Do medical students copy the drug treatment choices of their teachers or do they think for themselves?

PURPOSE: Although the importance of rational prescribing is generally accepted, the teaching of pharmacotherapy to undergraduate medical students is still unsatisfactory. Because clinical teachers are an important role model for medical students, it is of interest to know whether this extends to therapeutic decision-making. The aim of this study was to find out which factors contribute to the drug choices made by medical students and their teachers (general practitioners and clinical specialists). METHODS: Final-year medical students (n = 32), and general practitioners (n = 29), lung specialists (n = 26), orthopaedic surgeons (n = 24), and internists (n = 24) serving as medical teachers from all eight medical schools in the Netherlands participated in the study. They were asked to prescribe treatment (drug or otherwise) for uncomplicated (A) and complicated (B) written patient cases and to indicate which factors influenced their choice of treatment, using a list of factors reported in the literature to influence drug prescribing. RESULTS: Final-year medical students primarily based their drug choice on the factors 'effectiveness of the drugs' and 'examples from medical teachers'. In contrast, clinical teachers primarily based their drug choice on the factors 'clinical experience', 'effectiveness of the drugs', 'side effects of the drugs', 'standard treatment guidelines', and 'scientific literature'. CONCLUSIONS: Medical teachers would appear to base their drug choice mainly on clinical experience and drug-related factors, whereas final-year medical students base their drug choice mainly on examples provided by their medical teachers. It is essential that medical teachers clearly explain to their students how they arrive at a specific choice of medication since medical students tend to copy the therapeutic drug choices from their teachers, mainly because of a lack of experience. Presenting students with clinical therapeutic problems early during undergraduate training will not only give them a chance to gain experience in solving medical problems but will also give meaning to what they are studying as opposed to merely reproducing what they learn or copying what they are told.

Explorative study to identify novel candidate genes related to oxaliplatin efficacy and toxicity using a DNA repair array.

PURPOSE: To identify new polymorphisms (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) in DNA repair pathways that are associated with efficacy and toxicity in patients receiving oxaliplatin and capecitabine for advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). METHODS: We studied progression-free survival (PFS) in 91 ACC patients, of whom germ-line DNA was isolated and genotyped using an Asper Biotech array. Overall survival (OS) and toxicity were studied as secondary end points. A step-wise selection of SNPs was performed, involving univariate and multivariate log-rank tests and Cox regression analysis, with age and performance status as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 81 SNPs in 46 genes on the array were selected for further analysis, based on genotyping success rates and minor allele frequencies. After step-wise selection, we found that homozygosity for the ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene (ATM) rs1801516 or excision repair cross-complementing gene (ERCC5) rs1047768 SNPs was associated with shorter PFS; however there were no significant associations (P>0.01) with OS or toxicity. DISCUSSION: This is the first study describing the pathway gene approach for the selection of new candidate genes involved in oxaliplatin efficacy and toxicity. The results suggest that the ATM and ERCC5 genes may be associated with oxaliplatin efficacy in ACC.

Deficient mismatch repair system in patients with sporadic advanced colorectal cancer.

A deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR) is present in 10-20% of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC) and is associated with a favourable prognosis in early stage disease. Data on patients with advanced disease are scarce. Our aim was to investigate the incidence and outcome of sporadic dMMR in advanced CRC. Data were collected from a phase III study in 820 advanced CRC patients. Expression of mismatch repair proteins was examined by immunohistochemistry. In addition microsatellite instability analysis was performed and the methylation status of the MLH1 promoter was assessed. We then correlated MMR status to clinical outcome. Deficient mismatch repair was found in only 18 (3.5%) out of 515 evaluable patients, of which 13 were caused by hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter. The median overall survival in proficient MMR (pMMR), dMMR caused by hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter and total dMMR was 17.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.2-18.8), 7.4 months (95% CI 3.7-16.9) and 10.2 months (95% CI 5.9-19.8), respectively. The disease control rate in pMMR and dMMR patients was 83% (95% CI 79-86%) and 56% (30-80%), respectively. We conclude that dMMR is rare in patients with sporadic advanced CRC. This supports the hypothesis that dMMR tumours have a reduced metastatic potential, as is observed in dMMR patients with early stage disease. The low incidence of dMMR does not allow drawing meaningful conclusions about the outcome of treatment in these patients.

GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism correlates with progression-free survival in MCRC patients treated with or without irinotecan: a study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

A Valine residue at position 105 of the GSTP1 protein results in decreased enzyme activity. As nuclear GSTP1 activity decreases irinotecan cytotoxicity, Val-allele carriers may benefit more from irinotecan chemotherapy. Our aim was to investigate the association of GSTP1 genotype with treatment outcome of irinotecan. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were determined in 267 metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) patients who were treated with first-line capecitabine (CAP) plus irinotecan (CAPIRI), or CAP single agent in a prospective randomised phase III trial (CAIRO). GSTP1 genotype was determined by Pyrosequencing. Patients receiving CAP showed a PFS of 6.6 (Ile/Ile), 6.0 (Ile/Val) and 6.5 months (Val/Val); compared to 7.0 (Ile/Ile), 8.8 (Ile/Val) and 9.2 months (Val/Val) with CAPIRI. Median PFS was 2.7 months longer in Val-allele carriers treated with CAPIRI compared to CAP (P=0.005). Patients with the Ile/Ile genotype showed similar PFS with CAPIRI and CAP (7.0 compared to 6.6 months, P=0.972). Toxicity did not differ significantly among genotypes. GSTP1 codon 105 polymorphism may be predictive for the response to irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with MCRC, with the Val-allele being associated with a better outcome. Ile/Ile genotype patients do not appear to benefit from the addition of irinotecan to CAP.

UGT1A1*28 genotype and irinotecan dosage in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group study.

The aim of the study was to investigate the associations between UGT1A1(*)28 genotype and (1) response rates, (2) febrile neutropenia and (3) dose intensity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan. UGT1A1(*)28 genotype was determined in 218 patients receiving irinotecan (either first-line therapy with capecitabine or second-line as monotherapy) for metastatic colorectal cancer. TA(7) homozygotes receiving irinotecan combination therapy had a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia (18.2%) compared to the other genotypes (TA(6)/TA(6) : 1.5%; TA(6)/TA(7) : 6.5%, P=0.031). TA(7) heterozygotes receiving irinotecan monotherapy also suffered more febrile neutropenia (19.4%) compared to TA(6)/TA(6) genotype (2.2%; P=0.015). Response rates among genotypes were not different for both regimens: combination regimen, P=0.537; single-agent, P=0.595. TA(7) homozygotes did not receive a lower median irinotecan dose, number of cycles (P-values >or=0.25) or more frequent dose reductions compared to the other genotypes (P-values for trend; combination therapy: 0.62 and single-agent: 0.45). Reductions were mainly (>80%) owing to grade >or=3 diarrhoea, not (febrile) neutropenia. TA(7)/TA(7) patients have a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia upon irinotecan treatment, but were able to receive similar dose and number of cycles compared to other genotypes. Response rates were not significantly different.

Gastrointestinal ulceration as a possible side effect of bevacizumab which may herald perforation.

Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is currently considered as the standard 1st line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). Whereas GI perforation is a known side effect of bevacizumab, the development of GI ulcers has not been reported. We identified 18 patients with ACC who participated in a phase III multicentre trial which included chemotherapy and bevacizumab, who developed a GI ulcer (n = 6), perforation (n = 8) or both (n = 4). The risk of developing a symptomatic GI ulcer or perforation was 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively. Central review of the histology specimens showed ulceration and/or granulation tissue with neovascularisation. The majority (89%) of events developed early during treatment. Given these observations, as well as the relationship between VEGF and mucosal injury healing, we suggest that GI ulcers may occur as a side effect of treatment with bevacizumab and may herald perforation.

A randomised phase III study on capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab in first-line advanced colorectal cancer, the CAIRO2 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). An interim analysis of toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor or the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has shown efficacy in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), but no data are available on the combination of these strategies with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment. The CAIRO2 study evaluates the effect of adding cetuximab, a chimeric mAb against EGFR, to capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 755 patients were randomly assigned between treatment with capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab. The primary end point is progression-free survival. We here present the toxicity results in the first 400 patients that entered the study. RESULTS: The incidence of overall grade 3-4 toxicity was significantly higher in arm B compared with arm A (81% versus 72%, P = 0.03). This difference is fully attributed to cetuximab-related skin toxicity. The addition of cetuximab did not result in an increase of gastrointestinal toxicity or treatment-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of ACC appears to be safe and feasible. No excessive or unexpected toxicity in the cetuximab-containing treatment arm was observed.

Randomised study of sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer, an interim safety analysis. A Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Results on overall survival in randomised studies of mono- versus combination chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer patients may have been biased by an imbalance in salvage treatments. This is the first randomised study that evaluates sequential versus combination chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 820 patients were randomised between first-line capecitabine, second-line irinotecan and third-line capecitabine + oxaliplatin (arm A) versus first-line capecitabine + irinotecan, and second-line capecitabine + oxaliplatin (arm B). The primary end point was overall survival. We present the results of an interim analysis on the safety data in the first 400 patients. RESULTS: In first-line the incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in arm B. However, when toxicity over all lines was considered only grade 3 hand-foot syndrome occurred more frequently in arm A (12% versus 6%, respectively, P = 0.041). The incidence of cardiovascular toxicity was low. In two out of five patients with sudden death (one in arm A, four in arm B) cardiovascular risk factors were present. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment arms had an acceptable safety profile. These data imply that the results on survival will be the major determinant for the selection of either strategy. Capecitabine plus irinotecan appears to be a feasible first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.