Autologous graft-versus-host disease induction in advanced breast cancer: role of peripheral blood progenitor cells.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of the use of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) on the induction of autologous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients with advanced breast cancer. 14 women with stage IIIB and 36 women with stage IV breast cancer received cyclosporine (CsA) 2.5 mg kg-1 i.v. daily, d 0-28, and interferon-gamma (IFNg) 0.025 mg/m2 s.c. qod, d7-28, following PBPC-T +/- bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Preceding high-dose chemotherapy consisted of cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2 and thiotepa 800 mg/m2. Histologically proven > or = grade II cutaneous GVHD was induced in18/50 (36%) of patients and was independent of the source of haematopoietic support. In vitro studies showed that post-transplant, 76% of patients had developed auto-cytotoxicity against their own pre-transplant PHA-lymphoblasts. A significant correlation between the occurrence of GVHD > or = grade II and cytolysis was observed in the NK cell-line K562 and the T47D breast cancer cell-line. With a median follow-up of 2(1/2) years, the overall survival (OS) is 58%, the disease-free survival (DFS) 26%, both independent of the development of GVHD and similar to what has been observed in other studies on high-dose chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. It therefore remains unclear whether the induction of autologous GVHD with the occurrence of auto-cytotoxic lymphocytes can result in an anti-tumour effect in this group of patients.

The effectiveness of the comprehensive coping strategy program on clinical outcomes in breast cancer autologous bone marrow transplantation.

Patients with breast cancer who undergo autologous bone marrow/peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (ABMT) cope not only with a life-threatening medical treatment, but also with multiple, interrelated symptoms including pain, fatigue, psychological distress, and nausea. The purpose of this study was to determine, in a randomized controlled clinical trial, whether a comprehensive coping strategy program (CCSP) was effective in significantly reducing pain, fatigue, psychological distress, and nausea in patients with breast cancer who underwent ABMT. The CCSP was composed of preparatory information, cognitive restructuring, and relaxation with guided imagery. Randomization placed 52 patients in the CCSP treatment group and 58 patients in the control group. The CCSP was found to be effective in significantly reducing nausea as well as nausea combined with fatigue 7 days after the ABMT when the side effects of treatment were most severe. These results are important given the high incidence of nausea and fatigue in the ABMT population. The CCSP-treated group experienced mild anxiety as compared with the control group who reported moderate anxiety. The greatest effectiveness of CCSP may correspond to the time of the greatest morbidity for patients with breast cancer who have undergone ABM.

Pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping in patients with breast cancer scheduled for autotransplantation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping that patients with breast cancer who were scheduled for autotransplantation experienced; the strength and direction of relationships among pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping; and the percentage of variance within the concept of health status that age, pain, psychological distress, and coping. DESIGN: Descriptive, correlational. SETTING: An urban, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center located in the eastern United States. SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 83 female patients with breast cancer scheduled for autotransplantation. The population age ranged from 22-59 years (X = 44.47 years) and was comprised of 72 (88%) Caucasians, 6 (7%) African Americans, and 4 (5%) from other minorities. METHODS: An oncology clinical nurse specialist in the outpatient medical oncology clinic collected the data during a regularly scheduled visit approximately 20 days prehospitalization for high-dose chemotherapy and autotransplantation. Data were collected using a demographic data from and self-report instruments (Gaston-Johansson Painometer, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey, and Coping Strategies Questionnaire). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping. FINDINGS: Although the subjects experienced low pain intensity, the range of reported pain intensity ratings was wide. Pain locations varied but were reported mainly in the vagina, chest, shoulder, and arm. Although subjects reported primarily mild depression and mild state anxiety, the range of depression and state anxiety scores was wide. Coping strategies used most frequently to deal with pain included positive coping statements, diverting attention, praying and hoping, increasing activity level, and ability to control and decrease pain. Subjects reported moderate total health status and low role functioning. Moderate, positive correlations were seen between state anxiety and depression and physical functioning and role functioning. Sixty-five percent of the variance in health status was explained by sensory pain depression, and catastrophizing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer who are scheduled for autotransplantation may experience pain, psychological distress, and alterations in coping and perceived health status. Total pain intensity, sensory pain, depression, and catastrophizing appear to be important variables related to the patient's perceived health status. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses need to include assessment of pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping in their routine patient assessment prior to autotransplantation to provide appropriate care and make necessary multidisciplinary referrals. Future nursing research should be directed toward the implementation and evaluation of interventions that promote the use of comprehensive coping strategies to decrease pain, anxiety, and depression.

Randomized, double-blind comparison of a prochlorperazine-based versus a metoclopramide-based antiemetic regimen in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic combination alkylator therapy is routinely used in autologous bone marrow transplantation for treatment of eligible patients with solid tumors. Antiemetic therapy remains less than optimal in this setting. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients with cancer receiving high dose cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and carmustine with autologous bone marrow support were randomized to receive one of four double-blinded antiemetic regimens: 4-day continuous infusion prochlorperazine (6 mg/m2 intravenous [i.v.] loading dose followed by 1.5 mg/m2/hour) or metoclopramide (80 mg/m2 iv loading dose followed by 20 mg/m2/hr) each with either dronabinol 5 mg/m2 or placebo capsules for two doses before carmustine on the last day of chemotherapy. All subjects received scheduled lorazepam and diphenhydramine throughout the 4-day study period. Efficacy was measured by the Emetic Process Rating Scale and the Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting (INV) Form 2. RESULTS: One hundred six patients completed the study and were fully evaluable. The median number of emetic episodes on the metoclopramide study arm were: 1 (0-7, day -6), 1 (0-6, day -5), 2 (0-9, day -4), and 2 (0-10, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-7, no dronabinol day -3) and on the prochlorperazine study arm were: 4 (0-12, day -6), 0 (0-8, day -5), 0 (0-12, day -4) and 2.5 (0-9, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-12, no dronabinol day -3). Metoclopramide was significantly better on the first day of therapy (day -6, P < .002) and prochlorperazine was significantly better on the third day of therapy (day -4, P < 0.002). There was no significant difference among any of the four arms on the last day of chemotherapy (day -3), or when the median number of emetic episodes over the total study period were compared. The patients' assessment of nausea, vomiting, and retching on the INV Form 2 was consistent with the observer ratings. Toxicities requiring dose reduction or discontinuation of antiemetic drugs included diarrhea, cardiac arrhythmias, sedation, anxiety, and akathisia. CONCLUSIONS: Both metoclopramide and prochlorperazine in combination with lorazepam and diphenhydramine offer good control of nausea and vomiting although the sedation and low risk for cardiac toxicity limit the regimen to an inpatient setting with close monitoring. No regimen was clearly superior during the entire treatment period but prochlorperazine offered more consistent control after the first day.