Nanomedicines in the treatment of emesis during chemotherapy: focus on aprepitant

Aprepitant, a selective high-affinity antagonist of human substance P/neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptors, is the active ingredient of EMEND which has recently been approved by the FDA for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Aprepitant undergoes extensive metabolism, primarily via CYP3A4 mediated oxidation. It is eliminated primarily by metabolism and is not renally excreted. The apparent terminal half-life in humans ranged from 9 to 13 hours. Early development studies led to the development of a nanoparticle formulation to enhance exposure and minimize food effects. Two large randomized trials accruing 1099 patients studied the effect in patients receiving cisplatin of adding aprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 then to dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 to control delayed emesis. The complete response of no vomiting and no rescue medication overall from days 1 to 5 improved from 48% to 68% (p<0.001), a 13% improvement in acute emesis but a 21% improvement in delayed emesis with the improvement from 51% to 72% (p<0.001). Similarly, 866 patients treated with cyclophosphamide plus either doxorubicin or epirubicin, received either ondansetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant on day 1 followed by aprepitant on days 2 and 3 or ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 and dexamethasone on days 2 and 3. The overall complete response rate over 5 days was better for the aprepitant group 50.8% vs 42.5% (p=0.015). Complete responses were reported in more patients taking aprepitant in both the acute (76% vs 69%, p=0.034) and delayed (55% vs 49%, p=0.064) phases of vomiting. There were no clinically relevant differences in toxicity by adding aprepitant and improvements in the quality of life of patients on chemotherapy were recorded.     

Aprepitant versus ondansetron in preoperative triple-therapy treatment of nausea and vomiting in neurosurgery patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is 50% to 80% after neurosurgery. The common prophylactic treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting is a triple therapy of droperidol (Inapsine), promethazine (Phenergan) and dexamethasone (Decadron). Newer, more effectives methods of prophylaxis are being investigated. We designed this prospective, double-blind, single center study to compare the efficacy of ondansetron (Zofran) to a neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant (Emend), as a substitute for droperidol, in the prophylactic treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after neurosurgery. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, One hundred-seventy-six patients, 18-85 years of age with ASA I to III, who did not receive anti-emetics 24 hours before surgery and are expected to undergo general anesthesia for neurosurgery lasting longer than two hours were included in this study. After meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and providing written informed consent, patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of two treatment groups: aprepitant or ondansetron. Because ondansetron is given intravenously and aprepitant orally, patients will be given an oral or intravenous placebo to maintain the double blind. Patients will receive aprepitant 40 mg PO/placebo within 2 hours prior to induction. At induction, a combination of intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg, promethazine 25 mg and ondansetron 4 mg/placebo will be given. The primary outcome measures are the episodes and severity of nausea and vomiting; administration of rescue antiemetic; and opioid consumption for 120 hours postoperatively. Standard safety assessments will include adverse event reports, physical and laboratory data, awakening time and duration of recovery from anesthesia. Logistic regression will be used to test the efficacy of aprepitant compared to ondansetron with demographic characteristics as potential covariates in the model. For the number of rescue therapy treatments used during the postoperative period, a Wilcoxon rank sum test will be performed. DISCUSSION: The results of this comparative study will potentially identify an improved treatment regimen that will decrease the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing neurosurgery. This will serve to enhance patient recovery and overall satisfaction of neurosurgical patients in the immediate postoperative period. Registered at The Ohio State University Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board: Protocol Number: 2007H0053 KEYWORDS: aprepitant, postoperative nausea and vomiting, craniotomy, ondansetron. Word Count: 347.     

