Associations between extracurricular activity participation and health-related variables in underrepresented children.

Background: Children from underrepresented populations exhibit low levels of physical activity (PA), diet quality, and health-related quality of life (QoL), but participation in extracurricular activities may positively impact these health outcomes. Purpose: To examine differences in PA, dietary behavior, and QoL in underrepresented children by extracurricular activity dose (0, 1, ≥2) and type (sports, dance/martial arts, art/music). Methods: Children (N = 754; Grades 4-6) completed the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children, KidsScreen-27 (QoL), and the School Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey and self-reported extracurricular activity participation. One-way MANOVA tests were used in this analysis. Results: Individuals participating in 1 and ≥ 2 activities (p < 0.001), sport/dance/martial arts (p < 0.001), and art/music (p = 0.029) had higher PA than non-participants. Those participating in ≥2 activities reported higher fruit intake compared to 1 activity and non-participants (p = 0.009; p < 0.001, respectively). Participants with ≥2 activities reported higher parent- and peer-related QoL compared to non-participants (p = 0.001; p = 0.025, respectively). Conclusions: Extracurricular activity participation was positively associated with health behaviors in underrepresented children. Schools may be encouraged to allocate some of their resources to extracurricular activity programing.

A phase I dose-escalation study of edotecarin (J-107088) combined with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors.

Edotecarin (J-107088), a novel inhibitor of topoisomerase I has an additive effect on colon cell lines (HCT-116) when combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We conducted a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended a phase II dose of edotecarin in combination with infusional 5-FU/leucovorin (LV) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and cohorts of three to six patients were sequentially enrolled at progressively higher dose levels of edotecarin administered as a 1-h intravenous (IV) infusion every 2 weeks. The edotecarin starting dose was 6 mg/m, followed by 200 mg/m LV IV infusion administered over 2 h, then 400 mg/m bolus dose of 5-FU before the start of 2400 mg/m 5-FU continuous infusion for a further 46 h. Patients were evaluated for safety, pharmacokinetics, and tumor response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Fourteen patients (10 male; four female) received a total of 90 cycles (range 3-18). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in five of the 14 patients treated in the study. All dose-limiting toxicities were related to neutropenia. Only the 6 and 8 mg/m edotecarin dose levels were explored; however, no maximum tolerated dose was declared. One confirmed complete response in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma and seven stable disease responses were achieved in the 14 treated patients. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that edotecarin achieved and maintained apparent steady-state plasma concentrations during the IV administration in both the cycles. The administration of edotecarin in combination with infusional 5-FU/LV once every 14 days, even without the 5-FU bolus, did not permit adequate time for recovery from neutropenia.

A phase I study of bi-weekly administration of 24-h gemcitabine followed by 24-h irinotecan in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximal tolerated doses (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of combination of 24-h infusions of gemcitabine and irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with advanced solid tumors received gemcitabine as a 24-h IV infusion followed by a 24-h infusion of irinotecan every 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters of both drugs and their metabolites were estimated by using non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were fully evaluable for toxicity. DLT was observed in two of six patients at irinotecan/gemcitabine 110/150 mg/m(2) (grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 GI bleeding). No patient developed acute cholinergic symptoms at any dose. Other toxicities were < or =grade 2 nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Tumor responses were observed in three patients (one CR: cholangiocarcinoma; two PR: SCLC, gastric neuroendocrine tumor). Stable disease >3 months was found in six patients including five patients who had failed short infusions of either drug. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that C (max) of each drug and active metabolites were dose-dependent. High dose of gemcitabine increased C (max), AUC, and T(1/2) of irinotecan. However, gemcitabine had minimal effects on SN-38. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose for Phase II studies is gemcitabine 125 mg/m(2) given as a 24-h IV infusion on D1 and D15, followed by a 24-h IV infusion of irinotecan 110 mg/m(2) on D2 and D16. Both pretreated patients and chemo-naive patients seem to tolerate higher doses of this combination without significant toxicities. Objective responses among patients with solid tumors, in particular cholangiocarcinoma and small cell lung cancer merits further investigation.

