PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Susan Goodin

Publications and source records attributed to Susan Goodin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Pharmacokinetics of cetuximab after administration of escalating single dosing and weekly fixed dosing in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Previous studies of cetuximab pharmacokinetics did not fully characterize its elimination phase. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of cetuximab given as a single dose followed by weekly fixed repeated dosing in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with a single 2-hour infusion of cetuximab at doses of 50, 100, 250, 400, or 500 mg/m2 followed 3 weeks later by weekly 1-hour infusions of cetuximab at a fixed dose of 250 mg/m2. Extended pharmacokinetic sampling was collected through 504 hours after the first drug administration. Trough samples were obtained before each fixed weekly dose. Single and multidose pharmacokinetic variables were correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. Pharmacokinetic analysis confirmed previous reports of nonlinear pharmacokinetics for cetuximab. Modeling studies predicted a 90% saturation of clearance at a dose of 260 mg/m2. Analyses of weekly trough concentrations indicated a slight accumulation of drug concentrations following repeated weekly dosing. Correlative studies indicated a significant association between cetuximab clearance and both body surface area (P=0.002) and weight (P=0.002). The occurrence of rash was significantly associated with disease stability (P<0.002) but not with cetuximab pharmacokinetic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic results support using body surface area or weight in calculating individual cetuximab doses. A weekly dose of 250 mg/m2 is predicted to nearly fully saturate cetuximab clearance and, by inference, epidermal growth factor receptors. The association between rash and disease stability supports further prospective studies of this relationship.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Cancer-treatment-induced bone loss, part 2.

PURPOSE: The pathophysiology, frequency, sequelae, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer-treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) are discussed. SUMMARY: CTIBL is a long-term complication associated with cancer therapies that can directly or indirectly affect bone metabolism. Although CTIBL can occur in any patient receiving a cancer therapy known to cause bone loss, CTIBL is most common in patients with breast or prostate cancer who receive chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or surgical castration, as these can cause hypogonadism and induce bone loss. CTIBL causes bone fragility and an increased susceptibility to fractures; therefore, prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of CTIBL are essential to decrease the risk of fracture. Bone loss occurs more rapidly and tends to be more severe in patients with CTIBL compared with those with normal age-related bone loss. Fractures of the hip, vertebra, and wrist are the fractures most commonly associated with bone loss. CTIBL is diagnosed by measuring bone mass using bone densitometry. Treatment of CTIBL consists of changing diet and lifestyle such as optimizing calcium and vitamin D intake, exercising, modifying behaviors known to increase the risk of CTIBL and pharmacologic therapy with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), selective estrogen-receptor modifiers (SERMs), calcitonin, or a bisphosphonate. CONCLUSION: Early identification and treatment of CTIBL are essential to prevent fractures. Patients should be instructed to optimize calcium and vitamin D intake, exercise regularly, and modify lifestyle behaviors known to cause bone loss. Patients with CTIBL should be treated with an oral or i.v. bisphosphonate; SERMs or HRT may be an option in some patients if contraindications do not exist.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2006

Cancer-treatment-induced bone loss, part 1.

PURPOSE: The pathophysiology, frequency, sequelae, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer-treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) are discussed. SUMMARY: CTIBL is a long-term complication associated with cancer therapies that can directly or indirectly affect bone metabolism. Although CTIBL can occur in any patient receiving a cancer therapy known to cause bone loss, CTIBL is most common in patients with breast or prostate cancer who receive chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or surgical castration, as these can cause hypogonadism and induce bone loss. CTIBL causes bone fragility and an increased susceptibility to fractures; therefore, prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of CTIBL are essential to decrease the risk of fracture. Bone loss occurs more rapidly and tends to be more severe in patients with CTIBL compared with those with normal age-related bone loss. Fractures of the hip, vertebra, and wrist are the fractures most commonly associated with bone loss. CTIBL is diagnosed by measuring bone mass using bone densitometry. Treatment of CTIBL consists of changing diet and lifestyle such as optimizing calcium and vitamin D intake, exercising, modifying behaviors known to increase the risk of CTIBL and pharmacologic therapy with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), selective estrogen-receptor modifiers (SERMs), calcitonin, or a bisphosphonate. CONCLUSION: Early identification and treatment of CTIBL are essential to prevent fractures. Patients should be instructed to optimize calcium and vitamin D intake, exercise regularly, and modify lifestyle behaviors known to cause bone loss. Patients with CTIBL should be treated with an oral or i.v. bisphosphonate; SERMs or HRT may be an option in some patients if contraindications do not exist.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2005

Selecting an anticoagulant for recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer.

PURPOSE: The thrombogenicity of newer anticancer agents and the challenges associated with managing cancer patients on warfarin have led to the evaluation of the low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for primary and secondary prophylaxis in this high-risk patient population. SUMMARY: The first published trial of LMWH in cancer compared three months of warfarin therapy with enoxaparin in cancer patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. All patients received four days of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg and were then randomized to continue receiving enoxaparin or begin warfarin therapy. Due to inadequate patient enrollment, no statistically significant differences were detected between the two treatment groups. In a similar patient population, the Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer (CLOT) trial evaluated the use of long-term dalteparin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Cancer patients with proximal DVT, PE, or both were randomized to initial treatment with dalteparin followed by either six months of oral anticoagulant therapy or dalteparin monotherapy. The primary outcome was symptomatic, recurrent VTE, and secondary outcomes were bleeding events and survival time. The cumulative risk of recurrent VTE at six months was reduced from 17% in the oral anticoagulant group to 9% in the dalteparin group, a risk reduction of 52% (p=0.002). No significant differences in bleeding events or overall mortality occurred between the groups. Recent recommendations from the American College of Chest Physicians on the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are based in part on data from the CLOT trial and support the use of dalteparin and tinzaparin in the long-term treatment of patients with DVT and cancer. Finally, results of recent trials support the concept that antithrombotic therapy with dalteparin or nadroparin may have an antineoplastic effect, resulting in improved survival time. However, these results require further validation. CONCLUSION: Despite the absence of oncology-specific guidelines for cancer-associated thrombosis, pharmacists now have a number of new tools available for selecting an anticoagulant, including results from several clinical trials with LMWHs and recent reports from national meetings.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed2005

A phase II trial of docetaxel and vinorelbine in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Recent studies of docetaxel have demonstrated improved survival over mitoxantrone and prednisone in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), supporting the study of novel docetaxel-containing regimens as primary therapy or following initial docetaxel-based therapy. To evaluate the combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with HRPC, 40 patients with proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate with progressive metastatic disease despite androgen ablation were enrolled onto this phase II trial. Patients were treated with docetaxel 60 mg/m2 on day 1 and vinorelbine 15 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily for 4 days starting 1 day prior to the docetaxel infusion. After the first three patients were enrolled, filgrastim was added on days 2-6 and 9-13. Of the 40 patients enrolled, 19 had no prior chemotherapy and 21 had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. Of the 19 patients without prior chemotherapy and the 21 with prior chemotherapy, 7 (37%) and 6 (29%) , respectively, demonstrated a decrease in prostate specific antigen by > 50% maintained for at least 4 weeks. Out of eight patients with measurable disease, one achieved a partial response and four demonstrated stable disease. There was one patient with deep vein thrombosis, and febrile neutropenia was noted in only three patients after the protocol was modified to include filgrastim support. The combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine with filgrastim was well tolerated and active against HRPC in patients with or without prior chemotherapy.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2005

Effect of docetaxel in patients with hormone-dependent prostate-specific antigen progression after local therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate docetaxel in the treatment of patients with early-stage prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after local therapy without androgen ablation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate with PSA progression despite local therapy were treated with 70 mg/m2 docetaxel every 21 days. Treatment was planned for eight cycles. Patients were followed up for effects on PSA, testosterone, and toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 25 patients completed at least one full cycle of therapy. Ten (43%) of 23 patients demonstrated a decrease in PSA by > or = 50% for at least 4 weeks. The nadir decrease in PSA occurred beyond 150 days of therapy in most patients. Therapy was well tolerated. Grade 4 neutropenia with fever occurred in only six cycles (4.5%). Two patients required 25% dose reductions, both occurring with cycle 6, secondary to increased transaminases in one patient, and grade 3 lacrimation in the other patient. Two patients were removed after the first cycle of therapy due to toxicity (deep venous thrombosis, chest palpitations). Mean testosterone levels were not reduced in 17 patients assessed before and during therapy (P = .12). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the activity of docetaxel alone, without androgen ablation, in patients with PSA progression after completion of local therapy. Treatment with docetaxel in this population with early disease progression was well tolerated, biochemically active, and was not androgen ablative. Accrual to national phase III studies in early disease is now critical and should be strongly encouraged to determine the ability of early chemotherapy to improve survival.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2005

