Confirmatory validation analysis of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies.

Regorafenib monotherapy as second-line treatment of patients with RAS-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (STREAM): an academic, multicenter, single-arm, two-stage, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining angiogenesis inhibition and switching the chemotherapy backbone represent the current second-line therapy in patients with RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, prolonged overall survival (OS) in the chemorefractory setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STREAM was an academic, multicenter, single-arm phase II trial, evaluating the activity of regorafenib in RAS-mutant mCRC, in terms of the rate of patients who were progression-free after 6 months from study entry (6mo-PF). Patients were pretreated with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab. According to Simon's two-stage design, ≥18 patients 6mo-PF were needed in the overall population (N = 46). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Early metabolic response by [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET/CT) scan was an exploratory endpoint. EudraCT Number: 2015-001105-13. RESULTS: The number of patients 6mo-PF was 8/22 at the first stage and 14/46 in the overall population. The ORR was 10.9%, disease control rate was 54.6%, median (m)PFS was 3.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-6.7 months], mOS was 18.9 months (95% CI 10.3-35.3 months), and mPFS2 (from study entry to subsequent-line progression) was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.4-19.7 months). Long benefiter patients (>6mo-PF) significantly more often had a single metastatic site and lung-limited disease. No unexpected toxicity was reported. Grade ≥3 events occurred in 39.1% of patients, with hand-foot syndrome (13%), fatigue, and hyperbilirubinemia (6.5%) occurring mostly. Baseline metabolic assessment was associated with OS in the multivariate analysis, while early metabolic response was not associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. However, regorafenib was well tolerated and did not preclude subsequent treatments. Patients with good prognostic features (single metastatic site and lung-limited disease) reported clinical benefit with regorafenib. The exploratory metabolic analysis suggests that baseline [18F]-FDG PET/CT might be useful to select patients with a favorable outcome. A chemotherapy-free interval with regorafenib was associated with durable disease control in a selected group of patients with favorable clinical characteristics.

Reduced dose intensity of docetaxel plus capecitabine as second-line palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination regimen of a reduced dose intensity of docetaxel (Taxotere) plus capecitabine in pretreated patients with metastatic gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with documented progression on or within 3 months of a cisplatin-based chemotherapy were enrolled between April 2004 and November 2006. Docetaxel (60 mg/m2 on day 1) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14) were given every 3 weeks. RESULTS: All patients were assessable for safety and 25 (89%) for tumor response. Median age was 63 years, and median follow-up was 13.3 months. Overall response rate was 29% (95% confidence interval 11% to 46%), while an additional 36% had stable disease. The median time to progression and median overall survival was 4 and 6 months, respectively. The most common clinical adverse events (all grades) were neutropenia (78%), hand foot syndrome (HFS) (53%), fatigue and alopecia (50%) and diarrhea (43%). However, with the exception of grade 3-4 neutropenia, which was seen in 36% of patients, other severe adverse events were rare. There were no treatment-related deaths. Treatment delays or dose reductions were necessary in 18 out of 104 cycles. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced dose intensity of docetaxel plus capecitabine is a valuable regimen for second-line treatment in this setting of patients. This approach warrants further investigation as a promising chemotherapy option for chemonaive patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

Lapatinib in breast cancer.

Aberrant activation of some members of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family plays a key role in breast carcinogenesis. Lapatinib is an oral dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor selective for inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1) and HER2/ErbB2. Having more targets, probably its antitumor activity could be more efficient. Clinical data have shown that lapatinib is active in HER2-positive breast cancer as monotherapy, in combination with trastuzumab, and in trastuzumab-resistant patients. Phase I clinical trials have shown also that lapatinib is well tolerated, with mild diarrhea and skin rush as common toxic effects and low incidence of cardiotoxicity. Phase II and III clinical trials' data provide encouraging evidence of the clinical effectiveness of lapatinib in advanced or metastatic breast cancer and for its potential in patients with brain metastases. Interim results from the large, phase III trial in 392 patients showed that in combination with capecitabine lapatinib almost doubled time to progression when compared with capecitabine alone. Several clinical trials that explore the efficacy of lapatinib in combination with conventional chemotherapeutic agents [paclitaxel (Taxol), capecitabine and platinoids], hormonotherapy and other target therapies are ongoing in advanced breast cancer or in neo-adjuvant and adjuvant settings. Our improved understanding of the biology of breast cancer and the use of biomarkers for identification of specific subtypes are allowing us to bring patient-specific novel therapies such as lapatinib to the clinic.

