PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Lenzi

Publications and source records attributed to R Lenzi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Is the therapeutic index better with gemcitabine-based chemoradiation than with 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer?

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the toxicity and efficacy of concurrent gemcitabine-based chemoradiation with that of concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemoradiation in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1996 and May 2000, 114 patients with localized unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with concurrent chemoradiation. Locally advanced unresectable disease was defined as low-density tumor in contact with the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) or celiac artery, or occlusion of the superior mesenteric-portal venous confluence. Fifty-three patients were selected to receive gemcitabine in 7 weekly cycles (250-500 mg/m(2)) with concurrent radiotherapy (median dose 30 Gy, range 30-33 Gy in 10-11 fractions). The remaining 61 patients received continuous-infusion 5-FU (200-300 mg/m(2)) with concurrent radiotherapy (30 Gy in 10 fractions). Radiotherapy was delivered to the primary tumor and regional lymphatics. Patients receiving gemcitabine and those receiving 5-FU had a similar mean Karnofsky performance status (KPS, 89% vs. 86%), distribution of tumor grade (43% vs. 33% poorly differentiated), and percent weight loss (all p = NS). However, patients treated with gemcitabine had a significantly larger median maximum cross-sectional tumor area (TA, 8.8 cm(2) vs. 5.7 cm(2), p = 0.046) and were significantly younger (median age 60 vs. 68 years, p <0.001). Severe acute toxicity (ST) was defined as toxicity requiring a hospital stay of more than 5 days, mucosal ulceration with bleeding, more than 3 dose deletions of gemcitabine or discontinuation of 5-FU, or toxicity resulting in surgical intervention or death. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the actuarial rate of local progression on imaging (LP), the rate of distant metastasis (DM), and the overall survival (OS) rate. The imaging was reviewed in resected patients. RESULTS: Patients receiving gemcitabine developed significantly more ST during treatment (23% vs. 2%, p < 0.0001) than did those receiving 5-FU. Patients treated with gemcitabine had a similar 10-month LP rate (62% vs. 61%), 10-month DM rate (55% vs. 47%), 1-year OS rate (42% vs. 28%), and median OS duration (11 months vs. 9 months) to patients treated with 5 FU (all p = NS). Five patients who received gemcitabine and 1 patient who received 5-FU underwent margin-negative pancreaticoduodenectomy after chemoradiation. Three patients had a short segment ( 10 cm(2) (p = 0.03) and poor differentiation (p = 0.07) were associated with a worse survival duration; however, other factors, such as KPS and weight loss >10% and age did not influence OS. CONCLUSION: Despite the selection of healthier patients to receive gemcitabine, there was a significantly higher severe toxicity rate than with 5-FU. The median and 1-year survivals were not significantly different with the use of concurrent gemcitabine; however, the tumors treated were significantly larger. Additionally, a small number of patients with minimal arterial involvement whose disease met our radiographic definition of unresectable disease had margin-negative resections after treatment with gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. These possible benefits and the high rate of severe toxicity define a very narrow therapeutic index for concurrent gemcitabine-based chemoradiation given by this schedule of administration.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Breaking bad news about cancer: patients' preferences for communication.