A phase II trial of imatinib mesylate in patients with prostate specific antigen progression after local therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that progression of androgen sensitive prostate cancer is dependent on growth factors, such as platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), and inhibition of PDGF receptor (PDGF-R) with imatinib will induce anti-tumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study evaluated imatinib in patients with androgen sensitive prostate cancer and prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression after local therapy. Patients received 400 mg of imatinib orally twice a day for 24 weeks (six cycles). Patients were monitored every 4 weeks for an effect on PSA and toxicity. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for PDGF-R was performed in available tumor specimens. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled on this trial with a median age of 64 years. A total of 72 cycles of therapy were administered. Sixteen patients were evaluable for a response. Nine of the 16 patients demonstrated a stable PSA. Seven patients demonstrated PSA progression. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity included rash (4.1%), hematuria (1.4%), diarrhea (1.4%), and neutropenia (2.7%). Testosterone levels did not change during therapy. Four patients with available tumor demonstrated PDGF-R alpha and beta by IHC. CONCLUSIONS: This first study evaluated the efficacy and safety of imatinib in patients with early androgen sensitive prostate cancer following local therapy. As a single agent at this dosing, imatinib had limited biochemical activity.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Drug-drug interactions in oncology: why are they important and can they be minimized?

Adverse drug-drug interactions are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Cancer patients are at particularly high risk of such interactions because they commonly receive multiple medications, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal agents and supportive care drugs. In addition, the majority of cancer patients are elderly, and so require medications for co-morbid conditions such as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and rheumatological diseases. Furthermore, the age-related decline in hepatic and renal function reduces their ability to metabolize and clear drugs and so increases the potential for toxicity. Not all drug-drug interactions can be predicted, and those that are predictable are not always avoidable. However, increased awareness of the potential for these interactions will allow healthcare providers to minimize the risk by choosing appropriate drugs and also by monitoring for signs of interaction. This review considers the basic principles of drug-drug interactions, and presents specific examples that are relevant to oncology.

Anti-Infective Agents↗
PubMed2005

Prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy: comparison of ondansetron, prochlorperazine, and dexamethasone.

The purpose of this article is to assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and dexamethasone in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Cancer patients (n = 232) receiving moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: 15 mg prochlorperazine spansules twice daily; 8 mg ondansetron tablets twice daily; or 8 mg dexamethasone tablets twice daily on days 2 through 5. All patients received 24 mg ondansetron and 20 mg dexamethasone orally before chemotherapy. Daily assessment (days 1 through 5) included the number of episodes of retching and vomiting, severity of nausea, restlessness, difficulty concentrating and fatigue, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life (measured using a 10-cm VAS). The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) was completed on day 5. Other side effects attributed to antiemetic therapy were recorded daily. For acute CINV, total control, defined as no vomiting, retching, nausea <1 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale, and no administration of rescue medications, was achieved in 78% in the overall group and was not significantly different in the patients randomized to the 3 treatment arms for delayed CINV. Delayed CINV was reported by 43% to 57% of patients, with the highest incidence reported on day 3. For delayed CINV, patients receiving prochlorperazine reported the lowest average nausea score on days 2 to 5, whereas patients receiving ondansetron reported the highest nausea score (P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in CINV or side effects of antiemetic therapy were noted between treatment groups on days 2 to 5. For patients similar to those included in this study, there does not appear to be a clinically important difference in efficacy, adverse effects, or treatment satisfaction among dexamethasone, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron in the doses used in these delayed CINV regimens on days 2 to 5 in this study.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Phase I trial of weekly docetaxel with concurrent three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the treatment of unfavorable localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

PURPOSE: A phase I trial was conducted to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of concurrent weekly docetaxel and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3-D CRT) in unfavorable localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unfavorable localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent daily 3-D CRT to a total dose of 70.2 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction and concurrent docetaxel given once a week for 8 to 9 weeks. The initial weekly docetaxel dose level was 5 mg/m(2) and the docetaxel doses were escalated as follows: 8, 12, 16, 20, and 25 mg/m(2). RESULTS: Between January 2000 and August 2002, 22 men completed the chemoradiation therapy protocol. The dose-limiting toxicity was grade 3 diarrhea, which occurred in the first two patients treated at the 25 mg/m(2) docetaxel dose level. The MTD of weekly docetaxel was determined to be 20 mg/m(2). The overall incidence of grade 2 diarrhea and grade 2 dysuria was 36% and 23%, respectively. Seven (32%) and 15 (68%) patients did not experience any diarrhea or dysuria, respectively. No neutropenia or thrombocytopenia was observed. One patient required intermittent urinary catheterization 10 months postcompletion of therapy, which resolved without any surgical intervention. Seventeen patients remain in prostate-specific antigen remission. At a median follow-up interval of 8 months (range, 2 to 27 months), all patients are alive. CONCLUSION: Concurrent weekly docetaxel in conjunction with 3-D CRT is well tolerated with acceptable toxicity. The MTD of weekly docetaxel was determined to be 20 mg/m(2) with concurrent 3-D CRT.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2004

Epothilones: mechanism of action and biologic activity.

Drugs that target microtubules are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer therapies. Although the mechanisms by which perturbation of microtubule function leads to selective death of cancer cells remain unclear, several new microtubule-targeting compounds are undergoing clinical testing. In part, these efforts focus on overcoming some of the problems associated with taxane-based therapies, including formulation and administration difficulties and susceptibility to resistance conferred by P-glycoprotein. Epothilones have emerged from these efforts as a promising new class of anticancer drugs. Preclinical studies indicate that epothilones bind to and stabilize microtubules in a manner similar but not identical to that of paclitaxel and that epothilones are effective in paclitaxel-resistant tumor models. Clinical phase I and early phase II data are available for BMS-247550, BMS-310705, EPO906, and KOS-862. The results suggest that these compounds have a broad range of antitumor activity at doses and schedules associated with tolerable side effects.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2004

Conceptualization of disease timeline predicts posttreatment distress in breast cancer patients.

A sample of 69 breast cancer patients was assessed before and after cessation of treatment to determine the predictors of posttreatment distress. Patients were assessed approximately 6 weeks before completing chemotherapy treatment, 1 month after completing treatment, and 3 months after completing treatment. Results indicate that timeline beliefs are related to distress: Patients who conceptualize their cancer as a chronic or cyclic illness are more anxious, depressed, and worried about a recurrence than patients who conceptualize their cancer as an acute illness. These findings hold true even while controlling for disease stage. The way patients conceptualize their illness appears to be more influential in determining levels of posttreatment distress than objective indicators of the likelihood of recurrence.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Gemcitabine combined with sequential paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with urothelial cancers and other advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: To investigate a novel schedule of gemcitabine (G), paclitaxel (P), and carboplatin (C), based on preclinical studies demonstrating greater activity and decreased toxicity of administering P prior to C. MATERIAL/METHODS: The effect of the P and C drug sequence on tumor cell viability was assessed with a tetrazolium assay on T24 bladder and DU145 prostate cancer cells. Patients with transitional cell cancer (TCC) and other advanced malignancies were treated with G and P on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28 day cycle. C was administered on day 2 at an AUC of 5. Doses of G and P were varied among cohorts of three patients. RESULTS: Preclinical studies demonstrated that the sequence of P followed by C induced greater cytotoxicity than the reverse sequence. The recommended phase II dose (RPTD) was defined as 70 mg/m2 P, 300 mg/m2 G, and C with AUC of 5. Therapy was well tolerated; fever and neutropenia occurred in only one patient at the RPTD. Grade 3 thrombocytopenia occurred in 5 of 21 patients treated at the RPTD. Out of all 37 patients treated on study, 9 achieved a partial tumor response (PR) and two patients achieved a complete response (CR). Out of the 15 patients with TCC, six had a PR and two had a CR. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical studies demonstrated that the sequence of paclitaxel followed by carboplatin was more effective than the opposite sequence. Administration of gemcitabine and paclitaxel followed by carboplatin was well tolerated and clinically active. GCP should be compared to other combination regimens under investigation for the treatment of TCC.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A phase I and pharmacologic study of the combination of marimastat and paclitaxel in patients with advanced malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Marimastat is a potent inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases and in preclinical studies enhances the anti-tumor activity of certain chemotherapeutics. We performed a phase I clinical evaluation of the combination of oral marimastat and intravenous paclitaxel, to determine if these drugs could be co-administered safely, and to determine whether marimastat alters paclitaxel pharmacokinetics. MATERIAL/METHODS: Marimastat was administered twice daily and paclitaxel as a three hour infusion every three weeks. Doses of both marimastat and paclitaxel were escalated in cohorts of patients up to maximal doses of 10 mg for marimastat and 175 mg/m2 for paclitaxel. Paclitaxel plasma pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in the absence (cycle 1) and presence (cycle 2) of marimastat. Trough marimastat plasma levels were evaluated during cycle 2. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were treated at three different dose levels. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle of therapy, resulting in dose escalation up to the planned maximal dose for each drug. Neutropenia was the most common significant toxicity at the highest dose level, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 38% of patients. There were no complete or partial responses. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicate that marimastat does not alter paclitaxel clearance. At the 10 mg dose, the mean trough marimastat level was 14.8 Kg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Marimastat and paclitaxel can be co-administered safely at doses equivalent to those recommended for single-agent administration. Additional studies are necessary to determine whether this combination is more effective in controlling tumor progression than paclitaxel alone.

Adult↗