Weekly paclitaxel plus capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients: dose-finding trial of GOIRC and GOL.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and capecitabine have demonstrated a synergic effect and significant antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer. A weekly schedule of paclitaxel obtained a response rate of 50-68% in advanced breast cancer and less serious side-effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with chemotherapy were enrolled in a dose-finding trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of paclitaxel given on days 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle combined with capecitabine given twice daily from day 1 through day 14, every 21 days. Three patients were recruited at one of six dose levels (paclitaxel 70-100 mg/m2, capecitabine 1650-2500 mg/m2). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were accrued and 31 were evaluated for toxicity. One DLT has been experienced at level VI as diarrhea grade 3. We determined dose level V as the MTD, but we recommend dose level IV for phase II studies (capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously weekly), owing to cumulative toxicity at level V. The objective response rate was 43%. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel plus capecitabine is a safety and active chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic breast cancer.

Carboplatin plus paclitaxel in extensive small cell lung cancer: a multicentre phase 2 study.

A multicentre phase 2 trial (single-stage design) was undertaken to test the efficacy and toxicity of carboplatin (AUC 6 according to Calvert) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)3-h infusion) every 4 weeks in the first line treatment of patients affected by extensive small cell lung cancer. The primary end-point of the trial was the objective response rate. 31 objective responses among 50 patients were considered necessary to proceed to a phase 3 trial. 48 patients were enrolled (median age 59 years). Treatment was very well tolerated. 3 patients (6.2%) had a complete response and 23 (47.9%) a partial response, for an overall response rate of 54.2% (95% CI: 39.2-68.6). Median time to progression was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.2-6.2). Median survival was 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.2-14.6), with a median follow-up time of alive patients of 12 months. At 1 year, the probability of being progression-free or alive was 0.16 and 0.43, respectively. In conclusion, carboplatin plus paclitaxel as given in the present study is very well tolerated but not sufficiently active to warrant phase 3 comparison with standard chemotherapy regimens.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the addition of gemcitabine (G) to vinorelbine (V) improves survival and quality of life (QoL) among elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC aged >/= 70 years with advanced disease were randomly allocated to receive V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks or G 1,200 mg/m(2) + V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. The estimated sample size was 120 patients per arm, but an interim analysis of survival was planned based on the first 60 patients per arm. RESULTS: In May 1999, the survival data were analyzed of 120 eligible patients (V group = 60; G + V group = 60) who had been randomized from June 1997 to February 1999. Forty-nine patients had stage IIIB disease, and 71 had stage IV. At a median potential follow-up of 14 months (range, 3 to 22 months), 93 patients had died (G + V group = 41; V group = 52). In the G + V group, median survival time was 29 weeks and projected 1-year survival was 30%; these values were 18 weeks and 13% in the V group. According to multivariate Cox analysis, the risk of death in the G + V arm compared with the V arm was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0. 29 to 0.79; P <.01). Combination therapy was also associated with a clear delay in symptom and QoL deterioration. The overall response rates were 22% and 15% in the G + V and V groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with NSCLC, G + V treatment is associated with significantly better survival than is V alone.

Amifostine plus cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study.

