IAP Chemotherapy Regimen Is a Viable and Cost-effective Option in Children and Adolescents With Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Analysis With MAP Regimen on Toxicity and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and doxorubicin are integral components of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Choice of third agent high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) or an alkylating agent such as ifosfamide is debatable. The present study compared the impact of MAP (HDMTX-doxorubicin-cisplatin) and IAP (ifosfamide-doxorubicin-cisplatin) chemotherapy regimens on toxicity and survival in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients 18 years and younger with osteosarcoma during the study period. Clinical, demographic, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical details and treatment-related toxicity were retrieved from hospital medical records. Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 102 patients included in the study, 59 (57.8%) and 43 (42.2%) patients were treated with MAP and IAP regimens, respectively. Two groups were comparable in terms of pretreatment characteristics and surgical treatment. Overall, 95.9% patients underwent limb salvage surgery. There was a statistically increased incidence in supportive care admissions and delay in starting the next cycle of chemotherapy in the MAP group. Among the MAP cohort, the 5-year OS and EFS were 62% and 55% compared with 47% and 44%, respectively, in the IAP cohort (P=0.143 and 0.316, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analyses, statistically significant factors affecting EFS of the whole group included tumor size, stage, site of metastasis, histologic necrosis, and type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OS and EFS with both regimens were similar. However, the MAP regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in incidence of supportive care admissions, delay in next cycle of chemotherapy, and predicted higher cost of treatment.

Treatment of sporadic Burkitt lymphoma in adults, a retrospective comparison of four treatment regimens.

Burkitt lymphoma is an aggressive B cell malignancy accounting for 1-2% of all adult lymphomas. Treatment with dose-intensive, multi-agent chemotherapy is effective but associated with considerable toxicity. In this observational study, we compared real-world efficacy, toxicity, and costs of four frequently employed treatment strategies for Burkitt lymphoma: the Lymphome Malins B (LMB), the Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM), the HOVON, and the CODOX-M/IVAC regimens. We collected data from 147 adult patients treated in eight referral centers. Following central pathology assessment, 105 of these cases were accepted as Burkitt lymphoma, resulting in the following treatment groups: LMB 36 patients, BFM 19 patients, HOVON 29 patients, and CODOX-M/IVAC 21 patients (median age 39 years, range 14-74; mean duration of follow-up 47 months). There was no significant difference between age, sex ratio, disease stage, or percentage HIV-positive patients between the treatment groups. Five-year progression-free survival (69%, p = 0.966) and 5-year overall survival (69%, p = 0.981) were comparable for all treatment groups. Treatment-related toxicity was also comparable with only hepatotoxicity seen more frequently in the CODOX/M-IVAC group (p = 0.004). Costs were determined by the number of rituximab gifts and the number of inpatients days. Overall, CODOX-M/IVAC had the most beneficial profile with regards to costs, treatment duration, and percentage of patients completing planned treatment. We conclude that the four treatment protocols for Burkitt lymphoma yield nearly identical results with regards to efficacy and safety but differ in treatment duration and costs. These differences may help guide future choice of treatment.

[Chemotherapy in male external genital organs (testicular and penile cancer)]. / Chimiothérapie des organes génitaux externes chez l'homme (cancer du testicule et du pénis).

AIM: To describe drugs used in the chemotherapy of testis and penis neoplasms. MATERIAL: Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned. RESULTS: Nowadays, the chemotherapy is perfectly codified in adjuvant treatment or in first-line treatment of metastatic testis cancer. A single dose of carboplatin for seminoma testicular (stage I) in adjuvant treatment situation is one of the latest advances. Concerning penis cancer, the optimal protocols validated by a high level of evidence are missing. CONCLUSION: The chemotherapy in testis and penis neoplasms knew few advances in recent years. So, it is necessary to include patients in clinical research protocols.

Treatment outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis of two chemotherapeutic regimens (BEP vs. VIP) for poor-prognosis metastatic germ cell tumors.

BACKGROUND: In patients with small-volume disseminated disease of germ cell tumors, cure can be achieved with four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP). However, around 20% of these cases are not curable. Strategies to improve cure rates have shown that none of the currently available modalities were superior to the others. Among the most used ones, BEP and VIP (etoposide, cisplatin, and ifosfamide) have been the most studied. However, there are no reports comparing the two, except for a few in abstract forms from southern India. Therefore, we did a treatment outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis of two chemotherapeutic regimens (BEP vs VIP) that are used in poor-prognosis metastatic germ cell tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All male patients with germ cell tumors, diagnosed as having poor risk by IGCCCG, between January 2002 and December 2004 were included in the study. Clinical, laboratory, and other data were recorded. The patients were stratified into two categories on the basis of the type of chemotherapeutic regimen they received. RESULTS: In all, 46 patients were analyzed, with a median follow up of 26.6 months. The baseline characteristics (age, stage, PS, histology, and serum markers) were not different in the two treatment arms. There is no significant difference in the outcome with either of the chemotherapeutic modalities. VIP is less cost effective and more toxic compared to BEP. CONCLUSION: In view of the greater toxicity and cost of therapy, as well as lack of either overall or disease free survival advantage, VIP is not a preferred option for patients with high-risk germ cell tumors in the Indian setting and it is still advisable to treat patients with BEP.

