PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Basurto

Publications and source records attributed to C Basurto.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Long-term results in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma treated with a combination of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide.

From 1984 to 1988, thirty-nine untreated patients with epithelial ovarian cancer received Cisplatin 50 mg/m2, Doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and Cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 (CAP), at 3 weekly intervals. All patients had FIGO stage III or IV tumors except 2 patients with stage IIb and IIc, respectively. After initial surgery 23 patients had residual disease > 2 cm in diameter. Twenty-five patients (64%) were evaluable for response to chemotherapy. Objective responses were observed in 13 out of 25 patients (52%, 95% confidence intervals (CI), 32.42% to 71.58%), 6 patients had a cCR (24%) and 7 had a cPR (28%). Seventeen out of the 39 patients (44%) had a second-look laparotomy. A pCR was achieved in 5 out of 17 patients (29%); a pPR was obtained in 8 patients (47%). Median duration of survival was 41,5 months (range 2-107+); median duration of time to failure was 21 months (range 2-107+). Median disease-free survival was 86 months (range 3,5-107+). Eleven patients (28%) are alive and 9 patients (23%) are free of recurrence at median follow-up of 86 months. Only 4 of 11 long-term survivors had a pCR. In univariate analysis, histology, clinical response to chemotherapy, and the presence of ascites at the time of diagnosis, achieved a significant correlation with survival and time to failure (TTF); in addition, TTF was significantly affected by pathological response to induction chemotherapy. The only important predictors of disease-free survival (DFS) were tumor grade and stage of disease. In multivariate analysis, the presence of ascites was the only significant prognostic factor with respect to survival and TTF. Our study confirms the effectiveness of CAP in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer and the relatively poor long term prognosis.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

[Recent improvements in antiemetic therapy].

In the past few years important progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has been made mainly thanks to the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in clinical practice (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron). In the prevention of acute emesis induced by cisplatin, an intravenous combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus single dose dexamethasone (20 mg) should be considered the treatment of choice. This is also the case in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (intravenous cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, carboplatin, used alone or in combination), but high and repeated doses of dexamethasone should be used (8 mg intravenously plus 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses starting contemporarily to chemotherapy administration). Several-well conducted double-blind comparative studies among intravenously administered 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been carried out. Almost all showed that they have identical antiemetic activity and tolerability. Therefore, the choice among 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should be based only on their acquisition cost in each country. In the prevention of delayed emesis (from day 2 to day 4) induced by cisplatin oral metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg or 20 mg every 6 hours for four doses daily) and oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily), both combined with dexamethasone, showed similar antiemetic efficacy. Metoclopramide plus dexamethasone should be considered the antiemetic regimen of choice due to its lower cost. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is a valid alternative regimen that should be preferred in patients who not tolerate metoclopramide and in patients who suffer from acute vomiting. In the prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy oral dexamethasone or oral ondansetron showed a good antiemetic efficacy, but the results from a recently published study seem suggest the necessity to treat only patients who present acute vomiting or moderate-severe nausea. In fact, patients obtaining complete protection from vomiting and nausea (or at most mild acute nausea) have a very low incidence of delayed emesis.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1996

Salvage chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: an experience with the combination of mitoxantrone, 5-fluorouracil, and L-leucovorin.

From January 1992 to July 1993, 28 patients with metastatic breast cancer were entered in a phase II trial to assess the activity and toxicity of the combination of mitoxantrone, 5-fluoruracil, and leucovorin. Patients were eligible if they had progressive disease after either adjuvant (2 patients) or previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease (26 patients). Twenty-five patients (89.2%) had received previous anthracycline-based therapy. Predominant site of metastatic disease was visceral in 22 patients, bone in 2 patients, soft tissue in 4 patients, and the majority of patients (89.2%) had two or more sites of disease. The regimen was administered according to the following schedule: Mitoxantrone 9-12 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; L-Leucovorin 150 mg i.v. over 1 hour before 5-Fluorouracil 350 mg/m2 i.v. push days, 1, 2 and 3. Courses were repeated every 21 days. Twenty-six patients were evaluable for response. We observed 2 complete responses, 5 partial responses with a median duration of 38 weeks (range 23-68). The objective response rate was 27% (95% C.I., 10% to 44%). Myelo-suppression was the most frequent toxicity, but it was mild in the majority of patients. Nine episodes of fever and neutropenia occurred in six patients but none of these episodes was fatal. No clinical evidence of cardiotoxicity was observed. At a median follow-up of 78 weeks, the median time to progression was 20.5 weeks and the median overall survival was 48 weeks. We conclude that this regimen is well tolerated and in our experience the objective response rate is similar to other salvage chemotherapy regimens.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Ondansetron.

