[Breast metastases of an ovarian adenocarcinoma]. / Métastase mammaire d'un adénocarcinome ovarien.

INTRODUCTION: Breast metastases are rare. Primary tumors are cutaneous, pulmonary, digestive and prostatic. A malignant tumor of the ovary is rarely responsible. OBSERVATION: A 69-year-old women presented a voluminous unilateral mastitis in a poly-metastatic context 3 years after the discovery of an ovarian adenocarcinoma. The anatomo-pathological examination confirmed the ovarian origin of the breast nodules observed. Progression was poor and the patient died 8 months after the first clinical signs in the breast. COMMENTS: The difficulty in differentiating a primary from a secondary carcinomatous mastitis is enhanced when the primary cancer is unknown. In our patient, the immunohistochemical study did not discriminate between the breast and ovarian origin. The diagnosis was finally made on the basis of standard histology and the anatomoclinical correlation. Since immunohistochemical examinations may not be specific enough, such as was the case in our patient, the anatomoclinical confrontation is essential.

A controlled "before-after" study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice.

A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessing the conformity of practice with the guidelines and comparing this with the conformity in an external matched control group from another French region without a regional cancer network. Four hospitals (private and public) accepted to assess the impact of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of breast and colon cancer in the experimental group and three hospitals (private and public) in the control group. In 1994 and 1996, women with non-metastatic breast cancer (282 and 346 patients in the experimental group, 194 and 172 patients in the control group, respectively) and all new patients with colon cancer (95 and 94 patients in the experimental group, and 89 and 118 patients in the control group, respectively) were selected. A controlled "before-after" study, using institutional medical records of patients with breast and colon cancer. The medical decisions concerning the patients were analyzed to assess their compliance with the clinical practice guidelines. When medical decisions were judged to be non-compliant, we verified if they were based on scientific evidence in a published article, if they were not, the medical decision was classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence". The compliance rates were significantly higher in 1996 than in 1994 in the experimental group; 36% (126 out of 346) vs 12% (34 out of 282) and 46% (56 out of 123) vs 14% (14 out of 103) (P<0.001) for breast and colon cancer, respectively. Whereas, in the control group the compliance rates were the same for the two periods; 7% (12 out of 173) vs 6% (12 out of 194) (P=0.46) and 39% (49 out of 126) vs 32% (31 out of 96), P=0.19. In the experimental group, in 1994, 101 of the 282 medical decisions (36%) and 27 of the 103 (26%) for breast and colon cancer, respectively, were classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence" compare with 72 out of 346 in 1996 (21%) for breast cancer, and 21 of the 123 (17%) for colon cancer P<0.05. Whereas in the control group these results were 106 out of 194 in 1994 (55%) and 90 out of 172 in 1996 (52%), P=0.65 for breast cancer and 28 out of 96 in 1994 (29%) and 30 out of 126 in 1996 (24%), P=0.36 for colon cancer. The development and implementation strategy of the clinical practice guidelines programme for cancer management results in significant changes in medical practice in our cancer network. These results would suggest that introducing guidelines with specific implementation strategy might also increase the compliance rate with the guideline and "evidence-based medicine".

Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in out-patients: a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group study. Emesis Study Group for Ondansetron and Granisetron in Breast Cancer Patients.

This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2-5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported.