Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study.

This study is a randomized prospective study comparing two fracture fixation implants, the extramedullary sliding hip screw (SHS) and the dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail, in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. One hundred and sixty-five patients with low-energy intertrochanteric fractures, classified as AO/OTA 31A, were prospectively included during a 2-year period (2005-2006). Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included 79 hip fractures managed with sliding hip screws and group B included 86 fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails. Delay to surgery, duration of surgery, time of fluoroscopy, total hospital stay, implant-related complications, transfusion requirements, re-operation details, functional recovery, and mortality were recorded. The mean follow-up was 36 months (24-56 months). The mean surgical time was statistically significantly shorter and fluoroscopy time longer for the group B. No intraoperative femoral shaft fractures occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional recovery score, reoperation, and mortality rates between the 2 groups. A new type of complication, the so-called Z-effect phenomenon, was noticed in the cephalomedullary nail group. There are no statistically significant differences between the two techniques in terms of type and rate of complications, functional outcome, reoperation and mortality rates when comparing the SHS and the cephalomedullary nail for low-energy AO/OTA 31A intertrochanteric fractures. Our data do not support recommendations for the use of one implant over the other.

Phase II study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) and docetaxel as first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the activity and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD; Caelyx) and docetaxel combination as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with a median age of 63 years were treated with PLD 30 mg/m(2) (day 1) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (day 2) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Recombinant human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (rhG-CSF) could be used in patients with grade > or =3 neutropenia after the first cycle. RESULTS: Forty-two of 44 patients were assessable for response. The response rate (RR) was 64.3% (95% confidence interval 49.8% to 78.8%). Six patients (14.3%) achieved complete response (complete disappearance of all measurable and assessable disease lasting at least 4 weeks, no new lesions, no disease-related symptoms), partial response was observed in 21 patients (50%) > or =50% decrease of measureable disease lasting at least 4 weeks, no progression of assessable disease, no new lesions, no disease-related symptoms), eight patients had stable disease and seven patients progressive disease. Median disease-free and overall survival were not reached, but were in excess of 17 months (range 6-17 months). Twenty of the patients had received previous adjuvant chemotherapy (10 with epirubicin-containing regimen with a median cumulative dose of 400 mg/m(2)). Grade > or =3 neutropenia occurred in 18.4% and neutropenic fever in 9% of patients. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia was observed in four patients. Dose reduction was necessary in seven patients. Two patients discontinued treatment: one due to prolonged grade 3-4 neutropenia and one due to neurotoxicity. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PLD and docetaxel achieved high RRs with acceptable toxicity as first-line treatment in MBC.

Evidence for in vivo synergism between docetaxel and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The docetaxel and gemcitabine combination is active as salvage therapy in taxane-resistant/refractory patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We conducted a phase II study to determine if this activity is due to an in vivo synergistic effect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with measurable MBC, who were refractory or resistant to docetaxel monotherapy as first- or second-line treatment, were enrolled. Patients with progressive disease (PD) or stable disease (SD) after receiving at least four cycles of docetaxel received gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2 )on day 8, every 3 weeks. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor could be used prophylactically in patients who experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first cycle. RESULTS: Between January 1999 and March 2002, 173 courses of docetaxel and gemcitabine were administered to 50 patients. The median number of metastatic sites was two (range one to three). Forty-six percent of patients responded (three complete responses, 20 partial responses), whereas 28% had SD and 26% had PD. The median duration of response was 6.1 +/- 2.4 months. The median time to disease progression was 7.5 months (range 1-25) and the overall median survival was 15 months (range 3-57). Neutropenia was the only National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 4 toxicity (in seven patients). Hematological grade 3 toxicities included neutropenia in 12 patients, thrombocytopenia in seven and anemia in one, while non-hematological toxicities were mild and manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The high overall response rate of the docetaxel plus gemcitabine combination after docetaxel failure in patients with MBC can be attributed to an in vivo synergism between the two drugs. These data warrant confirmation in a randomized study.

A multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing paclitaxel-cisplatin-etoposide versus cisplatin-etoposide as first-line treatment in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous phase I-II studies have shown that the combination of paclitaxel-cisplatin-etoposide (TEP) is very active and well tolerated in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In order to compare the TEP combination to cisplatin etoposide (EP) regimen as front-line treatment in patients with SCLC, we conducted a randomised multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-three chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically proven limited or extensive stage SCLC were randomised to receive either paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 i.v. three-hour infusion on day 1 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 i.v. on days 2-4 with G-CSF support (5 mcg/kg s.c. days 5-15) or cisplatin 80 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1-3 in cycles every twenty-eight days. RESULTS: Due to excessive toxicity and mortality observed in the TEP arm, an early interim analysis was performed and the study was closed. Sixty-two patients received two hundred sixty-one cycles of TEP and seventy-one patients three hundred twenty-three cycles of EP The two patient groups were well balanced for age, sex, performance status, stage of disease and the presence of abnormal LDH at diagnosis. In an intention-to-treat overall analysis both regimens were equally active with a complete and partial response rate of 50% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.5%-62.4%) for TEP and 48% (95%) CI: 36.2%-59.5%) for EP (P = 0.8). The median time to disease progression was 11 months for TEP and 9 months for EP (P = 0.02). The duration of response, one-year survival and overall survival were similar in the two arms. Similarly, in an intention-to-treat subgroup analysis of patients with limited or extensive stage disease, there was no difference in the activity between the two regimens except of a longer median time to disease progression in the extensive stage in favour of the TEP regimen, eight versus six months (P = 0.04). However, there were eight toxic deaths in the TEP arm versus none in the EP arm (P = 0.001). Moreover, the TEP regimen was associated with more severe toxicity than the EP regimen in terms of grade 4 neutropenia (P = 0.04), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.02), febrile neutropenia (P = 0.08), grade 3-4 diarrhea (P = 0.01), grade 3-4 asthenia (P = 0.05) and grade 3 neurotoxicity (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this early terminated study, the TEP regimen was significantly more toxic than the EP regimen. The TEP regimen is associated with significant toxicity and mortality, and should not be used outside of a protocol setting. For future investigations, dose and schedule modifications are necessary to reduce toxicity.