Ondansetron is the first selective antagonist of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (type 3) marketed for the prevention of emesis induced by antineoplastic agents. Ondansetron has been shown to be more active and less toxic than high-dose metoclopramide in patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy. Furthermore, when dexamethasone was added to ondansetron, its antiemetic efficacy increased significantly. In the prevention of emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin or by repeated low doses, ondansetron combined with dexamethasone has been shown to be the more efficacious and less toxic antiemetic treatment. However, in the prevention of delayed emesis from cisplatin, its role is still to be defined. In patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents, ondansetron has shown an efficacy superior or equal to standard doses of metoclopramide, but is less toxic. Moreover, when compared with dexamethasone, its antiemetic efficacy and tolerability is similar; in this group of patients ondansetron should be used only when steroids fail. Ondansetron toxicity is generally mild; in particular, it does not induce extrapyramidal reactions. The most frequent side-effects are headache and constipation.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed1993

Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients.

Two studies were sequentially conducted to validate a new questionnaire which takes into consideration the most important variables which could influence quality of life evaluation. Particular attention was given to the methodology employed to collect data and to the patients' characteristics. In the first study 80 consecutive cancer patients were randomised to twice fill in one of four different types of questionnaire, each one characterised by a different polarisation of semantic and syntactic extreme values of the visual linear analogue (for instance, "very much" always on the right, regardless of the semantic value of the answer; positive semantic value always on the right, regardless of whether it was "very much" or "not at all"; and so on). The second study, conducted on 60 lung cancer patients, consisted in testing the reliability (by measuring the reproducibility in different ways) and the validity (by performing a factor analysis) of the type of questionnaire indicated by the first study as the most reliable. The internal coherence was also evaluated by measuring the effects of physical and psychological conditions on the responses.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients.

The antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients was compared in a double-blind crossover study. Regimen A consisted of metoclopramide [2 mg/kg x 4 intravenously (i.v.)] plus methylprednisolone (250 mg x 2 i.v.) plus diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 i.v.). Regimen B consisted of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 i.v.) plus dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.) and diphenhydramine (50 mg i.v.). Both treatments were administered for the first 2 days of 5-day dacarbazine chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) affected by melanoma and sarcoma were entered in the study. Complete protection against nausea and vomiting for the first 2 days of chemotherapy in both antiemetic regimens was not significantly different. Patient preference and tolerance of the two antiemetic treatments were similar. Regimen B, employing a lower dosage of metoclopramide and steroids and using a more simple schedule of administration should be the preferred treatment.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed1991

Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.

Cisplatin↗
PubMed1991

Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients' performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales.

The Karnofsky (K) and ECOG (E) performance status (PS) scales are widely used to evaluate the functional status of cancer patients to determine their eligibility for clinical trials and their prognosis, but knowledge of inter and intraobserver variability of these scales is scarse. We therefore planned a prospective study on 209 consecutive cancer patients to evaluate this critical point. Two independent observers evaluated the KPS and EPS of each patient by interviewing them on the same day. After their interviews the patients were asked to fill in, again on the same day, a self-evaluation scale concerning their ability to perform the routine activities of daily life. The 209 patient self-evaluation scales were presented twice, randomly and blinded, to the two observers who had participated in the evaluation of PS as well as to one other observer who had not. The interobserver correlation for both scales was very high (K = 0.921 for KPS and K = 0.914 for EPS) as was the intraobserver correlation (for KPS: K = 0.993, K = 0.960, and K = 0.959 and, respectively, for EPS: K = 0.982, K = 0.970, and K = 0.920). On the basis of these results, it appears that evaluation of PS made by a clinical oncologist using K or E scales can be very reliable and is a guarantee of optimal selection of cancer patients for inclusion in clinical trials.

Aged↗
PubMed1991

Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin-treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone. A randomized single-blind study.

To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

Cisplatin↗
PubMed1990

Assessment of nausea.

