advanced head and neck malignancy.

A prospective and randomized study of radiotherapy, sequential chemotherapy radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy-radiotherapy in unresectable non small cell carcinoma of the lung.

PURPOSE: Treatment of advanced Non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often produces dismal results. Combination of available treatment modalities has reportedly improved the outcome. A prospectively randomized trial was conducted, comparing combined treatment modalities versus radiotherapy alone, in treatment of unresectable NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 103 patients were randomized to three groups. In group 'A', 32 patients received radiotherapy alone (6500 cGy/30 fraction). In group 'B', 35 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and Etoposide 100 mg/m day 1-3 intravenously q3 weeks for 3 cycles), followed by radiotherapy (6000 cGy/30 fractions) and 3 more cycles of Chemotherapy, with the same regimen. In group 'C', 36 patients received radiotherapy (5000 cGy/25 fractions) with concurrent chemotherapy (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 + Etoposide 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1-5 and day 22-26), followed by 2 more cycles of chemotherapy, q3 weeks with the same regimen. RESULTS: Initial treatment responses were significantly higher in group 'B' (P < 0.05) and 'C' (P < 0.03), compared to group 'A'. Follow-up observations showed, that addition of chemotherapy brought down distant metastasis's from 62.5% (group 'A') to 48.6% (group 'B') and 44.4% (group 'C'). The median time to tumour progression also improved from 16 months (Group 'A') to 21 months (Group 'B' and 'C'). But 2 year follow up did not show any survival benefit. Acute toxicities were more frequent in group 'B' and 'C', but were manageable. CONCLUSION: Addition of chemotherapy with radiation in unresectable NSCLC improves response rates, time to tumour progression and disease free survival, though the same effect is not translated in overall survival.

Lack of effect of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that is effective for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In vitro, aprepitant is a moderate inhibitor of the CYP3A4 enzyme, which is involved in the clearance of several chemotherapeutic agents. In this study we examined the potential for aprepitant to affect the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of intravenously administered docetaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent that is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4. METHODS: A total of 11 cancer patients (4 male, 7 female, aged 50-68 years) were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study. Patients received a single infusion of docetaxel monotherapy, 60-100 mg/m(2), on two occasions at least 3 weeks apart. During one of the cycles (treatment A), patients received docetaxel alone. During the alternate cycle (treatment B), they also received aprepitant 125 mg orally 1 h prior to docetaxel infusion (day 1), and a single oral dose of aprepitant 80 mg on days 2 and 3. The pharmacokinetic profile of docetaxel was assessed over 30 h following docetaxel infusion. Blood counts were monitored on days 1, 4, 7, and 14. RESULTS: Ten patients completed the study. Concomitant administration of aprepitant did not cause any statistically or clinically significant changes in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. Values for docetaxel alone (treatment A) versus docetaxel with aprepitant (treatment B) were as follows: geometric mean AUC(0-last) was 3.26 vs 3.17 microg h/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.97); geometric mean AUC(0-infinity) 3.51 vs 3.39 microg h/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.96); geometric mean C(max) was 3.53 vs 3.37 microg/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.95); and geometric mean plasma clearance was 23.3 vs 24.2 l/h/m(2) (P>0.25; ratio B/A 1.04). The corresponding harmonic mean half-life values were 10.1 and 8.5 h. The two treatment regimens had similar tolerability profiles; the median absolute neutrophil count nadirs were 681/mm(3) during treatment with docetaxel alone and 975/mm(3) during aprepitant coadministration. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant had no clinically significant effect on either the pharmacokinetics or toxicity of standard doses of docetaxel in cancer patients. Aprepitant at clinically recommended doses may have a low potential to affect the pharmacokinetics of intravenous chemotherapeutic agents metabolized by CYP3A4.