Biomedical subjects

J Kanowitz

Publications and source records attributed to J Kanowitz.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1998

Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of weekly cisplatin combined with weekly irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: In vitro synergy between cisplatin and irinotecan (CPT-11) has been reported. We designed a combination schedule of these agents to maximize the potential for synergistic interaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To maximize the opportunity for synergy, we divided the cisplatin into four consecutive weekly treatments, followed by a 2-week rest. Each dose of cisplatin was immediately followed by a dose of irinotecan. The dose of cisplatin was fixed at 30 mg/m2/wk. The initial irinotecan dose was 50 mg/m2/wk and this was escalated by 30% increments in successive cohorts of three to six patients to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites, SN-38 and SN-38 glucuronide (SN-38G), were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 35 patients with solid tumors enrolled onto this trial, 30 were assessable for toxicity and response. The MTD for this regimen was 30 mg/m2/wk of cisplatin plus 50 mg/m2/wk of irinotecan in previously treated patients and 30 mg/m2/wk of cisplatin plus 65 mg/m2/wk of irinotecan in chemotherapy-naive patients. Neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) encountered in this trial. Diarrhea was infrequent and rarely dose-limiting. Seven of 30 assessable patients achieved a partial response. No alteration in irinotecan, SN-38, or SN-38G pharmacokinetics resulted from the administration of cisplatin with irinotecan. CONCLUSION: The administration of cisplatin and irinotecan on this weekly schedule provides a practical and well-tolerated regimen that has the potential to maximize any clinical synergy between the two agents. Evidence of substantial clinical activity was seen in this phase I study.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerable dose (MTD) of fluorouracil (5FU) when given with fixed doses of leucovorin and irinotecan (CPT-11), to define the dose-limiting toxicities of this combination, and to evaluate the effect of 5FU on the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CPT-11, leucovorin, and 5FU were administered in repeated 6-week cycles that consisted of weekly treatment with all three drugs for 4 consecutive weeks followed by a 2-week break. On day 1 of treatment, CPT-11 alone was given by 90-minute infusion, and pharmacokinetic sampling was performed over 24 hours. Leucovorin and 5FU were administered by brief intravenous injection on day 2. On days 8, 15, and 22, CPT-11 infusion was immediately followed by leucovorin and then 5FU. A second 24-hour pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on day 8, which permitted comparison of the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11 with and without 5FU. For the second 6-week cycle, leucovorin was administered first, followed by 5FU and then CPT-11, and a third pharmacokinetic sampling was performed. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were entered onto this trial. The CPT-11 dose was initially fixed at 100 mg/m2. Leucovorin was fixed at 20 mg/m2. 5FU doses of 210, 265, 340, 425, and 500 mg/m2 were studied. When the 500-mg/m2 dose of 5FU was found to be tolerable, this was then maintained and CPT-11 was escalated to 125 and then 150 mg/m2. This final CPT-11 dose exceeded the MTD. Neutropenia was the major dose-limiting toxicity. Diarrhea was common, but was rarely dose-limiting. Coadministration of 5FU had no substantial effect on the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11 or SN-38. Among the 38 patients with colorectal cancer, six partial responses (PRs) were seen in this predominantly 5FU-refractory patient population. CONCLUSION: 5FU does not substantially affect the metabolism of CPT-11 to its active metabolite, SN-38. The combination of CPT-11125 mg/m2, 5FU 500 mg/m2, and leucovorin 20 mg/m2 is feasible and tolerable on this schedule.

Adult↗

PubMed1977

Observer reliability as a function of circumstances of assessment.

THREE FACTORS CHARACTERISTIC OF EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS WERE HYPOTHESIZED TO INFLATE ARTIFACTUALLY THE RELIABILITY OF OBSERVATIONAL RECORDINGS: (a) knowledge by observers of when and by whom their reliability is being assessed, (b) the absence of the experimenter or a monitor to prevent cheating, and (c) computation of reliability within- (versus between-) observer group. Three groups of four observers used a standard nine-category observational code for disruptive behavior in recording from videotapes of a classroom for 22 days. Analyses revealed considerable increases in average occurrence reliability as a function of the main effects of each of the experimental factors. The specific increases in reliability associated with each of the 12 combinations of the experimental factors are presented for each category of behavior. The possible role of observer-training procedures and behavioral definitions as determiners of nonartifactual reliability is discussed.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1975

Shaping data collection congruent with experimental hypotheses.

The influence of instructions and feedback from an experimenter on observational recordings of disruptive behavior was evaluated. Four subject-observers recorded four categories of disruptive behavior from videotapes of children in a classroom setting. Two sets of videotapes, labelled "baseline" and "treatment", were matched for rates of disruptive behavior in each category. The observers were told that two target behaviors were expected to decrease and the other two control behaviors were not expected to change during the treatment condition. During observational recording of treatment videotapes, the observers were given positive feedback when they reported decreases in the two target behaviors, and negative feedback when they reported either to change or increases in the two control behaviors. The target behaviors were recorded less frequently by observers, while recordings of control behaviors were unaffected during the treatment phase. These results suggest that contingent feedback to observers should be avoided as a possible source of bias in behavioral recordings.

Journal Article↗