Blue and green ammonia production: A techno-economic and life cycle assessment perspective.

Blue and green ammonia production have been proposed as low-carbon alternatives to emissions-intensive conventional ammonia production. Although much attention has been given to comparing these alternatives, it is still not clear which process has better environmental and economic performance. We present a techno-economic analysis and full life cycle assessment to compare the economics and environmental impacts of blue and green ammonia production. We address the importance of time horizon in climate change impact comparisons by employing the Technology Warming Potential, showing that methane leakage can exacerbate the climate change impacts of blue ammonia in short time horizons. We represent a constrained renewable electricity availability scenario by comparing the climate change impact mitigation efficiency per kWh of renewable electricity. Our work emphasizes the importance of maintaining low natural gas leakage for sustainability of blue ammonia, and the potential for technological advances to further reduce the environmental impacts of photovoltaics-based green ammonia.

Cisplatin plus weekly vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the G.O.I.M. (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale).

PURPOSE: A phase III randomized trial was carried out to compare two schedules of the vinorelbine (VNR)-cisplatin (CDDP) regimen in patients with locally advanced unresectable poor prognosis stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and analysis of toxicity, while secondary endpoints included response rates, time-to-progression (TTP) and quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to receive: (a) VNR 25mg/m(2) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus CDDP 100mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks or (b) VNR 30 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8 plus CDDP 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy-naïve and had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1. RESULTS: Overall 278 patients were enrolled into the trial. Overall response rate was 34% (95% CL 26-42%) in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm, and 32% (95% CL 24-40%) in patients treated with day 1-8 VNR/CDDP without any statistically significant difference. Median TTP was 4.5 and 4.6 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. This difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p=0.818). Median OS was 9.45 and 10 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one without statistically a significant difference (log-rank test, p=0.259). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 31 and 36%, and 10 and 11% respectively. The incidence of severe neutropenia (34% versus 68%; p=0.0001) and of febrile neutropenia (5% versus 12%; p=0.026), as well as the rate of therapy omissions (10% versus 24%; p=0.0037) were higher in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm than in the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. The weekly VNR/CDDP regimen was associated with a lower received dose intensity in a statistically significant fashion (9% versus 22%; p=0.0001) and with a lower non-statistically significant quality of life score as compared to the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of day 1-8 VNR plus CDDP every 3 weeks is less toxic and better tolerated than the regimen of weekly VNR plus CDDP every 4 weeks. The two schedules are equivalent in terms of overall response rate, median time-to-progression and overall survival. The combination of VNR on day 1-8 plus CDDP every 3 weeks may be considered as a reference regimen for the treatment of patients with advanced disease and those who deserve a postoperative therapy, and for future studies.

Role of gemcitabine in metastatic breast cancer patients: a short review.

Many active cytotoxic drugs, given according to a number of different regimens are approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients. However, these therapies have not changed the outcome of patients affected by this malignancy. As a consequence, the balance between chemotherapy-induced side effects and relief of cancer-related symptoms must be carefully considered in this setting. Gemcitabine is an antimetabolite that is incorporated as a triphosphate into DNA. As a single agent, it yields responses rates ranging from 14% to 37% in chemotherapy-naïve patients and from 12% to 30% in patients previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes. In combination with paclitaxel, it produces a significantly higher response rate (41.4% vs. 26.2%), longer time to progression (6.1 vs. 4 months) and significantly higher overall survival (18.6 vs. 15.8 months) than paclitaxel alone. In addition, a phase III study revealed that gemcitabine plus docetaxel is as effective as capecitabine plus docetaxel, but causes significantly less non-haematologic toxicity. Lastly, in another phase III trial, progression free survival was significantly longer with the combination of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine than with vinorelbine alone (6 vs. 4 months), but without a significant difference in overall survival; the incidence of haematologic toxicity was higher in the group treated with combined therapy. Novel gemcitabine combinations are being investigated in phase II studies.

Correlation between variation in quality of life and change in hemoglobin level after treatment with epoetin alfa 40,000 IU administered once-weekly.

