PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

V L Barley

Publications and source records attributed to V L Barley.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer: two versus five fractions.

The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to compare the symptomatic effects of two different regimens of palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer. Two hundred and sixteen patients needing palliation were randomized to receive either a 17 Gy mid-point dose in two fractions 1 week apart or 22.5 Gy in five daily fractions. Both toxicity and efficacy were evaluated by postal questionnaires. This small study was intended to identify any clinically important differences in toxicity or efficacy between the two regimens. We detected no such difference, although there was a tendency for iatrogenic dysphagia and improvement in chest pain and cough to be more common with the two-fraction regimen. The only symptom that was improved in over 50% of patients for 8 weeks or more was haemoptysis. Haemoptysis and chest pain appeared to be the best indications for treatment. The relief of other symptoms was disappointing in both degree and duration.

Aged↗
PubMed1995

Multicentre cross-over study of aminoglutethimide and trilostane in advanced postmenopausal breast cancer.

Trilostane and aminoglutethimide, both given with a physiological replacement dose of hydrocortisone, were randomly allocated to 112 eligible patients with postmenopausal advanced breast cancer. Following treatment failure on either drug the patient continued with the other, if they were in a suitable clinical condition. Sixty-three patients initially received trilostane, of whom 33 subsequently received aminoglutethimide; 49 patients initially had aminoglutethimide and 14 of these then received trilostane. Both groups of patients were comparable in all respects. There was no difference in the response rate to either drug or in the average time to disease progression for the two drugs. Of the 47 patients who received both drugs, nine (19%) showed a response to both, indicating no cross-resistance. Side effects were seen to both drugs in approximately half the patients; these were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms with trilostane and rashes and drowsiness with aminoglutethimide. There was no evidence of cross-over patient susceptibility to side effects.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1993

Multicentre cross over study of aminoglutethimide and trilostane in advanced postmenopausal breast cancer.

Trilostane and Aminoglutethimide, each given with a physiological replacement dose of hydrocortisone, were randomly allocated to 72 eligible postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients; following treatment failure on either drug the patient continued with the other drug, if in a suitable clinical condition. Thirty-eight patients initially received Trilostane of whom 19 subsequently received Aminoglutethimide; 34 patients initially had Aminoglutethimide and seven of these then received Trilostane. Both groups of patients were comparable in all respects. There was no difference in the objective response rate to either drug, Trilostane 11/38 = 29%, Aminoglutethimide 12/34 = 35%, nor in the average time to disease progression for the two drugs, Trilostane 64 weeks, Aminoglutethimide 68 weeks. Of the 26 patients who received both drugs, four showed a response to both suggesting no cross resistance. Side effects were seen to both drugs in approximately half of the patients, but were mainly gastro-intestinal with Trilostane and rash and drowsiness with Aminoglutethimide. There was no evidence of cross over patient susceptibility to side effects.

3-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenases↗
PubMed1990

Intravenous treosulfan versus intravenous treosulfan plus cisplatinum in advanced ovarian carcinoma.

In a prospective, multicentre, randomized trial, the efficacy and tolerance of treosulfan alone was compared with that of treosulfan plus cisplatinum in 135 women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments in terms of median survival. Combined treatment was associated with significantly greater side-effects and haematological toxicity. Optimal survival with minimal toxicity can be achieved by using treosulfan alone in patients (mainly stages Ic or II) with minimal postoperative residual disease. Patients (likely to be stage III or IV) with greater residual disease should receive treosulfan plus cisplatinum.

Adult↗