PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Abratt

Publications and source records attributed to R Abratt.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Randomized study of vinorelbine--gemcitabine versus vinorelbine--carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this trial was to compare two vinorelbine-based doublets with carboplatin (CBDCA-VC) or with gemcitabine (VG) in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 316 patients with advanced NSCLC previously untreated were randomized to either vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) D1,8 with carboplatin AUC 5 D1 (VC) or vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) with gemcitabine (VG) 1000 mg/m(2) both given D1,8 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was response rate with secondary parameters being survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tolerance and clinical benefit. RESULTS: The median number of cycles was four in each arm with a total of 1268 cycles. The objective response (OR) on intent-to-treat was 20.8% in VC and 28% in VG (p=0.15). Median PFS was 3.9 months in VC and 4.4 months (mo) in VG (p=0.18). Median survival was significantly longer (p=0.01) for VG with 11.5 mo compared to 8.6 mo in VC with 1 year survival at 48.9 and 34.4%, respectively. Tolerance was better in the VG arm as compared to the VC patients. Four toxic deaths were recorded in the VC group. Clinical benefit response rate was 32.4% compared to 40.9% in 111 and 110 evaluable patients in VC and VG, respectively. CONCLUSION: VG compared to VC resulted in a similar overall response rate, favourable median survival and a better toxicity profile. For non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy, VG is a useful alternative.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Phase II trial of pemetrexed disodium (ALIMTA, LY231514) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed therapy for chemotherapy-naïve patients with surgically incurable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received pemetrexed 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Restaging was performed after every two cycles of therapy and toxicity was assessed at each cycle of pemetrexed. In the absence of disease progression or undue toxicity, treatment was continued for a maximum of 12 cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (median age 59 years; range 39-74 years) received a median of four cycles of pemetrexed. Nineteen patients (32%) had a ECOG performance status (PS) of two and 39 patients (66%) had stage IV disease. The most common histological sub-types were adenocarcinoma (20 patients, 34%) and large cell (18 patients, 31%). Sixteen patients (27%) had received prior radiotherapy. Nine patients achieved a partial response for an overall response rate of 15.8% (95% confidence interval CI 7% to 28%). The median duration of response was 4.9 months, and the median survival was 7.2 months. The principal toxicities were myelosuppression and rash. While grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was seen in 25 patients (42%), only two patients (3%) developed grade 3 infection. Eighteen patients (31%) developed grade 3 or 4 cutaneous toxicity, which improved with prophylactic oral dexamethasone administered for 3 days beginning the day before pemetrexed treatment. Asymptomatic elevations in hepatic biochemistry (especially alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) were seen in 47 patients (80%); however, these did not interfere with the dose or schedule of pemetrexed and returned to normal levels throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study confirming the encouraging single-agent activity of pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naïve patients with NSCLC. In addition, this study demonstrates that a dose of 600 mg/m2 can be delivered safely; however, treatment should be restricted to patients with a PS of 0 or 1. The results of combination studies are awaited with interest.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

The influence of gemcitabine and cisplatin schedule on response and survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine-cisplatin combinations are among the most active for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Previous reports have suggested that the day of cisplatin administration affects both toxicity and drug delivery. We undertook this retrospective analysis to determine whether it also affects response and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of six studies of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Gemcitabine, 1000-1500 mg/m(2) was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle. In four studies cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) was administered with mannitol diuresis every four weeks on either day 1, day 2 or day 15. In two studies cisplatin 25-30 mg/m(2) was administered on day 1, 8 and 15. Standard prognostic factors including age, gender, stage, performance status, and histologic subtype were analyzed along with day of cisplatin administration. Single variable Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed. This was followed by multiple variable Cox proportional hazards regression, beginning with a full model containing terms for gender, age, performance status and stage. The least statistically significant terms were subsequently dropped from the model to reach a final model with only statistically significant variables. A similar approach was followed to fit a multiple variable logistic regression model to overall response data. RESULTS: Overall response rates were highest (36-46%) in the three studies that administered cisplatin on days 2 or 15, and these studies had the highest 1-year survival rates (52-58%). Survival was better for patients who received cisplatin on day 2 or 15 compared to those treated on either day 1 or weekly on days 1, 8, 15 (P=0.020). In the final model of the Cox regression analysis, survival was better for cisplatin on days 2 or 15 (hazard ratio=0.69, P=0.008) and female gender (hazard ratio=0.72, P=0.036). Only cisplatin delivery on day 2 or day 15 predicted for significantly better response (42 vs. 29%, P=0.036). CONCLUSION: In a 28 day cycle in which gemcitabine is administered day 1, 8 and 15, the best therapeutic index is achieved with cisplatin administration on day 2 or 15.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Safety profile of gemcitabine, a novel anticancer agent, in non-small cell lung cancer.

Gemcitabine is a novel anticancer agent showing activity with relatively mild toxicity across a range of solid tumors including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In studies using similar doses and schedules, consistent response rates of around 20% were recorded in NSCLC. In an integrated safety study using data from 360 patients with NSCLC, gemcitabine exhibits a mild safety profile for such an active drug. Hematological toxicity is mild and short lasting, and the level of infection associated with this degree of myelosuppression was low. Mild transaminase elevations occurred frequently but were not progressive or dose limiting. There was no evidence of cumulative hepatic or renal toxicity. Nausea and vomiting were mild, rarely dose limiting and generally well controlled with standard antiemetics. Mild flu-like symptoms were experienced in a small proportion of patients and rarely resulted in discontinuation. Where edema or peripheral edema were experienced, there was no evidence of any association with cardiac, hepatic or renal failure. Hair loss was rare and there was no grade 4 alopecia. In conclusion, gemcitabine is a promising new agent in the treatment of NSCLC. Its mild toxicity which is non-overlapping with other cytotoxics has prompted investigation into its use in combination with other chemotherapy regimens.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Assessment of quality of life by clinicians--experience of a practical method in lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a practical method (brief scale) of assessing the quality of life in patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: To compare the scores obtained by means of the brief scale with those obtained on formal tests. The brief scale consists of an Outlook score (measuring psychological status) and a Support score (measuring psychosocial support). The formal tests were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for psychological status, and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and Spitzer QL-Index for quality-of-life assessment. SETTING: Lung cancer follow-up clinic, Groote Schuur Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 40 patients selected by random sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The correlation between the brief scale and standard formal tests. RESULTS: The HADS indicated that psychological morbidity was present in 30% of patients. Both the RSCL and the Spitzer QL-Index indicated a significantly poor quality of life in 25% of patients. The Outlook score correlated with both psychological status and quality of life. The Support score correlated with psychological status but not with the assessment of quality of life. It did, however, correlate with the independent evaluation of social support in the Spitzer QL-Index. CONCLUSIONS: The brief scale is a cost-effective and useful tool for quality of life assessment in the clinical management of patients with lung and other cancers.

Adult↗