药学干预对乳腺癌患者辅助化疗期间恶心呕吐和生活质量影响的研究

目的:探讨药学干预对乳腺癌患者辅助化疗期间恶心呕吐和生活质量的影响。方法:采用前瞻性队列研究,共入组87例乳腺癌术后患者。在接受辅助化疗前随机分为干预组(n=44)和对照组(n=43),干预组患者在接受化疗和常规支持治疗的同时,针对化疗引起的恶心呕吐由临床药师对患者进行咨询并指导用药,优化对症治疗方案,对照组仅接受化疗和常规支持治疗。比较两组患者对止吐药物的完全反应率、恶心严重程度、呕吐频次和生活质量。结果:化疗的前3个周期两组对止吐药物的完全缓解率分别为37.2%和63.6%,46.5%和75.0%,44.2%和72.7%,干预组完全缓解率明显高于对照组(P=0.014,P=0.006,P=0.007)。干预组的急性和迟发性恶心较对照组轻(P=0.023,P=0.045),急性和迟发性呕吐频率较对照组明显减少(P=0.006,P=0.034)。生活质量测评显示干预组患者的总健康状况较对照组升高(P=0.028),恶心、呕吐和食欲丧失的症状评分较对照组降低(P=0.025,P=0.045)。结论:临床药师对乳腺癌患者辅助化疗期间进行药学干预可明显减轻患者恶心、呕吐的副反应,并可改善生活质量。临床药师参与乳腺癌患者辅助化疗期间的对症治疗值得在临床广泛推广。     

Does dexamethasone enhance control of acute cisplatin induced emesis by ondansetron?

OBJECTIVE--To determine the contribution of dexamethasone to the efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist ondansetron in control of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. DESIGN--Randomised double blind crossover study. SETTING--Two cancer centres in teaching hospitals, one in the United Kingdom and the other in Germany. SUBJECTS--100 patients (53 men and 47 women) new to cisplatin chemotherapy, 84 of whom completed two consecutive courses of chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS--Patients were given intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) or physiological saline with intravenous ondansetron 8 mg before cisplatin, then ondansetron 1 mg/h for 24 hours. Oral ondansetron 8 mg was taken three times daily on days 2-6. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Incidence of complete or major control of emesis (0-2 episodes in the 24 hours after chemotherapy). RESULTS--Complete or major control was obtained in 49 out of 71 (69%) of patients after receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone compared with 40 out of 71 (56%) when they were given ondansetron alone (p = 0.012). This effect was most pronounced in the first 12 hours after chemotherapy. Patients receiving the combination also had significantly less nausea. Of the 53 patients who expressed a preference, 38 (72%) preferred the combination treatment (p = 0.002) to ondansetron alone. The effect of ondansetron on delayed emesis was less pronounced. CONCLUSIONS--Dexamethasone makes a significant contribution to the efficacy of ondansetron in the control of acute platinum induced emesis.     

Late chronotypes are associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, that is, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery, has been commonly used for locally advanced breast cancer to improve the surgical outcomes and increase the opportunity for breast-conserving therapy. Women with breast cancer often receive an anthracycline-based regimen as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with a high risk of emesis. Despite the development of novel antiemetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as a major adverse effect, affecting the quality of life of the patients. However, the factors predicting CINV in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. In this single-institution, prospective, observational study conducted at an outpatient cancer centre in the Republic of Korea from November 2013 to March 2016, we analysed women with breast cancer who planned to be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CINV was assessed after chemotherapy by using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool. Of a total of 143 participants, 7 patients were lost to follow-up and 2 patients were excluded due to changes in their treatment plan; thus, 134 patients were finally included in the analyses. Overall, 48.5% of the participants experienced CINV, with delayed CINV prevalence (42.5%) being more common than acute (39.6%). In the univariate analyses, overall CINV was significantly associated with late chronotypes (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37–8.87; p = 0.009), a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10–4.37; p = 0.026) and anxiety (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05–4.81; p = 0.036). In the multivariate analyses, late chronotypes (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.27–9.79; p = 0.015) and a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.31–6.13; p = 0.008) remained significantly associated with CINV. In conclusion, in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, late chronotypes were found to have an increased risk of CINV; these data suggest that clinicians need to assess and consider the chronotype in the management of CINV.     