In a standardized way three different methods of measuring nausea have been assessed in 849 patients enrolled in 4 double blind, randomized, clinical trials, and 2 observational studies. Nausea was measured before and 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after cancer chemotherapy by using a discrete scale (DS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a continuous chromatic analogue scale (ACCS), and it was evaluated according to 4 different dimensions: maximal intensity (MI) entity (E) duration (D) and quantity (Q). The distributions of nausea measurements in the population, agreement between the scales and their sensitivity, and agreement between dimensions and their sensitivity were analyzed. A uniform distribution of nausea measurements was found only in patients receiving chemotherapy without any antiemetic treatment. There was substantial equivalence of the different scales, and no advantage was shown an using an analogue (VAS) than a discrete (DS) scale. A trend toward increasing sensitivity in detecting differences as the dimensions of nausea considered became more inclusive of the various aspects of this symptom (Q more sensible than E more sensible than MI) was observed.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1990

A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and acupuncture in women treated with cisplatin.

A total of 26 women who submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy received as antiemetic treatment a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. Acupuncture according to traditional Chinese medicine was also carried out. The results were compared with those obtained in a similar group of women with cancer, who were treated in the same setting with the same antiemetic combination but without additional acupuncture. Acupuncture was shown to increase complete protection from nausea and to decrease the intensity and duration of nausea and vomiting. However, the difficulties of performing acupuncture routinely in daily practice are a hindrance to its wider use.

Acupuncture Therapy↗
PubMed1990

A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam in prevention of nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated male patients.

In a pilot study we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a four-drug antiemetic combination (metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam) in cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2. Fifty male patients entered the study. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was obtained in 41 patients (82%) (95% confidence limits 71 and 93%). Toxicity was slight except for moderate sedation in 10% of patients necessitating their hospitalization. Only one extrapyramidal reaction (akathisia) was observed. When these results were compared to our previous experience in male patients treated with a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine without lorazepam, used at the same doses and schedule, no clear benefit and higher toxicity was observed.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed1989

Lonidamine in advanced colorectal cancer: a phase II study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (GOIRC).

Twenty-one patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, all previously treated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease, were treated with lonidamine (LDN). The major toxicity encountered was muscular (myalgias in 48%) and gastro-intestinal (nausea and/or vomiting in 52%). Other toxicities included abdominal pain, somnolence, fever, arthralgia and ototoxicity. In the 14 patients evaluable for response we observed no complete or partial remission, 8 stable disease and 6 progressive disease. LND has no clinically worthwhile activity against colorectal carcinoma refractory to conventional chemotherapy.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1989

Chemotherapy with cis-platin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP) in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Thirty-three evaluable patients with metastatic breast cancer (12 previously treated with adjuvant chemotherapy) were treated with a combination of cis-platin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (CAP). cis-Platin was given intravenously, 20 mg/m2, on days 1-3, doxorubicin, 40 mg/m2 i.v., on day 1, and cyclophosphamide, 200 mg/m2 i.v., on days 1-3. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. A complete response (CR) was obtained in 3 patients (9%) and a partial response (PR) in 18 (54%). The highest response rate was observed in soft tissue and in liver metastases. Median response duration was 48 weeks and median survival 93 weeks. Toxicity was moderate and consisted of alopecia (100%), gastrointestinal toxicity (86%), and myelosuppression (60%). We conclude that this regimen is active in the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma, with a generally acceptable tolerance, but further evaluations in Phase III studies are required.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Antiemetic activity of high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients. A randomized double-blind study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

In a double-blind randomized trial, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose (2 mg/kg X 4) intravenous metoclopramide (MTC) versus metoclopramide plus high-dose (250 mg X 2) intravenous methylprednisolone (MP) administered for the first 2 days in untreated patients submitted to dacarbazine chemotherapy for 5 days. Thirty-four patients entered the study. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was achieved in the majority of patients all through the study period with both antiemetic treatments, with slightly greater efficacy at day 2 for the combination. However, after suspension of the antiemetic therapy, there was a relapse of vomiting in patients. Side effects were not different between the two treatments, but extrapyramidal reactions were significantly increased on the second day of antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, high-dose MTC with or without MP can give good antiemetic protection and the combination seems to be slightly more efficacious. However, the relapse of vomiting after discontinuing antiemetic treatment and the high incidence of extrapyramidal reactions justify further studies to find a better antiemetic treatment.

Dacarbazine↗
PubMed1989

Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.

Age Factors↗