PURPOSE: to evaluate the activity and toxicity of the combination cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: a two-stage Simon design was applied. To proceed after the first stage, responses from seven of 19 patients were needed. Overall, 17 responses from 40 treated patients were required to comply with the design parameter. Inclusion criteria were cyto-histologically proven stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; age of 70 years or less; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less; normal cardiac, hepatic, renal and bone marrow functions; and no previous chemotherapy. Patients were staged by physical examination, biochemistry, chest radiograph, brain, thoracic and abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans, and bone scan. All patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv) day 1, vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) iv days 1-8-15-22, amifostine 740 mg/m(2) iv day 1 every 4 weeks up to six cycles. Eleven of 40 enrolled patients were stage IIIB and 29 stage IV, with a median age of 57 years (range, 38-70 years). RESULTS: all patients were evaluable for response and toxicity (intention to treat analysis). We observed 20 (50%) objective responses, with four (10%) complete responses. Median time to progression was 20 weeks, and median survival was 45 weeks. The toxicity was manageable. The reported main toxicities were neutropenia grade 4 in 10% of patients, grade 1 and grade 3 nephrotoxicity both in 5% of patients and grade 1 amifostine-related hypotension in 15% of patients. CONCLUSION: these data show that cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine is an active and feaseable regimen in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. A phase III trial comparing cisplatin plus vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced NSCLC is warranted.

Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In our previous phase II study, the cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a median survival time (MST) of approximately 1 year in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present study was aimed at comparing the MST of patients treated with this triplet regimen with the MSTs of patients receiving cisplatin and vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin and gemcitabine (PG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 1997, patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, an age of < or = 70 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 1 were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm A); cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (arm B); or cisplatin 120 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2)/wk (arm C). According to the two-stage design for phase III trials, an interim analysis was planned when the first 60 patients per arm were assessable for survival. RESULTS: The survival data of 180 NSCLC patients (stage IIIB, 76 patients; stage IV, 104 patients) were analyzed in April 1999. Overall, 128 patients had died (PGV, n = 33; PG, n = 42; and PV, n = 53). The MST of patients in the PGV, PG, and PV arms was 51, 42, and 35 weeks, respectively, and the corresponding 1-year projected survival rates were 45%, 40%, and 34%, respectively. When only patients with stage IV disease were considered, an even stronger difference was seen between PGV (MST = 47 weeks) and both PG (34 weeks) and PV (27 weeks). At multivariate Cox analysis, the estimate hazard of death for patients receiving PGV compared with those receiving PV was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.77; P <.01). The response rates were 47% in the PGV arm, 30% in the PG arm, 25% in the PV arm. Both hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were not substantially worse in patients who received the PGV regimen. CONCLUSION: The PGV regimen is associated with a substantial survival gain (MST > 3 months longer) when compared with the PV combination. Because this difference in survival met one of the early stopping rules, the accrual in the PV arm has been stopped (null hypothesis rejected). Enrollment still continues in the PGV and PG arm to ascertain whether the PGV regimen can also produce a significantly longer survival than that obtained with the PG regimen.

Interim analysis of a phase III trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine vs. either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non small-cell lung cancer. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group Study.

In a previous phase II randomized study, a cisplatin/gemcitabine/vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a 50-week median survival time (MST) in advanced non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present trial was planned to randomly compare the outcome of patients treated with this new triplet regimen with those of patients receiving either cisplatin plus vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine (PG) doublet combinations. One hundred eighty patients with stage IIIB (76) or IV (104) disease, aged

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I-II study. Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Because both cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations are generally considered to be among the most active regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, this study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel when combined with fixed doses of cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced NSCLC patients and aimed to define the therapeutic activity of this new regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 1996 to September 1998, 75 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC, who were either chemotherapy-naive (65 patients) or who had been pretreated (10 patients), received fixed doses of cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) and escalating doses of paclitaxel in a 1-hour infusion, all on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Five different paclitaxel doses were tested, for a total of 275 cycles delivered. The escalation was stopped at the paclitaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) in pretreated patients, whereas it continued to 150 mg/m(2) in chemotherapy-naive patients. A total of 65 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated. A paclitaxel dose of 125 mg/m(2) was recommended for phase II, and a total of 39 patients were treated at this level, for a total of 158 cycles delivered. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Five patients were hospitalized because of sepsis, and packed RBC transfusion was required in 13 patients. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (11%) patients, respectively. Overall, 74 of the 75 patients were assessable for response. Four complete (CR) and 38 partial (PR) responses were recorded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 57%. Three of the ten pretreated patients achieved a PR, compared with four CRs and 35 PRs in the 64 chemotherapy-naive patients (ORR, 61%). Thirty-eight of 39 patients included in phase II were assessable for response and quality of life (QOL) (one patient's disease was not measurable). Two CRs and 24 PRs were recorded in this group, for an ORR of 68% (95% confidence interval, 51% to 82%). The QOL score improved in 27 of 38 (71%) patients. The median survival time was 15 months in the 65 chemotherapy-naive patients, but it had not yet been reached in the 39 patients included in phase II, for whom the 1-year projected survival was 70%. CONCLUSION: The cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination is a feasible and well-tolerated approach in advanced NSCLC patients. Both a major response and a QOL improvement can be obtained in a high proportion of patients, with a median survival time exceeding 1 year. A phase III trial comparing this combination with other effective regimens is under way.