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess patients' preferences regarding the way in which physicians deliver news about their cancer diagnosis and management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A sample of 351 patients with a variety of cancers completed a measure assessing their preferences for how they would like to be told news about their cancer. Patients rated characteristics of the context and content of the conversation as well as physician characteristics. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated that patients' preferences for how they would like to be told news regarding their cancer can be grouped into the following three categories: (1) content (what and how much information is told); (2) facilitation (setting and context variables); and (3) support (emotional support during the interaction). Women (P =.02) and patients with higher education (P =.05) had significantly higher scores on the Content scale, women (P =.02) had higher scores on the Support scale, and younger patients (P =.001) and those with more education (P =.02) had higher scores on the Message Facilitation scale. Medical variables were not associated with patients' ratings of the importance of the three subscales. CONCLUSION: Patients rated items addressing the message content as most important, though the supportive and facilitative dimensions were also rated highly. Understanding what is important to patients when told news about their cancer provides valuable information that may help refine how this challenging task is best performed.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Effective pelvic symptom control using initial chemoradiation without colostomy in metastatic rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CXRT) without colostomy as a component of the multidisciplinary management of patients presenting with metastatic rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty patients with synchronous distant metastases from rectal cancer were treated with initial CXRT. Hypofractionated radiotherapy was administered usually with concurrent 5-FU (92%, 300 mg/m(2)/day, M-F). Three-field belly-board technique was used in 89%. Group 1 had CXRT alone (n = 55). Group 2 (n = 25) patients were selected for primary disease resection, and sometimes HAI chemotherapy (n = 10) or hepatic resection (n = 5). Subsequently, 78% received systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS: Symptoms from primary tumor resolved in 94%. Endoscopic complete clinical response rate was 36%. Two-year survival (11% vs. 46%, p < 0.0001) and symptomatic pelvic control (PC, 81% vs. 91%, p = 0.111) were higher in Group 2, but colostomy-free rate (CFR) was lower (79% vs. 51% p = 0.02). CFR was 87% in Group 1 patients managed initially without fecal diversion (n = 50). Examining all patients using multivariate analysis, pelvic pain at presentation (p < 0.00001), BED (biologic equivalent dose at 2 Gy/fraction) < 35 Gy (p = 0.077), and poor differentiation (0.079) predicted worse PC. Poor differentiation (p = 0.017) and selection for CXRT alone (p < 0.0001) predicted worse survival. There were 4 RTOG of Grade 3 or greater acute complications, 5 severe perioperative complications, and no significant late treatment-related complications. CONCLUSION: Durable PC can be safely achieved without colostomy in most patients presenting with primary rectal cancer and synchronous systemic metastases using hypofractionated pelvic chemoradiation. A BED greater than 35 Gy is recommended. Selected patients appear to benefit from resection of primary disease. Higher doses should be investigated in patients with pelvic pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Combining gemcitabine with radiation in pancreatic cancer: understanding important variables influencing the therapeutic index.

