Hemibody irradiation in multiple myeloma.

Eighteen patients with multiple myeloma were treated by hemibody irradiation using large single fractions, usually to a dose of 10 Gy (lower half) and 7.5 Gy (upper half). All except one patient had previously been treated by multiple courses of conventional chemotherapy with melphalan and prednisone, and were considered to be resistant to further chemotherapy. In most cases, local field irradiation had also been given for symptomatic bone pain. Of the 13 patients who had symptoms at the start of hemibody irradiation, 11 improved sufficiently for their analgesia requirement to be reduced. In eight patients, there was a significant fall in circulating immunoglobulin but no patient with Bence-Jones proteinuria had complete resolution of this biochemical abnormality. Although thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were common, only two patients required platelet transfusion and the treatment was in general extremely well tolerated. Survival following hemibody irradiation was similar to the survival reported from the use of "second-line" chemotherapy and we feel that hemibody irradiation is a more acceptable alternative for most patients.

Hemibody irradiation. An effective second-line therapy in drug-resistance multiple myeloma.

The authors report the results of treatment of 41 patients with melphalan-resistant multiple myeloma using single half-body irradiation (HBI) or double half-body irradiation (DHBI). Patients were grouped using prognostic classification reported by the Medical Research Council. Patients in group I and II showed the best response to therapy with reduction in serum of urinary paraprotein and improvement in symptoms, most notably a marked reduction in bone pain. In these groups five patients have survived over 2 years after therapy. The therapeutic response appeared better in those patients who received DHBI as opposed to those whom treated with single HBI. Patients in group III did not achieve prolonged survival but effective relief of bone pain was a consistent finding in these patients also. Thus HBI represents an alternative to combination chemotherapy as second-line treatment of patients with melphalan-resistant multiple myeloma. A comparative study of HBI versus combination chemotherapy is now indicated to establish which therapeutic approach is most effective.

The effect of anastrozole on the pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen in post-menopausal women with early breast cancer.

Thirty-four post-menopausal women with early breast cancer who had received 20 mg tamoxifen once daily as adjuvant therapy for at least 10 weeks participated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial. The primary aim of the trial was to determine the effect of anastrozole upon tamoxifen pharmacokinetics, with secondary aims of assessing the tolerability of the two drugs in combination and whether or not tamoxifen had any effect upon the oestradiol suppression seen with anastrozole. Patients were randomized to receive either 1 mg anastrozole (16 patients) or matching placebo (18 patients) once daily on a double-blind basis for 28 days. No significant difference (P = 0.919) was observed in serum tamoxifen concentrations between the anastrozole and placebo groups during the trial. The serum concentration of oestradiol was significantly suppressed (P < 0.0001) in patients co-administered anastrozole compared with placebo in the presence of tamoxifen, confirming that anastrozole remained an effective suppressant of oestradiol in the presence of tamoxifen. The combination of tamoxifen and anastrozole was well tolerated, with very little difference in side-effects reported between anastrozole and placebo. In conclusion, the results of this study confirm that anastrozole does not affect the pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen when the two drugs are given in combination to post-menopausal women with early breast cancer. In addition, the oestradiol suppressant effects of anastrozole appear unaffected by tamoxifen.

Laser augmented by brachytherapy versus laser alone in the palliation of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and cardia: a randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced malignant dysphagia are not suitable for definitive treatment. The best option for palliation of dysphagia varies between patients. This paper looks at a simple technique for enhancing laser recanalisation. AIM: To assess the value of adjunctive brachytherapy in prolonging palliation of malignant dysphagia by endoscopic laser therapy. PATIENTS: Twenty two patients with advanced malignant dysphagia due to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or gastric cardia, unsuitable for surgery or radical chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Patients able to eat a soft diet after laser recanalisation were randomised to no further therapy or a single treatment with brachytherapy (10 Gy). Results were judged on the quality and duration of dysphagia palliation, need for subsequent intervention, complications, and survival. RESULTS: The median dysphagia score for all patients two weeks after initial treatment was 1 (some solids). The median dysphagia palliated interval from the end of initial treatment to recurrent dysphagia or death increased from five weeks (control group) to 19 weeks (brachytherapy group). Three patients had some odynophagia for up to six weeks after brachytherapy. There was no other treatment related morbidity or mortality. Further intervention was required in 10 of 11 control patients (median five further procedures) compared with 7/11 brachytherapy patients (median two further procedures). There was no difference in survival (median 20 weeks (control), 26 weeks (brachytherapy)). CONCLUSIONS: Laser therapy followed by brachytherapy is a safe, straightforward, and effective option for palliating advanced malignant dysphagia, which is complementary to stent insertion.

Laser and brachytherapy in the palliation of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and cardia.

BACKGROUND: Palliation of malignant dysphagia is possible by a variety of methods although all have significant drawbacks. Laser therapy is an effective and safe treatment but has to be repeated at four to five weekly intervals to maintain palliation. A means of augmenting the benefits while reducing the need for repeat treatments would be highly beneficial to these patients. AIMS: To prospectively explore the safety and efficacy of intraluminal radiotherapy (brachytherapy) when used to augment laser recanalisation for malignant dysphagia. PATIENTS: Nineteen patients with dysphagia due to advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or cardia were recruited. METHODS: All patients received laser recanalisation until able to swallow a soft diet or better, before the application of a single dose of brachytherapy (10 Gy at 1 cm from the source). Patients were followed up and treated promptly by further endoscopic means in the event of their dysphagia worsening. RESULTS: Six patients (32%) required no further treatment until death at a median of 10 weeks (range 1-20 weeks). Further therapy was required at a median of 11 weeks (range 4-37 weeks) after brachytherapy for those 13 patients with recurrent dysphagia. Subsequent symptom control required endoscopic intervention at an average of once every nine weeks. There was no mortality associated with laser or brachytherapy. Median survival from initial treatment and including the one survivor was 36 weeks (range 5-132 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Laser plus brachytherapy offers a safe and effective means of palliating malignant dysphagia due to adenocarcinoma, with a longer dysphagia free interval than historical controls treated with laser alone.