The decision to test in women receiving genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Functions of genetic counseling include provision of risk information and provision of support in an effort to assist with decision making. This study examines (1) the relationship among intentions to test, self-reported provision of blood sample, and receipt of test results; (2) the impact of genetic counseling on distress specific to gene status, perceived risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer in the context having BRCA1/2 mutations (mutations predisposing to increased risk of breast-ovarian cancer), and perceived risk factors for breast cancer; and (3) the clinical profile of those receiving/not receiving results. Intentions to test for BRCA1/2 mutations, self-reported provision of blood sample immediately after counseling, and receipt of test results were statistically different but highly correlated, and intentions to test increased from pre- to postcounseling. A repeated measures ANOVA found distress specific to gene status and perceived risk factors decreased from pre- to postcounseling. Further, two clinical profiles of consultands emerged: (1) those receiving results with change in intentions to test having lower levels of distress and (2) those not receiving results and those receiving results with no change in intentions to test with higher levels of distress. Our findings are consistent with the function of genetic counseling-to provide information and support to those with familial cancer, as well as to assist in decision making. The provision of support is important as distress specific to gene status may impede flexible decision making about genetic testing.

A phase I and pharmacologic study of the combination of marimastat and paclitaxel in patients with advanced malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Marimastat is a potent inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases and in preclinical studies enhances the anti-tumor activity of certain chemotherapeutics. We performed a phase I clinical evaluation of the combination of oral marimastat and intravenous paclitaxel, to determine if these drugs could be co-administered safely, and to determine whether marimastat alters paclitaxel pharmacokinetics. MATERIAL/METHODS: Marimastat was administered twice daily and paclitaxel as a three hour infusion every three weeks. Doses of both marimastat and paclitaxel were escalated in cohorts of patients up to maximal doses of 10 mg for marimastat and 175 mg/m2 for paclitaxel. Paclitaxel plasma pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in the absence (cycle 1) and presence (cycle 2) of marimastat. Trough marimastat plasma levels were evaluated during cycle 2. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were treated at three different dose levels. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle of therapy, resulting in dose escalation up to the planned maximal dose for each drug. Neutropenia was the most common significant toxicity at the highest dose level, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 38% of patients. There were no complete or partial responses. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicate that marimastat does not alter paclitaxel clearance. At the 10 mg dose, the mean trough marimastat level was 14.8 Kg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Marimastat and paclitaxel can be co-administered safely at doses equivalent to those recommended for single-agent administration. Additional studies are necessary to determine whether this combination is more effective in controlling tumor progression than paclitaxel alone.