A double-blind, randomized trial of pyridoxine versus placebo for the prevention of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-related hand-foot syndrome in gynecologic oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in patients who received pyridoxine versus placebo during pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian, breast, or endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients received PLD 40 mg/m(2) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients were assigned randomly to receive pyridoxine 100 mg twice daily (Group A) or placebo (Group B) and received standard HFS education. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire. The incidence of HFS as measured by common toxicity criteria was compared between groups. Analyses were conducted according to an intent-to-treat basis. Chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests were used. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled (18 in Group A and 16 in Group B), and 5 patients were unevaluable for HFS assessment. Overall, 15 of 29 patients (52%) had HFS (all grades), and 10 of 29 patients (35%) had grade 2/3 events. Eight of 15 patients in Group A (53%) and 7 of 14 patients in Group B (50%) had HFS (P = .857). For grade 2/3 events, there was no difference between groups: Six of 15 events (40%) occurred in Group A, and 4 of 14 events (29%) occurred in Group B (P = .70). There was no difference in QOL scores between patients who had grade 2/3 HFS and patients who had grade 0/1 HFS. QOL analysis revealed that all patients had elevated social well being. CONCLUSIONS: Pyridoxine as administered in the current study did not prevent HFS in patients who received PLD. It is possible that QOL is not compromised in patients with HFS because they may have increased social well being while coping with their disease.

Phase I trial of pelvic radiation, weekly cisplatin, and 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, NSC #663249) for locally advanced cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of three times weekly i.v. 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, NSC #663249) in combination with once-weekly i.v. cisplatin and daily pelvic radiation in patients with gynecologic malignancies. 3-AP is a novel small-molecule inhibitor of ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) and is being tested as a potential radiosensitizer and chemosensitizer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with stage IB2 to IVB cervical cancer (n = 10) or recurrent uterine sarcoma (n = 1) were assigned to dose-finding cohorts of 2-hour 3-AP infusions during 5 weeks of cisplatin chemoradiation. Pharmacokinetic and methemoglobin samples and tumor biopsy for RNR activity were obtained on day 1 and day 10. Clinical response was assessed. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated 3-AP dose was 25 mg/m(2) given three times weekly during cisplatin and pelvic radiation. Two patients experienced manageable 3-AP-related grade 3 or 4 electrolyte abnormalities. 3-AP pharmacokinetics showed a 2-hour half-life, with median peak plasma concentrations of 277 ng/mL (25 mg/m(2)) and 467 ng/mL (50 mg/m(2)). Median methemoglobin levels peaked at 1% (25 mg/m(2)) and 6% (50 mg/m(2)) at 4 hours after initiating 3-AP infusions. No change in RNR activity was found on day 1 versus day 10 in six early complete responders, whereas elevated RNR activity was seen on day 10 as compared with day 1 in four late complete responders (P = 0.02). Ten (100%) patients with stage IB2 to IVB cervical cancer achieved complete clinical response and remained without disease relapse with a median 18 months of follow-up (6-32 months). CONCLUSIONS: 3-AP was well tolerated at a three times weekly i.v. 25 mg/m(2) dose during cisplatin and pelvic radiation. Clin Cancer Res; 16(4); 1298-306.

Gynecologic oncology patients' satisfaction and symptom severity during palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Research on quality and satisfaction with care during palliative chemotherapy in oncology patients has been limited. The objective was to assess the association between patient's satisfaction with care and symptom severity and to evaluate test-retest of a satisfaction survey in this study population. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies receiving chemotherapy were enrolled after a diagnosis of recurrent cancer. Patients completed the Quality of End-of-Life care and satisfaction with treatment scale (QUEST) once upon enrollment in an outpatient setting and again a week later. Patients also completed the Mini-Mental Status Exam, the Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale, a symptom severity scale and a demographic survey. Student's t-test, correlation statistics and percent agreement were used for analysis. RESULTS: Data from 39 patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) quality of care summary score was 41.95 (2.75) for physicians and 42.23 (5.42) for nurses (maximum score was 45; p = 0.76 for difference in score between providers). Mean (SD) satisfaction of care summary score was 29.03 (1.92) for physicians and 29.28 (1.70) for nurses (maximum score was 30; p = 0.49 for difference between providers). Test-retest for 33 patients who completed both QUEST surveys had high percent agreement (74-100%), with the exception of the question regarding the provider arriving late (45 and 53%). There was no correlation between quality and satisfaction of care and symptom severity. Weakness was the most common symptom reported. Symptom severity correlated with depression (r = 0.577 p < 0.01). There was a trend towards a larger proportion of patients reporting pain who had three or more prior chemotherapy regimens (p = 0.075). Prior number of chemotherapy regimens or time since diagnosis was not correlated with symptom severity score. Anxiety and depression were correlated with each other (r = 0.711, p < 0.01). There was no difference in symptom severity score at enrollment between those patients who have since died (n = 19) versus those who are still alive. CONCLUSION: The QUEST Survey has test-retest reliability when used as a written instrument in an outpatient setting. However, there was no correlation between this measure and symptom severity. Patient evaluation of care may be more closely related to the interpersonal aspects of the health care provider relationship than it is to physical symptoms.