Patterns, costs and cost-effectiveness of care in a trial of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

In a recently published randomised trial of chemotherapy versus palliative care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (the MIC2 trial), chemotherapy was shown to prolong survival without compromising quality of life. The study presented here examines patterns of care and their associated costs within a representative subgroup of patients from the MIC2 trial. The study consisted of 116 patients from the South Birmingham Health Authority area. The total health service cost for each patient from entry to trial to death or last follow-up was calculated by combining the resources used with their associated unit costs. The mean cost for patients with complete data on the chemotherapy arm was 6999 pounds sterling (standard deviation (S.D.) 4194 pounds sterling) compared to 4076 pounds sterling (S.D. 3078 pounds sterling) for those with complete data on the palliative care arm. Non-parametric bootstrapping gave a difference between treatment arms in mean cost of 2924 pounds sterling(95% CI 1234 pounds sterling - 4323 pounds sterling). With a difference in mean survival of 2.4 months, this translates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,620 pounds sterling per life year gained. Chemotherapy was found to be more costly than standard palliative care, mainly due to the increased number of hospital in-patient days.

A phase II trial of four courses of preoperative chemotherapy in squamous or anaplastic carcinoma of the oesophagus.

We have reported the results of a previous Phase II trial of two courses of neoadjuvant mitomycin (6 mg/m2), ifosfamide (3 g/m2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m2) (MIC) in squamous or anaplastic carcinoma of the oesophagus. In this current study, we have investigated whether there was any clinical benefit in extending the preoperative treatment to four courses for patients who responded after two courses. Response was assessed by barium swallow, which was compared with previous barium swallows performed prior to any treatment and after the second course of MIC. Of an initial 43 patients, 27 (63%) were assessed as responders after two courses of MIC. Twenty of these 27 patients were entered into the study with a view to receiving two further courses of MIC prior to surgery. Seventeen completed four courses. Five patients were complete responders after two courses and remained complete responders after four courses. Twelve patients were partial responders after two courses; six of these became complete responders after four courses, five remained partial responders, and one showed progression. Haematological toxicity and alopecia were increased after extending the number of courses beyond two. On pathological assessment, three patients with a complete response after four courses, and one with a complete response after three courses, had microscopic clearance of tumour. Extension beyond two courses of neoadjuvant MIC gives an improvement in response, as judged by barium assessment, but increases toxicity, cost of treatment and delay before surgery. Although the numbers are small, the results suggest that a worthwhile improvement in the radiological response of squamous or anaplastic oesophageal tumours may be gained by proceeding beyond two courses of MIC. A randomized trial, with larger numbers of patients, is needed to show whether there is any improvement in radiological and pathological response rates and in survival to be gained by the extension of treatment beyond two courses.

The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of stages III B and IV non-small cell lung cancer: an Italian perspective.

The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages III B and IV was retrospectively assessed specifically with respect to the situation in Italy and from the third party payer perspective. The chemotherapy regimens compared were gemcitabine+cisplatin (G + C), mitomycin+ifosfamide+cisplatin (MIP), etoposide+cisplatin (E + C), and vinorelbine+cisplatin (V + C). Efficacy and safety data for the regimens were calculated from studies selected from the international literature using formal inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, one study with one G + C treatment arm (48 patients), one study with one MIP treatment arm (133 patients), three studies with one E + C treatment arm (total 325 patients), and two studies with one V + C treatment arm (total 327 patients) were included. Where efficacy and toxicity results for the same regimen were reported in more than one study, the values were combined using a random effects meta-analysis method. The mean tumour response rates were: 54% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 40-69%); 40% (95% CI 32-49%); 26% (95% CI 20-30%); and 35% (95% CI 24-48) for G + C, MIP, E + C and V + C, respectively. Costs were evaluated for World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 toxicities with high impact on medical costs using computer modelling techniques. The official prices of drugs and official reimbursement rates were used to calculate direct medical costs. Average cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the treatments. Marginal cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the use of MIP, E + C or V + C instead of G + C would result in additional costs of 7.7, 55.2 (p < 0.05), and 46.2 million lira, respectively, for every patient with a tumour response.