Incidence, risk factors and prevention of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in patients with lung cancer

High-dose (75 mg/m2) cisplatin is baseline chemotherapy in lung cancer. To prevent nephrotoxicity, patients generally receive saline infusion on the day of chemotherapy prior to and following cisplatin (total of 3.5-4.0 liters during 3-4 hours). Despite these measures nephrotoxicity has remained frequent, especially among patients also suffering from cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus. Since 2005 several international recommendations have been formed about prevention of cisplatin nephrotoxicity. According to these recommendations: 1) renal function should not be evaluated by serum creatinine concentration; 2) evaluation of renal function should be based on calculated creatinine clearance (e.g. by the Cockcroft-Gault equation); 3) patients to be treated by high-dose cisplatin should be euvolemic and should have saline diuresis (urine NaCl concentration ~1%) of at least 100 ml/hour prior to, during and several days following the administration of cisplatin. Keeping these recommendations ensures prolonged cisplatin treatability of lung cancer patients. Moreover, decreased renal function will not limit the full dose administration of several other cytotoxic agents. Losonczy G, Máthé C, Müller V, Szondy K, Moldvay J. Incidence, risk factors and prevention of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in patients with lung cancer.     

洛铂与顺铂联合吉西他滨用于晚期肺癌患者化疗的疗效比较

目的:研究洛铂与顺铂联合吉西他滨用于晚期肺癌患者化疗的临床疗效,为临床治疗提供依据。方法:选取2013年1月到2015年1月我院收治的晚期肺癌患者190例,按照随机数字表法将患者分为I组和II组,每组95例,I组给予洛铂联合吉西他滨治疗,II组给予顺铂联合吉西他滨治疗,应用欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织(EORTC)的生命质量测定量表(QLQ-C30)评价治疗前、后患者的生活质量,比较两组近期疗效、远期疗效以及不良反应。结果:两组近期疗效比较无统计学意义(P0.05);I组平均缓解期(6.33±1.82)月显著长于II组的(5.13±0.84)月,I组中位生存期为(9.95±2.31)月显著长于II组的(7.82±1.24)月,比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后两组QLQ-C30评分均显著提高,且I组高于II组,比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);I组骨髓抑制发生率显著高于II组,恶心、呕吐发生率显著低于II组,比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:洛铂与顺铂联合吉西他滨用于晚期肺癌患者化疗近期疗效相当,洛铂联合吉西他滨具有较好远期疗效,且能提高患者生活质量,但骨髓抑制发生率较高。     

Cancer therapy, vomiting, and antiemetics

Both radiotherapy and chemotherapy for cancer are capable of causing nausea and vomiting. With both treatment modalities, the nausea and vomiting is thought to be a second-order process rather than being due to direct stimulation of neuromechanisms that control vomiting. Both a peripheral (gastrointestinal tract) and central (chemoreceptor trigger zone) effect may be operating with both radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-induced vomiting. With radiotherapy, gastrointestinal toxicity is affected by the type of radiation, radiation dose and field size, fractionation schedule, individual patient factors, and the part of the patient that is radiated. Many different factors also influence the frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy. With both radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting is probably mediated by a reduction in breakdown of various neurotransmitters. It is presumed that as the levels of neurotransmitters increase, nausea and vomiting develop. Antagonists of these neurotransmitters may afford some antiemetic protection. Nausea and vomiting may be so severe in patients with cancer that they may refuse potentially curative therapy because of it. Anticipatory nausea and vomiting may develop in patients who have become quite sick after receiving treatment. Exposure to stimuli associated with the emetogenic agent is then sufficient to trigger nausea and vomiting. Standard antiemetics do not help anticipatory nausea and vomiting, although behavioural training may. A variety of different drugs have proven useful as antiemetics, including dopamine antagonists such as phenothiazines, metoclopramide, corticosteroids (dexamethasone and methylprednisolone), cannabinoids, and benzodiazapines. Antihistamines and anticholinergics are of value in some situations. New serotonin antagonists appear to be very promising and are currently undergoing clinical studies. Multiagent antiemetic regimens appear to be more effective than single agent regimens in some situations.     

Gemcitabine in the first and second-line chemotherapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of gemcitabine in first and the second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage III and IV). In first-line chemotherapy, 120 patients were treated with different chemotherapy regimens. Fifty-nine patients were treated with gemcitabine / cisplatin (PG), 41 with cisplatin / etoposide (PE) and 20 with mitomycin / ifosfamide / cisplatin (MIC). Forty patients, unsuccessfully treated with PE and MIC in first-line therapy were treated with PG (24 pts) and with best supportive care (BSC) (16 pts). In first-line therapy PG was superior to PE and MIC protocol (mean survival (MS) 10 vs. 7 vs. 8.5 months). Response rate (RR) for PG in first-line therapy was 46% and 21% in second-line. We showed also significantly better survival in patients treated with PG in second-line chemotherapy comparing to best supportive care (MS 9 vs. 5.5 months). Toxic side effects for combination PG was acceptable. This study confirmed that PG combination is safe and effective as first and second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.     

