ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine the interest which patients with malignant melanoma may have in a six week psycho-educational group intervention and determine factors that are associated with their degree of interest. Of 144 outpatients, 121 (84%) agreed to participate in the interview (78 women, 66 men, mean age 59, SD=15; mean time since surgery=57 months, SD=55). About one-third (29%) of the sample had either nodal or in-transit metastases. A semi-structured interview was conducted to assess patients' interest (perceived need) in the intervention. We administered the Hornheide questionnaire and other psychosocial measures to identify highly distressed patients (expert-defined need). Lower age, being male, having no partner and lower cognitive avoidance emerged as significant predictors for a general interest in the intervention (n=92). A substantial number of patients (42.5%) stated a willingness to participate in the intervention at that time. Two problematic subgroups could be identified in the sample: patients in an expert-defined need of support who lacked any interest ('avoiders') and interested patients without an expert-defined need ('skilled help-seekers'). In order to achieve consistent results when conducting future interventions, the interventions should either be limited to patients with expert-defined need or patients should be carefully controlled for this variable.
Subject(s)
Melanoma/psychology , Patient Education as Topic , Psychotherapy, Group , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Melanoma/therapy , Middle Aged , Patient Compliance , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychologyABSTRACT
No effective treatment currently exists for metastatic uveal melanoma. However, recent results obtained by an ATP-based tumor chemosensitivity assay have shown consistent activity of treosulfan+gemcitabine in up to 80% of tumor specimens tested. In this study we describe the first clinical results observed with this drug combination at different European centers in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Clinical case series of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma were treated with treosulfan+gemcitabine at seven different centers. Fourteen patients, 13 previously untreated and one pretreated with chemoimmunotherapy, were included in the study. Patients received treosulfan+gemcitabine in four different dose regimens. The response rates, progression-free and overall survival, and toxicity were evaluated. The analysis of 14 patients revealed one complete response, three partial responses and a stable disease in eight cases. The objective response rate was 28.6%, the median overall survival was 61 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 54-133 weeks], the progression-free survival was 28.5 weeks (95% CI 13-62 weeks) and the 1-year survival rate was 80%. The drugs were well tolerated. The most common side-effects were leuko- and thrombocytopenia. These preliminary results suggest potential therapeutic benefit of treosulfan+gemcitabine treatment in metastatic uveal melanoma and warrant further controlled studies.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Busulfan/analogs & derivatives , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Melanoma/drug therapy , Uveal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Aged , Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Busulfan/administration & dosage , Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage , Disease Progression , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hematologic Diseases/chemically induced , Hematologic Diseases/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Survival Analysis , GemcitabineABSTRACT
Toxic epidermal necrolysis is a drug-induced, rare, but life-threatening skin eruption. The main differential diagnoses are drug-induced erythema (hypersensitivity syndrome), acute graft-versus-host disease, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Because the therapy for toxic epidermal necrolysis and acute graft-versus-host disease differs largely from the others, it is necessary to make an accurate diagnosis. In addition to a detailed medical history, skin biopsy is mandatory because the skin eruptions are not always unequivocal. Discontinuation of the causing agent is crucial, and treatment in specialized intensive care units or burn units is supportive. Currently there is no specific treatment for toxic epidermal necrolysis. Advantages from corticosteroids, plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporin, and N-acetylcysteine still remain to be established by controlled trials, or have failed to prove a benefit (thalidomide). The patient presented here demonstrates the difficulties in diagnosing toxic epidermal necrolysis in a critically ill patient. A short overview of the pathogenesis and the management of toxic epidermal necrolysis is provided.
