Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Tumori ; 109(2): 224-232, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35400269

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the availability of multiple treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new real-world data on disease management and drugs' performance are needed. METHODS: We described characteristics, management and clinical outcomes of patients receiving first-line mCRPC treatment within the Italian cohort of the real-world, prospective, international Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients were enrolled consecutively (2013-2016) in 32 Italian sites and followed for 3 years. RESULTS: 238 patients were included: 157 received first-line abiraterone acetate plus prednisone ("abiraterone" thereafter) and 70 first-line docetaxel; 11 patients receiving other treatments were not considered. Compared with docetaxel-treated patients, those receiving abiraterone were significantly older (age ⩾75: 63.7% vs 38.6%), less frequently had a Gleason score >8 (48.2% vs 67.6%, p<0.005) at initial diagnosis, and more frequently an ECOG score ⩾1 (52.7% vs 36.2%, p<0.05) and comorbidities (76.4% vs 57.1%, p<0.05) at baseline; they reported a lower analgesic use (15.3% vs 30%, p<0.005). In the abiraterone group (median follow-up 22.1 months), median time to progression (TTP) and progression-free survival (PFS) were, respectively, 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, CI, 10.6-18.0) and 13.0 months (95% CI, 9.1-16.8); median overall survival (OS) was not reached, and 3-year OS was 59.1%. In the docetaxel treatment group (median follow-up 25.3 months), median TTP, PFS and OS were, respectively, 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.1-10.3), 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.8-10.3) and 33.2 months (95% CI, 19.2-not estimable). CONCLUSION: This investigation provided valuable information on the overall mCRPC treatment pattern and the effectiveness of first-line abiraterone and docetaxel in a population representative of everyday practice.


Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant , Male , Humans , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/pathology , Docetaxel , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Prednisone/therapeutic use , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Disease-Free Survival
2.
Head Neck ; 30(4): 503-8, 2008 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18098310

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of weight loss on outcome in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT): treatment interruption, infections, mortality, and hospital readmission rate. METHODS: Forty patients with head and neck cancer were enrolled. All patients were counseled to follow a nutritional program during CCRT. Body weight was evaluated at baseline, at the end, and 30 days after radiochemotherapy. RESULTS: Ninety percent of compliant patients with nutritional program maintained body weight (mean, 1 +/- 2.4 kg) and 100% of noncompliant patients continued to lose weight (mean, -9 +/- 4 kg; p < .001). A reduction greater than 20% of prediagnosis weight significantly correlated with treatment interruption (p = .003), infections (p = .002), early mortality (p = .011), hospital readmission rate (p = .001), and survival (log-rank test: z = -2.722, p = .006). CONCLUSION: In patients with head and neck cancer undergoing CCRT, the early nutritional management reduces weight loss and improve outcome.


Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Nutritional Status , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Compliance , Weight Loss , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Bacterial Infections/complications , Candidiasis/complications , Counseling , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nutritional Requirements , Nutritional Support , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Prealbumin/analysis , Survival Analysis
3.
J Thorac Oncol ; 2(6): 475-80, 2007 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17545841

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: This study's aim was to assess economic data regarding the home assistance burden for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Italy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred four NSCLC patients in second-line chemotherapy (2LC) or in supportive therapy (ST) were enrolled in 18 Italian oncology departments and were observed for 3 months. The main caregiver's workload was assessed monthly by a task scale; other caregivers' activities were also registered. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was assessed by physicians, and patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptoms (LCS) subscale. Formal caregiving time was valued according to market prices; informal caregiving hours were valued using the wage rate for an equivalent service. Covariance analysis was performed to check for influential factors in assistance costs. RESULTS: The mean age of the total sample was 65.5 years, and prevalence of males was over 80%. In over 70% of cases, the principal caregiver was patient's spouse, living with the patient and not working. Principal caregiver support was the main cost item: 2.368 euros in 2LC and 2.805 euros in ST, representing 74% of total trimonthly assistance costs. Regression analysis showed a positive correlation between the severity of symptoms and the costs of assistance. The caregiving burden was higher in patients with bone and/or cerebral metastases; other metastasis sites seemed to have no impact on assistance costs. CONCLUSION: Considering quality of life as the ultimate health outcome, clinicians are challenged to contribute to a research and policy agenda that holds burden of care in due consideration.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/economics , Caregivers/economics , Cost of Illness , Health Care Costs , Home Nursing/economics , Lung Neoplasms/economics , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/epidemiology , Caregivers/psychology , Costs and Cost Analysis , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Social Support , Socioeconomic Factors
4.
Cancer Treat Rev ; 30(6): 555-62, 2004 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15325035

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Irinotecan is a selective inhibitor of topoisomerase I, an enzyme part of the replication and transcription system of DNA. Irinotecan is employed, with different modalities, in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, and recently it has been officially approved in association with fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (LV) as a first-line option in metastatic colorectal cancer. RESULTS: One of the problems linked to the administration of this drug is the high intestinal toxicity, which constitutes its dose limiting toxicity (DLT). In routine practice, loperamide is employed as symptomatic drug for the treatment of CPT-11-induced diarrhoea, but is not completely adequate to control the problem. The role of the intestinal bacterial microflora in the pathogenesis of CPT-11-induced intestinal toxicity has been recently discovered. The active metabolite of CPT-11, SN38, is generated from CPT-11 by sieric carboxylesterase, and subsequently conjugated to SN38-G by hepatic UDP-glucuronyltransferase. SN38-G is the inactive metabolite of CPT-11 and is excreted into the small intestine, from which it is eliminated in the faeces. Some studies have shown the ability of intestinal bacterial beta-glucoronidases to transform SN38-G into SN38, causing direct damage to the intestinal mucosa. Thus, alternative strategies such as intestinal alkalinization and anti-cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) therapy have been explored. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we will illustrate the mechanisms which cause the CPT-11-induced diarrhoea and the potential measures available to prevent it.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic/adverse effects , Camptothecin/analogs & derivatives , Camptothecin/adverse effects , Camptothecin/metabolism , Diarrhea/prevention & control , Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Glucuronides/metabolism , Intestines/drug effects , Intestines/microbiology , Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Camptothecin/administration & dosage , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Diarrhea/drug therapy , Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Glucuronidase/antagonists & inhibitors , Glucuronosyltransferase/antagonists & inhibitors , Humans , Irinotecan , Loperamide/administration & dosage , Topoisomerase I Inhibitors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...