Low-dose subcutaneous recombinant interleukin-2 in advanced human malignancy: a phase II outpatient study

Recombinant interleukin-2 (rIL-2; EuroCetus, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was studied in an outpatient phase II trial in 14 patients with progressive metastatic renal carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and colorectal cancer. Escalating doses of rIL-2 were administered as subcutaneous bolus every 12 hours, starting at 0.3 million U/m2/d. A 100% dose increase occurred at weekly intervals, up to a maximum of 2.4 million U/m2/d. Responding patients or patients with stable disease after 4 weeks of rIL-2 (n = 9) were continued on maintenance therapy at 1.8 million U/m2 of rIL-2 administered once weekly. After 12 weeks of therapy, one renal cell cancer patient had a partial regression in lung metastases. Bolus injection of rIL-2 (1.2 million U/m2) resulted in peak serum levels of 25 to 30 U/ml. Toxicity of this regimen was moderate, with local inflammation at the injection sites, grade I-II (World Health Organization) malaise, nausea and/or vomiting, and fevers in 70% to 100% of patients treated. Thyroid dysfunction was observed in 10 patients receiving subcutaneous rIL-2; four of these patients had laboratory evidence of hyperthyroidism, and one had hypothyroidism. rIL-2-induced toxicity reversed spontaneously after cessation of treatment. In all patients receiving rIL-2, a dose-dependent increase in peripheral blood lymphocyte and eosinophil counts was noted, with a mean of 2.6 and 3.8 x 1,000/microliters after 4 weeks of therapy; mean lymphocyte and eosinophil counts were measured at 2.0 and 2.4 x 1,000/microliters in patients who received prior high-dose chemotherapy, compared with 3.2 and 5.1 x 1,000/microliters in those who did not.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

选择性支气管动脉插管转铁蛋白受体单克隆抗体灌注治疗中晚期肺癌(附68例临床报告)

本文对68例中晚期肺癌进行选择性支气管动脉插管采用转铁蛋白受体单克隆抗体与表阿霉素、顺伯等药物制成偶联物灌注。结果显示,肿瘤明显消退24例(35.2％),部分消退36例(52.5％),无变化8例(12.3％),总有效率为87.7％。通过对支气管动脉插管,导向灌注疗法结果显示,本疗法优于周围静脉供药,且无严重并发症,副作用轻,不失为一种可供选择的治疗方法。     

昂丹司琼联合泮托拉唑对宫颈癌同步放化疗所致恶心呕吐的临床疗效

摘要 目的：研究昂丹司琼联合泮托拉唑对宫颈癌同步放化疗所致恶心呕吐的临床疗效。方法：选择2018年1月～2020年1月我院收治的79例宫颈癌患者,均采取同步化疗,将其随机分为两组。对照组在当天化疗前30 min和随后的6 d连续静脉注射昂丹司琼,每次8 mg,1次/d;同时给予地塞米松磷酸钠注射液10 mg,1次/d。观察组在昂丹司琼的基础上静脉注射泮托拉唑,每次40 mg,1次/d,给药的时间与昂丹司琼相同。比较两组宫颈癌患者恶心呕吐的完全缓解率、癌因性疲乏评分和不良反应的发生情况。结果：两组化疗第1、2 d恶心呕吐的完全缓解率比较差异无明显统计学意义(P>0.05),观察组化疗第3、4、5、6 d恶心呕吐的完全缓解率分别为76.92 %、79.49 %、87.18 %、87.18 %,均明显高于对照组(P<0.05);观察组的癌因性疲乏评分为(45.39±7.29)分,明显低于对照组的(67.24±8.36)分(P<0.05);两组的乏力嗜睡、便秘、椎体外系反应、失眠/不安、腹泻、轻度头痛的发生率比较无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论：昂丹司琼联合泮托拉唑对宫颈癌同步放化疗所致恶心呕吐的疗效显著优于单用昂丹司琼治疗,并能明显减轻癌因性疲乏,且安全性高。     

