Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.

In recent years, risk stratification has sparked interest as an innovative approach to disease screening and prevention. The approach effectively personalizes individual risk, opening the way to screening and prevention interventions that are adapted to subpopulations. The international perspective project, which is developing risk stratification for breast cancer, aims to support the integration of its screening approach into clinical practice through comprehensive tool-building. Policies and guidelines for risk stratification-unlike those for population screening programs, which are currently well regulated-are still under development. Indeed, the development of guidelines for risk stratification reflects the translational aspects of perspective. Here, we describe the risk stratification process that was devised in the context of perspective, and we then explain the consensus-based method used to develop recommendations for breast cancer screening and prevention in a risk-stratification approach. Lastly, we discuss how the recommendations might affect current screening policies.

Comparison of an orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet with the conventional ondansetron tablet for cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in cancer patients: a multicenter, double-masked study. Ondansetron Orally Disintegrating Tablet Emesis Study Group.

A total of 427 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide chemotherapy participated in this multicenter, double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized study comparing the antiemetic efficacy and safety of an 8-mg conventional ondansetron tablet (OT, n = 212) taken twice daily with an 8-mg orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet (ODT, n = 215) taken twice daily for 3 days. In the primary efficacy analysis, complete or major control of emesis (0 to 2 emetic episodes) between days 1 and 3 was seen in 80% of OT and 78% of ODT patients. The 90% confidence interval for the differences between treatments was -8.6% to 4.4% (defined interval of equivalence, +/-15%), showing that the formulations were equivalent. In the secondary efficacy analysis, no significant differences were observed in the rates of complete control of emesis (no episodes of emesis) over 3 days (63% and 64% of the respective groups) and on day 1 (84% and 81%, respectively) and in the complete control of nausea over 3 days (37% and 43%, respectively) and on day 1 (59% and 61% of patients, respectively). The taste of ODT was acceptable to the majority of patients (89%) who received it. OT and ODT were both well tolerated. Thus 8 mg ODT twice daily represents a palatable, well-tolerated, and effective antiemetic treatment for the control of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and nausea and provides equivalent treatment to OT 8 mg twice daily.

Two different schedules for integrating filgrastim as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving MOPP/ABV hybrid chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Management of advanced-stage Hodgkin's disease with a MOPP/ABV hybrid regimen (mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone, Adriamycin, bleomycin and vinblastine) has yielded a high complete response rate (75-85%). However, myelosuppression can limit delivery of treatment. Filgrastim has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-related neutropenia and allow for on-time administration of planned doses of chemotherapeutic agents. The objective of this study was to find the best way to integrate filgrastim with the MOPP/ABV hybrid regimen. METHODS: Enrolled in this study were 24 patients (aged 18-52 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically documented Hodgkin's disease. In schedule I, patients received filgrastim (5 microg/kg s.c. daily) beginning on day 9, 24 h after administration of ABV. In schedule II, patients received filgrastim concomitantly with procarbazine on days 2-7 (starting 24 h after day-1 MOPP administration and stopping 24 h before ABV administration) as well as after ABV beginning on day 9. Filgrastim after ABV administration was administered until two consecutive ANC readings of 10 x 10(9)/l were achieved. RESULTS: All patients were able to complete all six cycles of therapy. There was a trend to fewer dose reductions in schedule II (0.76%) as compared to schedule I (4.2%) with a P-value of 0.077 (chi-squared test). Specifically, 11.6% of MOPP courses and 5.5% of ABV courses were dose-reduced in schedule I versus 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, in schedule II. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, filgrastim was effective in supporting the delivery of the MOPP/ABV chemotherapy. Concomitant administration of filgrastim with procarbazine (days 2-7) appears to be safe and allows the maximum dose intensity of this therapy.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing enoxaparin with warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose enoxaparin and adjusted dose warfarin in preventing venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind controlled trial. SETTING: 8 university hospitals. PATIENTS: 670 consecutive patients who had knee arthroplasty. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (30 mg subcutaneously every 12 hours) or adjusted-dose warfarin (international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Both regimens were started after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the incidence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with adequate bilateral venograms; the secondary end point was hemorrhage. RESULTS: Among the 417 patients with adequate venograms, 109 of 211 warfarin recipients (51.7%) had deep venous thrombosis compared with 76 of 206 enoxaparin recipients (36.9%) (P = 0.003). The absolute risk difference was 14.8% in favor of enoxaparin (95% Cl, 5.3% to 24.1%) Twenty-two warfarin recipients (10.4%) and 24 enoxaparin recipients (11.7%) had proximal venous thrombosis (P>0.2). The absolute risk difference was 1.2% in favor of warfarin (Cl, -7.2% to 4.8%). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.8% (6 of 334 patients) in the warfarin group and 2.1% (7 of 336 patients) in the enoxaparin group (P>0.2). The absolute risk difference was 0.3% in favor of warfarin (Cl, -2.4% to 1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative, fixed-dose enoxaparin regimen is more effective than adjusted-dose warfarin in preventing deep venous thrombosis after knee arthroplasty. No differences were seen in the incidence of proximal venous thrombosis or clinically overt hemorrhage.