INTRODUCTION: Anemia is frequently associated with cancer due to the disease itself and antineoplastic treatments. This open-label, uncontrolled, multi-center study evaluated the effects of once-weekly (qw) epoetin alfa 40,000 IU on hemoglobin (Hb) levels and quality of life (QoL) in anemic patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 522 patients with Hb level < or =12 g/dL received epoetin alfa 40,000 IU qw subcutaneously for 9-20 weeks to reach and maintain Hb range of 12-14 g/dL. QoL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An [anemia sub-scale]) and Cancer Linear Analogue Scale (CLAS) at study entry, after two chemotherapy cycles, and at study end. RESULTS: Mean baseline Hb was 10.43 g/dL. Hb increases (g/dL) from baseline after 4, 8, 12 weeks and at study end were 1.07, 1.77, 1.92 and 1.71 g/dL, respectively. Response rates (Hb increase > or =1 and > or =2 g/dL during trial) were 81% and 61%, respectively. Mean increases in the FACT-An score from baseline (mean 55.4) were 3.1 after two chemotherapy cycles and 3.3 at study end; mean increases in the CLAS score from baseline (58.4 mm) were 5.9 mm after two chemotherapy cycles and 6.5 mm at study end. DISCUSSION: The greatest QoL increase was recorded when patients approached Hb level of 12 g/dL, independent of the baseline Hb level. Hb changes from baseline to trial end were related to corresponding changes in the FACT-An score. A positive correlation was also observed in patients with progressive disease. Adverse events were essentially those associated with chemotherapy. Incidence of thrombovascular events (6.7%) did not differ from the expected standard treatment in cancer patients. Epoetin alfa 40,000 IU qw increased Hb levels and improved or preserved QoL.

Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell'Italia Meridionale.

PURPOSE: We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan, leucovorin (LV), and fluorouracil (FU) regimen (FOLFIRI) versus the oxaliplatin, LV, and FU regimen (FOLFOX4) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive, every 2 weeks, either arm A (FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m(2) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) were 31% in arm A (95% CI, 24.6% to 38.3%) and 34% in arm B (95% CI, 27.2% to 41.5%; P = .60). In both arms A and B, median time to progression (TTP; 7 v 7 months, respectively), duration of response (9 v 10 months, respectively), and overall survival (OS; 14 v 15 months, respectively) were similar, without any statistically significant difference. Toxicity was mild in both groups: alopecia and gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common toxicities in arm A; thrombocytopenia and neurosensorial were the most common toxicities in arm B. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were uncommon in both arms, and no statistical significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of fixed versus weight-based dosing of epoetin alpha in anemic cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

Fixed dosing is potentially more convenient than weight-based dosing for both patients and physicians. Therefore, this open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter study was conducted to compare the effectiveness, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of fixed vs. weight-based dosing of epoetin alpha in anemic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Five hundred forty-six anemic patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy for solid malignancies were enrolled. Patients received epoetin alpha, either a fixed dose of 10,000 IU or a weight-based dose of 150 IU/kg, administered subcutaneously 3 times weekly for up to 12 weeks. Endpoints were transfusion requirements over days 29-84, change in hemoglobin (Hb) level from baseline, and change in quality-of-life (QOL) scores from baseline as measured using the Cancer Linear Analog Scale (CLAS). Five hundred and thirty-two patients received at least 1 dose of epoetin alpha, and 510 of these (255 in each treatment group) were considered evaluable for efficacy. At day 84, rates for freedom from transfusion were similar between the fixed-dose and the weight-based dose group (84% vs. 87%, respectively, p=0.32), as calculated by the lifetable method. These rates were also similar between patients in the 45-63 kg weight group receiving the fixed 10,000 IU dose or 7,000-9,000 IU on a per-weight basis (83% vs. 87%, respectively), and those in the 70-100 kg weight group receiving the fixed 10,000 IU dose or 11,000-15,000 IU on a per-weight basis (85% vs. 83%, respectively). Mean Hb increases from baseline to last observation were 2.10 g/dl [95% confidence intervals (CI95) 1.85-2.35] in the 10,000 IU group (from 9.64-11.74 g/dl) and 2.06 g/dl (CI95 1.82-2.30) in the 150 IU/kg group (from 9.70-11.76 g/dl). QOL results were similar for both groups and cumulative data have been reported. For 275 patients (in both groups combined) with CLAS QOL scores both at baseline and 29-98 days thereafter, the QOL index (average of scores for the 3 QOL parameters: energy level, ability to do daily activities and overall QOL) increased by 10.4 mm (CI95 7.5-13.2), from 46.2 mm at baseline to 56.6 mm at the final observation. QOL improvements were directly associated with Hb increases (p<0.001, multiple linear regression analysis) within all chemotherapy response classes. Epoetin alpha was well tolerated in both groups. Fixed (10,000 IU) and weight-based (150 IU/kg) dosing regimens of epoetin alpha demonstrated similar efficacy in maintaining freedom from transfusion, increasing Hb levels, and improving QOL in anemic cancer patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy. QOL improvements were directly associated with Hb increases. These findings support the use of a fixed-dose regimen of epoetin alpha, which may offer greater convenience for physicians and patients than weight-based dosing with this agent.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin versus ifosfamide+gemcitabine followed by vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin followed by ifosfamide and gemcitabine in stage IIIB-IV non small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

PURPOSE: we carried out a phase III randomized trial to compare vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen to gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen, and to a sequential administration of gemcitabine-ifosfamide followed by vinorelbine-cisplatin or the opposite sequence of vinorelbine-cisplatin followed by ifosfamide-gemcitabine according to the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was survival parameters, while secondary endpoints included analysis of response rates and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: patients were randomized to receive: (a) gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus ifosfamide 1500 mg/m(2) on days 8-12 with mesna uroprotection (GI regimen) followed by vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GI --> VC regimen); (b) the opposite sequence (VC --> GI); (c) vinorelbine plus cisplatin as above described (VC regimen); or (d) gemcitabine 1400 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 8 (GC regimen). All regimens were given every 4 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy naive and had a ECOG PS 0-2. RESULTS: 400 patients were enrolled into the trial. Interim analysis after inclusion of 243 patients showed that ORR were 19% in the GI --> VC arm, 32% in the inverse sequence arm (CV --> GI), 42% in the VC arm, and 30% in the GC arm. The VC arm was statistically superior over the GI --> VC arm (p = 0.0074), but not over the other regimens. Median TTP was 3.1 months in the GI --> VC arm versus 5.0 months in the VC --> GI arm (p = 0.014). For these reasons the GI --> VC and VC --> GI arm were closed since the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis was rejected. Accrual in the VC and GC arms continued up to 140 and 138 patients respectively. Final ORR were 44% for the VC regimen (4 CR), and 34% for the GC regimen (1 CR). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.032). OS was 9.0 and 8.2 months, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. The 1-year survival rate was 24 and 20%, respectively for VC and GC regimens. As expected the incidence of phlebitis was higher in the VC arm, while thrombocytopenia, flu-like syndrome and asthenia were more frequent in the GC arm. CONCLUSIONS: the results of this trial indicate that the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin and that of gemcitabine and cisplatin are equivalent in terms of median TTP and OS, although the vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen is associated with a higher ORR. Both regimens may be considered as reference treatments for future studies. Moreover, our data reject the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis of sequential treatments in NSCCL at least with the combination used in this study.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel every 2 weeks in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

INTRODUCTION: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the gold standard in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although with relevant toxic effects. Both docetaxel (DCT) and gemcitabine (GEM) have shown activity as single agent in advanced NSCLC with a different toxicity profile and a lack of cross-resistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 2000 to May 2001, 47 consecutive patients were enrolled in a multicenter phase II trial. Main inclusion criteria included untreated patients with histologically confirmed NSCLC, age

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: To compare a regimen of vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) to the combination of mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main endpoits were analysis of objective response rates, toxicity, time to progression, and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 247 eligible patients were randomized to receive (a) vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks, or (b) mitomycin c 8 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, vindesine 3 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks. In subsequent cycles vindesine was given every other week. For both treatments a maximum of six cycles was planned. Patients with performance status 0-2 according to the ECOG scale were enrolled. Response and toxicity were evaluated according to the WHO criteria. Analysis of clinical efficacy was performed according to an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy were observed between the two chemotherapy regimens. The overall objective response rates were 39% (95% CL, 31-49%) in the VC arm and 42% (95% CL, 33-51%) in the MVP arm (P=0.13). Median time to progression was 4.2 and 4.5 months for the MVP arm and the VC arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 7 months in the VC arm and 8 months in the MVP one (log-rank test, P=0.898). These differences were not statistically significant. However, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly higher in the MVP arm than in the VC (P=0.0001; P=0.0002). Grade 3 alopecia was more frequent in the MVP arm than in the VC one (P<0.001), which was associated with higher rate of phlebitis (P=0.037). CONCLUSION: Data achieved in this study suggest that the vinorelbine-cisplatin doublet is similar to the three-drug MVP regimen in term of overall response rate, time to progressive disease, and overall survival. However, hematological toxicity and alopecia are more frequent and severe in the MVP regimen which therefore appears to be less tolerable than the VC regimen. The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin may be considered as a reference treatment for future studies on the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

First-line treatment with epirubicin and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II multicenter trial was aimed at investigating the activity of epirubicin-vinorelbine combination as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with metastatic breast cancer and no prior exposure to anthracyclines received the following regimen: epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) by intravenous (IV) bolus infusion on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) by 30-minute IV infusion on days 1 and 5, every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. All patients also received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G- CSF) on days 7 to 12 of every cycle. RESULTS: Objective responses, confirmed at least 4 weeks after the first documentation, were observed in 65 out of 92 assessable patients (70.6%; 95% CI, 62% to 80%). Disease remained stable in 17 patients (18.5%). Responses were observed in all disease sites, being 94% in soft tissue, 60% in bone, and 66% in visceral disease. Median time to response, median duration of response, median time to progression, and median overall survival were 2, 9, 10, and 26 months, respectively. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia, which was grade 4 in 36% of the patients, and was accompanied by fever in 26% of the cases. Grade 3 to 4 mucositis was encountered in 28% of the patients. Other toxicities were mild to moderate. No cardiotoxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: The epirubicin-vinorelbine combination with G-CSF support has been shown in this study to be highly active as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients, with significant although transient toxicity. This justifies further evaluation in the neoadjuvant setting and in early-stage breast cancer.