晚期非小细胞肺癌p53 和ERCC1 表达状态与顺铂为主的 联合方案化疗的近期有效率的相关性研究*

目的:研究晚期非小细胞肺癌不同的p53和ERCC1表达状态与基于顺铂为主的姑息化疗近期有效率的相关性。方法:对经顺铂联合多西他赛或顺铂联合吉西他滨治疗的48例晚期非小细胞肺癌患者进行回顾性分析,利用既往免疫组化资料,观察基于顺铂为主的方案近期有效率(RR)的影响因素及化疗不良反应。结果:全组48例患者均完成至少两周期化疗,并行疗效评价。该组患者化疗的近期有效率为28例(58.3%),RR与不同的转移病灶部位(P=0.042)及病灶数目(P=0.034)有显著差异。该类方案的近期有效率与ERCC1状态(P=0.012)密切相关,而与p53表达状态(P=0.401)无关。毒性反应主要是骨髓抑制、脱发及消化道反应等。结论:晚期非小细胞肺癌ERCC1阴性患者较ERCC1阳性患者运用顺铂为主的联合方案化疗的近期有效率较高。ERCC1可能是顺铂疗效预测的敏感因子。p53的表达状态可能不是该类方案的疗效预测因子。     

Role of angiotensin II and vasopressin in cisplatin-induced emesis

Cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens are known to produce intense nausea and vomiting. Angiotensin II (AII) and vasopressin (AVP) have been shown to have emetic properties. The role of these two peptides on cisplatin-induced vomiting was investigated in beagle dogs. Cisplatin (2 mg/kg, IV over 5 min) produced consistent emesis in all dogs after a mean latency time of 144 +/- 4 min. Serum Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) and plasma AII levels did not significantly change 3 hr after cisplatin administration (at the time of nausea and emesis) in control animals. AVP levels rose from 0.3 pg/ml to 7.5 pg/ml 3 hrs after cisplatin. Complete inhibition of ACE with enalapril (given at 3 mg/kg p.o., 3 hrs prior to cisplatin) reduced AII levels by 70%, but failed to significantly modify the increase in AVP levels (7.2 +/- 2.2 pg/ml), the latency time to emesis (149 +/- 2 min) and the number of emetic episodes induced by cisplatin. These results suggest that AII does not mediate cisplatin-induced emesis, nor does it mediate the increase in AVP observed at the time of emesis. We propose that AVP may be a good marker for nausea and emesis, and that increases in AVP may be neurally-mediated. The large increase in circulating AVP may represent a desirable water conservation response in anticipation of fluid losses induced by vomiting.     

不同化疗方案联合手术治疗非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效及对患者免疫功能的影响分析

目的:探讨分析不同化疗方案联合手术治疗非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效以及对患者免疫功能的影响。方法:经病理学证实的非小细胞肺癌患者94例,随机数字表法将其分为顺铂组与洛铂组,各47例。2组患者均采取手术治疗,并术前行辅助化疗。其中顺铂组采取紫杉醇+顺铂方案,洛铂组接受紫杉醇+洛铂方案。比较治疗前后2组患者临床疗效及KPS评分,并对Ig A、Ig G、Ig M、CD4+及CD8+指标水平进行分析。结果:洛铂组有效率(CR+PR)为87.2%(41/47),与顺铂组[80.8%(38/47)]差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。洛铂组术后KPS评分及CD4+水平高于顺铂组(P0.05),但CD8+水平低于顺铂组(P0.05),差异有统计学意义;2组患者手术前后Ig A、Ig G及Ig M均无统计学意义(P0.05)。洛铂组毒副反应发生率低于顺铂组(P0.05)。结论:含洛铂术前辅助化疗方案有助于改善非小细胞肺癌患者的免疫功能,降低化疗的毒副反应。     

CISPLATIN-INDUCED VOMITING DEPENDS ON CIRCADIAN TIMING

We examined whether the clock time of cisplatin plus antiemetic and diuretic administration affects the amount of cisplatin-associated emesis and severity of renal toxicity. We treated 22 patients with urogenital cancer with two courses of chemotherapy containing 70 mg/m² of cisplatin. Cisplatin together with furosemide was administered in the morning (05:00) or evening (17:00) during two courses 1 month apart in a crossover fashion. Ondansetron was given either before or after cisplatin to control nausea and vomiting. The number of vomiting episodes, serum creatinine, serum urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine clearance, and urinary β-N-acetyl glucosamidase (NAG) concentration were evaluated before and after each treatment course. Regardless of the timing of ondansetron, morning compared to evening cisplatin was always associated with greater vomiting in the first treatment course. However, prophylactic administration of ondansetron markedly diminished the impact of the clock time of cisplatin administration. Serum creatinine transiently decreased rather than increased 14 days after cisplatin and furosemide administration, while NAG excretion increased 3 days after cisplatin and furosemide administration. In the first course, serum creatinine levels were similar regardless of the clock time of cisplatin and furosemide administration. However, in the second course, serum creatinine rose in patients given evening cisplatin and furosemide, while it remained unchanged in those given morning cisplatin and furosemide. Moreover, the first course morning cisplatin and furosemide treatment was associated with less change in NAG excretion (less kidney toxicity) than the first course of evening cisplatin and furosemide treatment. The second course evening cisplatin and furosemide treatment was associated with an increase in NAG excretion compared to the first course of treatment, while morning cisplatin and furosemide treatment in the second course showed less change in NAG excretion compared to the first course. The clock time of cisplatin administration had an impact on the frequency of emesis. Prophylactic ondansetron, however, diminished the time-of-day dependency of cisplatin-induced vomiting. Administration of cisplatin and furosemide in the morning rather than evening appears to cause less renal damage, and this damage may be further reduced with aggressive hydration and routine administration of furosemide. (Chronobiology International, 18(5), 851–863, 2001)     

CISPLATIN-INDUCED VOMITING DEPENDS ON CIRCADIAN TIMING

We examined whether the clock time of cisplatin plus antiemetic and diuretic administration affects the amount of cisplatin-associated emesis and severity of renal toxicity. We treated 22 patients with urogenital cancer with two courses of chemotherapy containing 70 mg/m² of cisplatin. Cisplatin together with furosemide was administered in the morning (05:00) or evening (17:00) during two courses 1 month apart in a crossover fashion. Ondansetron was given either before or after cisplatin to control nausea and vomiting. The number of vomiting episodes, serum creatinine, serum urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine clearance, and urinary β-N-acetyl glucosamidase (NAG) concentration were evaluated before and after each treatment course. Regardless of the timing of ondansetron, morning compared to evening cisplatin was always associated with greater vomiting in the first treatment course. However, prophylactic administration of ondansetron markedly diminished the impact of the clock time of cisplatin administration. Serum creatinine transiently decreased rather than increased 14 days after cisplatin and furosemide administration, while NAG excretion increased 3 days after cisplatin and furosemide administration. In the first course, serum creatinine levels were similar regardless of the clock time of cisplatin and furosemide administration. However, in the second course, serum creatinine rose in patients given evening cisplatin and furosemide, while it remained unchanged in those given morning cisplatin and furosemide. Moreover, the first course morning cisplatin and furosemide treatment was associated with less change in NAG excretion (less kidney toxicity) than the first course of evening cisplatin and furosemide treatment. The second course evening cisplatin and furosemide treatment was associated with an increase in NAG excretion compared to the first course of treatment, while morning cisplatin and furosemide treatment in the second course showed less change in NAG excretion compared to the first course. The clock time of cisplatin administration had an impact on the frequency of emesis. Prophylactic ondansetron, however, diminished the time-of-day dependency of cisplatin-induced vomiting. Administration of cisplatin and furosemide in the morning rather than evening appears to cause less renal damage, and this damage may be further reduced with aggressive hydration and routine administration of furosemide. (Chronobiology International, 18(5), 851-863, 2001)     

Experience with the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer in Hungary