We compared and evaluated available laboratory and clinical data on the use of concurrent gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) and radiation in pancreatic cancer to provide guidance for subsequent prospective research initiatives. Preclinical data suggest that the timing of administration of gemcitabine with respect to radiotherapy is important, but this issue has not yet been confirmed by clinical data. Phase I clinical data indicate that the amount of acute toxicity from the combination of gemcitabine and radiotherapy is strongly related to the dose and schedule of administration of gemcitabine, as well as to the radiation field size. There also appears to be an inverse linear relationship between the maximum tolerated gemcitabine dose and radiation dose. Also important, but less clear, is the infusion rate of gemcitabine as it relates to the systemic efficacy of the drug. The combination of additional agents with gemcitabine and radiation appears to be feasible. Finally, the addition of radioprotectors may enable chemotherapy dose escalation, but safe escalation of the radiotherapy dose with newer techniques has not been established. Semin Oncol 28 (suppl 10):25-33.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗
PubMed2001

Improved overall survival among responders to preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

The aim of this study was to determine if the response to preoperative radiation and chemotherapy with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was predictive for survival among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Preoperative chemoradiation (CTX/XRT) that delivered 45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks with continuous infusion 5-FU (300 mg/m2/day) was given to 117 patients. The pretreatment stage distribution, as determined by endorectal ultrasound (u), included uT2N0 in 2%, uT3N0 in 47%, uT3N1 in 49%, and uT4N0 in 2% of cases; endorectal ultrasound was not performed in 13% of cases (15 patients). Approximately 6 weeks after completion of CTX/XRT, surgery was performed. Adjuvant chemotherapy, consisting of 400 to 425 mg/m2 of 5-FU plus 20 mg/m2 leucovorin for 5 days, was administered every 28 days for 4 to 6 cycles after surgical resection. Among the 74 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, the preoperative stage of disease was 31 with T3N0 and 43 T3N1. Median follow-up was 46 months (range 2 to 89 months). The pathologic tumor stages were Tis-2N0 in 26%, T2N1 in 5%, T3N0 in 21%, T3N1 in 15%, T4N0 in 5%, and T4N1 in 1%; a complete response (CR) to preoperative CTX/XRT was pathologically confirmed in 32 (27%) of patients. Tumor down-staging occurred in 72 (62%) cases. A sphincter-saving procedure (SP) was possible in 59% of patients. The median DFS and overall survival rates for responders were 46 months and 47 months, respectively; for non-responders these outcome measures were 38 months and 41 months, respectively. Log-rank analysis showed that the distant metastatic-free survival rates improved with any response to CTX/XRT (p < 0.00001), CR to CTX/XRT (p < 0.009) and SP (p < 0.012). Likewise, these parameters also significantly influenced DFS rates (CTX/XRT p < 0.00001; CR p < 0.006; and SP p < 0.008). Control of pelvic disease was influenced by clinical size (p < 0.002) and SP (p < 0.016) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis only clinical size (p < 0.002) continued to be a significant factor for local control. Factors on multivariate analysis that resulted in significant improvements in cancer-specific survival included any response to preoperative CTX/XRT (p < 0.017) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.034). Any response to preoperative CTX/XRT improved distant metastatic-free and disease-free survival rates. Multivariate analysis confirmed that a response to preoperative CTX/XRT predicted for improvements in overall survival among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Patients who fail to respond to preoperative 5-FU based chemotherapy given concomitantly with radiation have higher rates of distant metastases with adjuvant 5-FU therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Toxicity and efficacy of concurrent gemcitabine and radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine and radiotherapy are a potent combination. A clinical assessment of the therapeutic ratio for locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients has not yet been reported. AIM OF STUDY: To assess the toxicity, survival, and pattern of failure of locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with concurrent gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. Patients and Methods. Between the dates of December 1996 and August 2000 51 patients with locally advanced unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with concurrent gemcitabine and radiotherapy at MDACC. Patients received 250-500 mg/m2 of gemcitabine weekly x7 over 30 min and 30-33 Gy in 10-11 fractions over two weeks to the primary tumor and regional lymphatics. Severe toxicity was defined as admission > 5 d, mucosal ulceration, > 3 dose deletions of gemcitabine or toxicity resulting in surgical intervention or that resulted in death. RESULTS: The median survival was 11 mo. Overall, 37 of 51 patients had objective evidence of local progression. The actuarial rate of local progression rate at 9 mo was 70%. The 9-mo distant metastasis rate was 52%. Tumors > or = 10 cm2 had worse local control, distant control, and overall survival. Six patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy after therapy. After review of the imaging, only four of these patients had minimal arterial involvement, one was incorrectly staged, and one had initial inflammatory change on CT that resolved. Twelve of 51 (24%) patients suffered severe acute toxicity, and 17 of 51 (33%) patients were admitted for supportive care. CONCLUSION: Concurrent gemcitabine and radiotherapy can be a very difficult combination to administer safely. Our results do not suggest a prolongation of median survival for patients with localized pancreatic cancer treated with this therapy. It is possible that gemcitabine-based chemoradiation contributes to the margin-negative resectability of a small number of patients with minimal arterial involvement, but this benefit is obscured by the frequent toxicity encountered in most patients. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients should continue to be enrolled on prospective studies investigating novel combinations of cytotoxic and/or biologic agents with concurrent radiotherapy.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Phase I study of concomitant gemcitabine and IMRT for patients with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) would protect normal tissues enough to allow the escalation of either the gemcitabine or radiotherapy dose in unresectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The trial was designed to build on a previous phase I trial that determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gemcitabine (350 mg/m2) with concurrent radiotherapy (30 Gy/10 fractions). Only patients with unresectable disease based on established criteria were eligible. The plan was to alternate escalating the radiation dose by 3 Gy and the gemcitabine dose by 50 mg/m2. The starting dose of gemcitabine was 350 mg/m2 and 33 Gy/11 fractions of IMRT to the regional lymphatics and primary disease. The NCI Common Toxicity Criteria were used for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS: All three patients in the first cohort treated suffered DLT. Therefore, a second cohort of patients received a lower gemcitabine dose (250 mg/m2). Both patients treated at this dose level experienced DLT. The DLTs were all due to myelosuppression and upper gastrointestinal toxicity. All patients required a gemcitabine dose reduction. Also, four patients required hospital admission for supportive care, while the fifth died of an unrelated cause shortly after completing therapy. The trial was then closed due to excessive toxicity. CONCLUSION: Hypofractionated dynamic IMRT to the primary site and regional lymphatics did not permit escalation of either the radiation or gemcitabine dose. Dynamic IMRT requires further investigation before it can be applied to toxic combinations of chemotherapy and radiation in the upper abdomen.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Phase I trial of gemcitabine combined with radiation for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Gemcitabine has modest activity in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer and is a potent radiosensitizer. We conducted a Phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose of weekly gemcitabine delivered concurrently with radiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head and to assess the treatment-related toxic effects associated with such a regimen. Eighteen patients with pathologically proven, locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head were enrolled in this study. Patients received seven weekly doses of gemcitabine with 3000 cGy of external beam radiation therapy delivered during the first 2 weeks of therapy. Six patients received gemcitabine at 350 mg/m(2)/week, nine at 400 mg/m(2)/week, and three at 500 mg/m(2)/week. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity was observed in over half the patients treated. Nonhematological toxicities were significant and included fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and dehydration. Forty-four % of the patients required admission to the hospital for management of nausea/vomiting and dehydration. The risk of hospitalization appeared to be dose-related; all of the three patients treated at 500 mg/m(2)/week required hospital admission during treatment. Seventeen patients were evaluated for response, and eight patients (47%) had evidence of a local anticancer effect. Four of these eight patients (24%) had a partial response to therapy. The median survival for the entire group was 6 months. The 1-year survival rate for patients with an objective response to therapy was 66%. The clinical responses observed in this group of patients suggest gemcitabine is a clinically relevant radiosensitizer in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. However, the toxic effects are significant, suggesting that until dose and scheduling issues are explored further, concomitant administration of gemcitabine and radiation therapy should still be considered investigational.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Toxicity and Efficacy of Concurrent Gemcitabine and Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Gemcitabine has been demonstrated to be a potentradiosensitizer in the laboratory and in the clinic (1-7)and has proven clinical systemic activity to pancreaticcancer. Responses to systemic gemcitabine inpatients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomahave been documented in phase I, phase II, and phaseIII clinical settings (8,9). Moreover, a recent randomizedtrial of gemcitabine vs 5-FU as first-linetherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinomademonstrated a modest median survivalbenefit (4.41 vs 5.65 mo,p= 0.0025) for those patientswho received gemcitabine compared to those whoreceived 5-FU (10). In addition, gemcitabine wasshown to improve cancer-related symptoms and performancestatus as assessed by a quantitative clinicalbenefit scale in both untreated and previouslytreated patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma ofthe pancreas (10,11). Based on these data, the FDAapproved gemcitabine as a first-line agent for patientswith advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2000