Dose intensification of mitoxantrone in combination with paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer: a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and mitoxantrone are highly active agents in the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study evaluated the combination of paclitaxel and mitoxantrone in patients with advanced breast cancer to determine activity and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 42 patients with ABC were treated with paclitaxel at a fixed dose of 175 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) by a 3-hour infusion on day 1, while mitoxantrone was given by 2 mg/m2 increments, starting from 10 mg/m2 by bolus IV injection on day 1 after paclitaxel. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Mitoxantrone doses were increased if the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) had not been reached. RESULT: The overall response rate (CR + PR) was 69% (CI 95%: 55-83). Six (14%) patients obtained CR and 23 (55%) PR with a median duration of response of 8 months (range 2-16). There were no differences in response rates (RR) between the three levels of mitoxantrone. Median time to failure and survival were 7 months (range 1-26) and 12 months (range 2-29), respectively. After 12 months 14 (33%) patients had died and 8 (19%) patients were alive after 18 months. MTD was reached at 14 mg/m2 level of mitoxantrone. Leukopenia was evident in 39 (93%) of total patients and was severe in 28 (67%) patients. All non-hematological toxicity observed was mild. CONCLUSION: This trial shows the activity of paclitaxel and mitoxantrone in ABC and finds that a dose of 14 mg/m2 of mitoxantrone is the MTD in combination with a fixed dose of 175 mg/m2 of paclitaxel without granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF).

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.

Combined carboplatin plus ifosfamide and cisplatin in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. A phase I-II study. GOCS (Gynecological Oncology Cooperative Study).

Because of the relative lack of overlapping toxicity, carboplatin (PPL) and cisplatin (CDDP) can be easily combined for treatment of ovarian cancer to increase total platinum dose intensity. Ifosfamide (IFO), one of the most effective single agents in ovarian cancer, has a low hematological toxicity when administered in continuous infusion. From January 1991 to December 1993, 34 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, previously untreated with chemo- or radiotherapy, were enrolled in a phase I-II study with the aim of determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CDDP (on day 8 of a 28-day cycle) in combination with PPL (300 mg/m2 on day 1) and IFO (4,000 mg/m2/24 h by continuous infusion on day 1). The initial dose level of CDDP was 40 mg/m2, which was continuously increased by 10 mg/m2 up to the MTD defined as one dose level below that inducing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least two-thirds of treated patients; no dose escalation was allowed in the same patient. Grade 3-4 leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 54 and 49% of patients, respectively. The DLT was reached at 70 mg/m2 and therefore the dose recommended for the phase II study was 60 mg/m2. Complete (CR) plus partial response was observed in 88% of patients with a 21% pathological CR. With a minimum follow-up of 32 months (median 40 months), median progression-free survival and overall survival were 21 and 39 months, respectively. In conclusion, the combination of CDDP, PPL, and IFO provides an effective regimen for ovarian cancer with an acceptable toxicity profile.

[Role of vitamin D3 in hematology]. / Ruolo della vitamina D3 in ematologia.

It has been recently shown that 1,25(OH)2D3 induces differentiation and inhibits the proliferation of normal and leukemic cells in vitro. A review of the literature and the preliminary clinical applications of this vitamin in hematology are reported.