Impact of a 2-Week Oncology Placement on Medical Students' Perception of Cancer.

Statistics show that more than one in two people born after 1960 in the UK will develop cancer during their lifetime. However, a 2013 study found that only 36 % of UK medical schools offer dedicated clinical teaching in oncology. The aim of this study was to assess the views of medical students on five domains of oncology before and after their first clinical placement, to assess the impact, and to obtain students' views on the oncology curriculum. A 28-item questionnaire was developed to compare responses before and after the students' first 2-week clinical placement, and impact was measured as a positive or negative deviation from a baseline response. Students were asked about their career intentions and to evaluate their received teaching. Thirty-six (80 %) students responded to the questionnaire. The largest areas of change were identified in students' confidence in breaking bad news, recognising red flag symptoms, and awareness of the complications of cancer management. Following their placement, 19 students said they would consider a career in oncology, 14 said they would not, and 2 were undecided. Students stated that Maggie's Centre, a patient support facility, was the most useful learning experience. The evidence demonstrates that all students should experience oncology in a variety of settings to aid their learning. Student feedback and perception can help to guide and shape medical teaching.

Randomized trial of two intravenous schedules of the topoisomerase I inhibitor liposomal lurtotecan in women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: a trial of the national cancer institute of Canada clinical trials group.

PURPOSE: Liposomal lurtotecan (OSI-211) is a liposomal formulation of the water-soluble topoisomerase I inhibitor lurtotecan (GI147211), which demonstrated superior levels of activity compared with topotecan in preclinical models. We studied two schedules of OSI-211 in a randomized design in relapsed ovarian cancer to identify the more promising of the two schedules for further study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable epithelial ovarian, fallopian, or primary peritoneal cancer that was recurrent after one or two prior regimens of chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either arm A (OSI-211 1.8 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks) or arm B (OSI-211 2.4 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). The primary outcome measure was objective response, which was confirmed by independent radiologic review, and a pick the winner statistical design was used to identify the schedule most likely to be superior. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were randomized between October 2000 and September 2001. The hematologic toxic effects were greater on arm A than on arm B (grade 4 neutropenia, 51% v 22%, respectively), as was febrile neutropenia (26% v 2.4%, respectively). Of the 80 eligible patients, eight patients (10%) had objective responses; six responders (15.4%; 95% CI, 6% to 30%) were in arm A and two responders (4.9%; 95% CI, 1% to 17%) were in arm B. CONCLUSION: The OSI-211 daily for 3 days intravenous schedule met the statistical criteria to be declared the winner in terms of objective response. This schedule was also associated with more myelosuppression than the schedule of OSI-211 administered in arm B.

Differentiation and definition of vascular-targeted therapies.

The therapeutic potential of targeting the tumor vascular supply is now widely recognized. Intense research and development activity has resulted in a variety of investigational agents, a number of which are currently in clinical development. As these novel agents are quite distinct from the cytotoxic drugs conventionally used in the treatment of solid tumors, it will be particularly important to ensure early differentiation of these vascular-targeted therapies in order to encourage widespread understanding of their potential benefits and application in the clinic. Two distinct groups of vascular-targeted therapies have evolved: antiangiogenic agents and vascular-disrupting approaches. These differ in three key respects: their physiologic target, the type or extent of disease that is likely to be susceptible, and the treatment scheduling. Inhibitors of angiogenesis interfere with new vessel formation and therefore have a preventative action, require chronic administration, and are likely to be of particular benefit in early-stage or asymptomatic metastatic disease. Vascular-disrupting agents target the established tumor blood vessels, resulting in tumor ischemia and necrosis. These agents are therefore given acutely, show more immediate effects, and may have particular efficacy against advanced disease. It is essential that these agents can be readily distinguished from conventional therapies and that an understanding of key differences between the two types of vascular-targeted therapies is fostered. Here, a simple taxonomy and nomenclature is proposed in anticipation that the therapeutic potential of this novel class can be realized as these approaches advance in clinical settings and a new anticancer strategy becomes available in the clinic.

Pemetrexed combined with oxaliplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To determine efficacy and toxicity of two pemetrexed-based regimens in chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 120 mg/m(2) (PemOx) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin AUC6 (PemCb). All drugs were given on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for up to six cycles. Folic acid and vitamin B(12) were given to all patients to minimize pemetrexed-related toxicities. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received PemOx and 39 received PemCb. Objective tumor response rates were 26.8% for PemOx patients (95% confidence interval, 14.2-42.9) and 31.6% for PemCb patients (95% confidence interval, 17.5-48.7). Median time to progression was 5.5 and 5.7 months, respectively, for PemOx and PemCb. Median overall survival times were 10.5 months for both treatment groups (range, <1 to >20 months). The 1-year survival rate was 49.9% for PemOx patients and 43.9% for PemCb patients. Common toxicity criteria grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities among PemOx patients were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (7.3%), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (2.4%), and grade 3 anemia (2.4%). PemCb patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (25.6%), grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (17.9%), and grade 3 anemia (7.7%). Grade 3 vomiting occurred in three PemOx patients and grade 3 fatigue occurred in three PemCb patients. One grade 3 neurosensory toxicity occurred in the PemOx group. Three patients (PemOx 1 and PemCb 2) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy measures for both regimens seem similar to the most effective chemotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (platinum combinations) with less hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. Comparing either of these two regimens to platinum-based therapies in a large randomized trial is warranted.