Prospective trial of preoperative concomitant boost radiotherapy with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer.

RATIONALE: To evaluate the response to a concomitant boost given during standard chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Concomitant boost radiotherapy was administered preoperatively to 45 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in a prospective trial. Treatment consisted of 45 Gy to the pelvis with 18 mV photons at 1.8 Gy/fraction using a 3-field belly board technique with continuous infusion 5FU chemotherapy (300mg/m(2)) 5 days per week. The boost was given during the last week of therapy with a 6-hour inter-fraction interval to the tumor plus a 2-3 cm margin. The boost dose equaled 7.5 Gy/5 fractions (1.5 Gy/fraction); a total dose of 52.5 Gy/5 weeks was given to the primary tumor. Pretreatment tumor stage, determined by endorectal ultrasound and CT scan, included 29 with T3N0 [64%], 11 T3N1, 1 T3Nx, 2 T4N0, 1 T4N3, and 1 with TxN1 disease. Mean distance from the anal verge was 5 cm (range 0-13 cm). Median age was 55 years (range 33-77 years). The population consisted of 34 males and 11 females. Median time of follow-up is 8 months (range 1-24 months). RESULTS: Sphincter preservation (SP) has been accomplished in 33 of 42 (79%) patients resected to date. Three patients did not undergo resection because of the development of metastatic disease in the interim between the completion of chemoradiation (CTX/XRT) and preoperative evaluation. The surgical procedures included proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis (n = 16), low anterior resection (n = 13), transanal resection (n = 4). Tumor down-staging was pathologically confirmed in 36 of the 42 (86%) resected patients, and 13 (31%) achieved a pathologic CR. Among the 28 tumors (67%) located <6 cm from the anal verge, SP was accomplished in 21 cases (75%). Although perioperative morbidity was higher, toxicity rates during CTX/XRT were comparable to that seen with conventional fractionation. Compared to our contemporary experience with conventional CTX/XRT (45Gy; 1.8 Gy per fraction), improvements were seen in SP (79% vs. 59%; p = 0.02), SP for tumors <6 cm from the anal verge (75% vs. 42%; p = 0.003), and down-staging (86% vs. 62%; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The SP rate with concomitant boost radiation has been highly favorable with rates of response which are higher than those previously reported for chemoradiation without administration of a boost. Further evaluation of this radiotherapeutic strategy appears warranted.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Avoidance of colostomy placement in advanced colorectal cancer with twice weekly hypofractionated radiation plus continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil.

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of twice weekly hypo-fractionated radiation therapy (RT) plus continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil for unresectable or locally advanced colorectal cancer with synchronous metastases. Palliative radiation consisting of 30 Gy/6 fractions/3 weeks was administered to 87 patients from 1982-1995 with 3 field belly board technique. Diverting colostomy was required for obstruction in 14 (16%) prior to radiation; 47 patients (54%) had recurrent disease following prior resection and 58 (66%) had distant metastases on presentation. Median follow-up was 12 months (1-104 months). Stabilization/regression of pelvic disease was accomplished in 65 patients (75%). Complete resection of the pelvic disease was accomplished in 5 patients (6%), all of whom had synchronous metastases. Diverting colostomy was required in only 11 patients after chemoradiation because of progressive pelvic tumor; 2 of these 11 patients (18%) had isolated progression of pelvic disease. Overall, colostomy was not required in 48 of the 72 patients (67%) who did not present with a stoma. Median survival was 11 months if metastatic disease was present and only 6 months when disease was limited to the pelvis. Grade 3 acute radiation toxicities occurred in <10% and no grade 4 acute toxicities were observed. No significant late radiation effects were noted. Twice weekly hypofractionated RT is well tolerated and provides durable palliation of symptoms related to locally advanced primary or recurrent colorectal cancer with metastatic disease.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗
PubMed2000

Current approaches and future strategies for pancreatic carcinoma.