DPYD*2A mutation: the most common mutation associated with DPD deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme is responsible for the elimination of approximately 80% of administered dose of 5-FU. DPD deficiency has been associated with severe 5-FU toxicity. Syndrome of DPD deficiency manifests as diarrhea, stomatitis, mucositis, and neurotoxicity and in some cases death. This is a true pharmacogenetic syndrome, with symptoms being unrecognizable until exposure to the drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 75-year-old patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma developed grade 4 thrombocytopenia, grade 3 coagulopathy, and grade 3 neurologic toxicity with a fatal outcome following administration of 5-FU. Due to pancytopenia, DPD activity could not be determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) using a previously described radioassay. Therefore, screening and genotypic analysis of homozygous and heterozygous, known and unknown sequence variants, in the DPYD gene were performed using DHPLC as previously described. All DPYD sequence variants identified by DHPLC were confirmed by DNA sequencing using a dideoxynucleotide chain termination method and capillary electrophoresis on an ABI 310 Automated DNA Sequencer. RESULTS: Genotyping analysis of the DPYD gene revealed the presence of the heterozygous mutation, IVS14 + 1 G > A, DPYD*2A. CONCLUSION: Genotypic analysis using DHPLC can be employed to screen DPD deficiency in a patient with severe neutropenia. The mutation IVS14 + 1 G > A, DPYD*2A, is the most common mutation associated with DPD deficiency. A G > A base change at the splice recognition sequence of intron 14, leads to exon skipping and results in a 165-bp deletion in the DPD mRNA. We have previously demonstrated that a homozygote DPYD*2A genotype results in complete deficiency while the heterozygous DPYD*2A genotype results in partial deficiency of DPD.

Gemcitabine-related radiation recall in a patient with pancreatic cancer.

Radiation recall refers to inflammatory reactions triggered by chemotherapeutic agents and develops cutaneously in the previously irradiated areas. Such agents include anthracyclines, taxanes and capecitabine. Radiation recall related to gemcitabine has been reported in lung and breast cancer. Similar phenomenon associated with gemcitabine, the only FDA-approved drug for pancreatic cancer, is rarely reported. We report a patient with inoperable pancreatic cancer who developed gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to radiation-recall related to gemcitabine and review literature. A 57-year-old white male with unresectable pancreatic cancer received capecitabine in combination with radiation therapy followed by capecitabine alone given over approximately a 3-month time period. Computed tomography re-evaluation demonstrated a new liver lesion. The patient was then treated with gemcitabine and irinotecan. On day 15 of cycle 1, he reported progressive worsening of weakness and fatigue, and melena. Physical examination revealed hypotension (84/47 mmHg) and heme-positive stool on rectal examination. He denied aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Chemotherapy was held. Hematocrit was 20% (previously 33%). He was transfused with 3 units of packed red blood cells. An esophago-gastro-duodenal examination was performed which showed antritis and duodenitis consistent with radiation therapy. A single site of oozing was injected with epinephrine. The diffuse gastritis was aggressively treated with proton pump inhibitors. The patient's hematocrit eventually stabilized and was 30% at discharge. Gemcitabine was not resumed. Radiation recall from gemcitabine is rare, but can potentially arise in any site that has been previously irradiated. Gemcitabine should be added to the list of drugs known to cause radiation recall. Treating physicians must be aware of this potential toxicity from gemcitabine either given concomitantly or followed by radiation. We suggest discontinuing gemcitabine if radiation recall is observed. Further studies are warranted into the pathogenesis of this unique phenomenon.

Effect of docetaxel chemotherapy on the activity of a gonadotropin releasing hormone vaccine in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH)-DT vaccine elicits antibody that may inhibit prostate cancers indirectly by blocking GnRH induced gonadotropin release, and consequent androgen synthesis, and directly by immune effector and antiproliferative mechanisms. A pilot study was performed to determine how to best combine GnRH-DT vaccine with potentially immunosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with metastatic, hormone-refractory prostate cancer were randomized into either a concurrent cohort, in which they received docetaxel on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10 and GnRH-DT vaccine on day 2 of weeks 1, 3, and 7 or a sequential cohort, in which they received GnRH-DT vaccine on weeks 1, 3, and 7 before beginning docetaxel on week 10. GnRH-DT vaccine was administered intramuscularly. Docetaxel was infused intravenously after pre-medication with high-dose dexamethasone, and infusions repeated every 3 weeks in the absence of toxicity or progressive cancer. RESULTS: GnRH-DT vaccine and docetaxel were well tolerated without evidence of significant local or systemic toxicities. Anti-GnRH antibody was elicited in six of six treated concurrently and five of six treated sequentially. The kinetics of antibody induction and the titers of antibody achieved in both treatment cohorts were similar. Anti-GnRH antibody persisted for up to 28 weeks in a patient maintained on docetaxel. CONCLUSION: The administration of docetaxel with high-dose dexamethasone does not inhibit the ability of patients with advanced prostate cancer to be immunized with GnRH-DT vaccine.