In the first phase of this study 34 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have been treated either with gemcitabine/cisplatin or gemcitabine/5-fluorouracil (5FU)/leucovorin combination. (Gemzar: 900 mg/m2, Cisplatin: 20 mg/m2, 5-FU: 750 mg/m2). Treatments were continued till tumor progression. There was no difference observed between the two protocols in the clinical response rates (PR=65%). On the other hand, a significant difference was found between the two protocols regarding the side effects. In the case of gemcitabine/5-FU neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia (as well as nausea and vomiting) were much less frequent compared to gemcitabine/cisplatin combination. Based on these data the efficacy of gemcitabine/5-FU combination was evaluated in 99 stage III, T1-4, N1 and stage IV, T1-4, N0-1, M1 pancreatic cancer patients throughout 364 treatment cycles. OR was achieved in 10% while stable disease in 52% of the cases. The average survival period was 8.33 months while the time to progression was 5.75 months. Based on these data we recommend gemcitabine/5-FU/leucovorin combination for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.     

射频及微波消融治疗与单纯化疗治疗中晚期非小细胞肺癌生活质量的对比研究

目的：探讨射频及微波消融治疗与单纯化疗对中晚期非小细胞肺癌患者生活质量（QOL）的影响。方法：从选择2009年8月1日至2011年7月31日在我科治疗的120例中晚期非小细胞肺癌患者,将其分为三组,A组：射频消融组;B组：经皮穿刺微波消融治疗治疗组;C组：单纯化疗。在治疗前、后及治疗结束后1个月,应用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织（european organization for rese-arch treat-ment of cancer,EORTC）生活质量核心问卷（QLQ-C30）对患者的生存质量进行评估。结果：治疗后1个月,A、B两组所有功能指标评分和治疗前比较均无统计学差异（P〉0.05）,症状指标仅呼吸困难评分较治疗前明显升高（P〈0.05）,C组患者体力功能、情绪功能较治疗前明显下降（P〈0.05）,认知功能、总体状况、角色功能及社会功能和治疗前比较无显着性差异（P〉0.05）,疲乏、恶心呕吐、呼吸困难、食欲丧失、腹泻临床症状较治疗前明显增加（P〈0.05）,其余症状指标评分较治疗前无显着性差异（P〉0.05）。治疗后3个月,三组所有功能指标评分与治疗前比较均无显着性差异（P〉0.05）,C组患者恶心呕吐、呼吸困难、食欲丧失的评分仍较治疗前显著增加（P〈0.05）,A、B组呼吸困难评分仍较治疗前明显升高（P〈0.05）。结论：与单纯化疗相比,射频消融、经皮穿刺微波消融治疗中晚期非小细胞肺癌均对患者的生存质量影响较小。     

吉非替尼联合GP化疗方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的效果及对血清CEA、SCC、NSE、CYFRA21-1水平的影响

目的:研究吉非替尼联合吉西他滨和顺铂(GP)化疗方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的效果及对血清癌胚抗原(Carcinoembbryonic antigen,CEA)、鳞状细胞癌相关抗原(Squamous cell carcinoma,SCC)、神经元特异烯醇化酶(Neuron-specific enolase,NSE)、细胞角蛋白19片段(Cytokeratin-19-fragment,CYFRA21-1)水平的影响。方法:选取2016年6月～2018年6月我院收治的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者110例,采用随机数字表法将患者分为两组,每组55例。对照组患者给予GP化疗方案,观察组在对照组的基础上给予吉非替尼。比较两组患者的临床治疗效果,治疗前后血清肿瘤标志物水平和生活质量的变化以及不良反应发生情况。结果:治疗后,观察组疾病控制率为86.67%,对照组为74.55%,观察组显著高于对照组(P0.05);两组治疗后血清CEA、SCC、NSE和CYFRA21-1水平均较治疗前显著下降,且观察组以上指标均显著低于对照(P0.05);两组治疗后FACT-L各项评分包括躯体状况、社会家庭状况、情感状况、肺癌特异性模块和功能状况评分均较治疗前显著升高,且观察组以上指标均显著高于对照(P0.05)。治疗期间,观察组患者白细胞减少、血小板减少、肝肾功能异常的发生率显著低于对照组(P0.05),两组贫血、恶心呕吐的发生率比较无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:与GP化疗方案相比,吉非替尼联合GP化疗方案可更显著提高晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的治疗效果,改善其生活质量,且安全性较高,可能与其降低血清CEA、SCC、NSE和CYFRA21-1水平有关。