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease characterized by local invasion and early dissemination. It is resistant to conventional surgical, radiotherapeutic, and chemotherapeutic modalities. These interventions have had minimal impact on overall survival with very few patients enjoying long term survival. Over the past few years, 2'difluoro-2'deoxycytidine (gemcitabine) has demonstrated modest activity in this disease and investigations are proceeding to expand its role in combination with radiotherapy and other chemotherapeutic agents. In addition, the identification of the molecular defects underlying this disease has suggested molecular targets for the design of rational systemic therapy. These targets include matrix metalloproteinases, K-ras, HER2/neu, p53, and the epidermal growth factor receptor. Current and future clinical trials designed to improve the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer will be discussed.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Expression of costimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86 and their receptors CD28, CTLA-4 on malignant ascites CD3+ tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) from patients with ovarian and other types of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Costimulation of T lymphocytes by the leucocyte surface molecules CD80 and CD86 expressed on antigen-presenting cells (APC) is required for the development of T cell responses. The CD28 and CTLA-4 molecules on T cells serve as receptors for the CD80 and CD86 costimulatory antigens. We have examined the frequency of expression of CD80 (B7.1), CD86 (B7.2), CD28 and CTLA-4 surface antigens on TIL isolated from malignant ascites or peritoneal washings of 26 patients with ovarian carcinoma and five patients with non-ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis. Expression of CD80 and CD86 antigen was detected by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and by FACS analysis. Significantly higher proportions of intraperitoneal CD3+ cells expressed CD86 antigen than the CD80 antigen (14 +/- 9% versus 3 +/- 3%, P < 0.05). Moreover, CD3+CD86+ cells were significantly more frequent in the peritoneal fluid (14 +/- 9%) than in the peripheral blood (3 +/- 0.4%, P < 0.05) of ovarian patients or normal controls (3 +/- 1%). CTLA-4 and CD28 antigen were expressed, respectively, on 9 +/- 4% and 86 +/- 14% of ascitic CD3+ cells of ovarian cancer patients. Both CD80 and CD86 antigens were expressed primarily on HLA-DR+ ascites TIL and were present in a very low proportion of HLA-DR- ascites TIL. These HLA-DR+ cells may represent a population of lymphocytes that have been activated in vivo, and function as APC. An anti-CD86 MoAb or a combination of anti-CD86 and anti-CD80 MoAbs significantly inhibited the proliferation of cultured intraperitoneal TIL. We have shown that in addition to CD28 and CTLA-4, CD3+ intraperitoneal TIL express the costimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86. The expression of these molecules on T cells could be dependent upon certain factors in the tumour microenvironment that could determine the outcome of in vivo immune responses.

Abatacept↗
PubMed2000

Preoperative chemoradiation for patients with pancreatic cancer: toxicity of endobiliary stents.

PURPOSE: A recent multicenter study of preoperative chemoradiation and pancreaticoduodenectomy for localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma suggested that biliary stent-related complications are frequent and severe and may prevent the delivery of all components of multimodality therapy in many patients. The present study was designed to evaluate the rates of hepatic toxicity and biliary stent-related complications and to evaluate the impact of this morbidity on the delivery of preoperative chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer at a tertiary care cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperative chemoradiation was used in 154 patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (142 patients, 92%) or other periampullary tumors (12 patients, 8%). Patients were treated with preoperative fluorouracil (115 patients), paclitaxel (37 patients), or gemcitabine (two patients) plus concurrent rapid-fractionation (30 Gy; 123 patients) or standard-fractionation (50.4 Gy; 31 patients) radiation therapy. The incidences of hepatic toxicity and biliary stent-related complications were evaluated during chemoradiation and the immediate 3- to 4-week postchemoradiation preoperative period. RESULTS: Nonoperative biliary decompression was performed in 101 (66%) of 154 patients (endobiliary stent placement in 77 patients and percutaneous transhepatic catheter placement in 24 patients). Stent-related complications (occlusion or migration) occurred in 15 patients. Inpatient hospitalization for antibiotics and stent exchange was necessary in seven of 15 patients (median hospital stay, 3 days). No patient experienced uncontrolled biliary sepsis, hepatic abscess, or stent-related death. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer is associated with low rates of hepatic toxicity and biliary stent-related complications. The need for biliary decompression is not a clinically significant concern in the delivery of preoperative therapy to patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2000

SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer.

We describe a protocol for disclosing unfavorable information-"breaking bad news"-to cancer patients about their illness. Straightforward and practical, the protocol meets the requirements defined by published research on this topic. The protocol (SPIKES) consists of six steps. The goal is to enable the clinician to fulfill the four most important objectives of the interview disclosing bad news: gathering information from the patient, transmitting the medical information, providing support to the patient, and eliciting the patient's collaboration in developing a strategy or treatment plan for the future. Oncologists, oncology trainees, and medical students who have been taught the protocol have reported increased confidence in their ability to disclose unfavorable medical information to patients. Directions for continuing assessment of the protocol are suggested.

Communication↗
PubMed1999

Communication skills training in oncology. Description and preliminary outcomes of workshops on breaking bad news and managing patient reactions to illness.

BACKGROUND: Cancer clinicians do not receive routine training in the psychosocial aspects of patient care such as how to communicate bad news or respond to patients who have unrealistic expectations of cure. Postgraduate workshops may be an effective way to increase interpersonal skills in managing these stressful patient encounters. METHODS: The authors conducted 2 half-day workshops for oncology faculty, one on breaking bad news and one on dealing with "problem situations." Participants met in a large group for didactic presentations and then small groups in which they used role-play and discussion to problem-solve difficult cases from their practices. The small groups were assisted in their work by trained physician facilitators. The workshops were evaluated by means of a follow-up satisfaction questionnaire as well as a self-efficacy measure, which was administered before and after the workshops. RESULTS: Twenty-seven faculty and 2 oncology fellows participated in the training programs. Satisfaction questionnaires showed that the programs met the educational objectives and were considered to be useful and relevant by the participants. Self-efficacy questionnaires revealed an increase in confidence in communicating bad news and managing problem situation cases from before to after the workshop. The majority of attendees welcomed the opportunity to discuss their difficult cases with colleagues. A number resolved to implement newly learned approaches to common patient problems they encountered frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Communication skills workshops may be a useful modality to provide training to oncologists in stressful aspects of the physician-patient relationship. Further research is needed to assess whether long term benefits accrue to the participants.

Communication↗
PubMed1999

Discussing disease progression and end-of-life decisions.

Because most patients now want to know the truth about their diagnosis and prognosis, the ability to discuss the cancer diagnosis, disease recurrence, or treatment failure, and to solicit patients' views about resuscitation or hospice care, are important verbal skills for oncologists and other oncology health care providers. Moreover, the ability to clearly articulate a treatment plan or elicit patient preferences for treatment are a prerequisite to informed consent. Despite these imperatives, clinicians do not routinely receive training in key communication skills that could enable them to accomplish these tasks. A body of literature is available, however, that identifies communication strategies that can (1) facilitate the establishment of a close rapport with the patient, (2) identify the patient's information preferences, (3) ensure comprehension of key knowledge and information, (4) address the patient's emotions in a supportive fashion, (5) elicit the patient's key concerns, and (6) involve the patient in the treatment plan. In this article, we use dialogues between a physician and a hypothetical patient with advanced ovarian cancer to illustrate how communication techniques can be applied to accomplish these goals. We identify important benefits of the use of these techniques for both the physician and patient, and pose several questions regarding the training of physicians in this area.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed1999

Classification and regression tree analysis of 1000 consecutive patients with unknown primary carcinoma.

The clinical features and survival times of patients with unknown primary carcinoma (UPC) are heterogeneous. Therefore, the goals of this study were to apply a novel analytical method to UPC patients to: (a) identify novel prognostic factors; (b) explore the interactions between clinical variables and their impact on survival; and (c) illustrate explicitly how the covariates interact. The 1000 patients analyzed were referred to the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 1987 through November 30, 1994. Clinical data from these patients were entered into a computerized database for storage, retrieval, and analysis. Multivariate analyses of survival were performed using recursive partitioning referred to as classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. The median survival for all 1000 consecutive UPC patients was 11 months. CART was performed with an initial split on liver involvement, and 10 terminal subgroups were formed. Median survival of the 10 subgroups ranged from 40 months (95% confidence interval, 22-66 months) for UPC patients with one or two metastatic organ sites, with nonadenocarcinoma histology, and without liver, bone, adrenal, or pleural metastases to 5 months (95% confidence interval, 4-7 months) in UPC patients with liver metastases, tumor histologies other than neuroendocrine carcinoma, age >61.5 years, and a small subgroup of patients with adrenal metastases. Two additional trees were also explored. These analyses demonstrated that important prognostic variables were consistently applied by the CART program and effectively segregated patients into groups with similar clinical features and survival. CART also identified previously unappreciated patient subsets and is a useful method for dissecting complex clinical situations and identifying homogeneous patient populations for future clinical trials.

Adolescent↗