Search

Background: Combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel has superior clinical efficacy than gemcitabine alone. Nevertheless, health-related quality of life. (QoL) associated with this combination therapy when administered at first-line in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma is unknown.Methods: A total of 125 patients were randomized to combination therapy (1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine + 125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel) and single-agent gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) arms to take treatment weekly for 7 of 8 weeks, and following 3 of 4 weeks, until progression or severe toxicity. Primary endpoints were three-months of definitive deterioration free percent of patients, and QoL.Results: Overall QoL analyses showed that 34 and 58.3% of cases in gemcitabine and gemcitabine+nab-P arms had no deterioration in 3rd month QoL scores (p = 0.018). These proportions were 27.3 and 36.6% in 6th month assessments, respectively (p = 0.357). Median overall survivals in combination and single-agent arms were 9.92 months and 5.95 months, respectively (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86, p = 0.038). Median progression free survivals in these treatment arms were 6.28 and 3.22 months, respectively (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.87, p = 0.008). Median time-to-deterioration were 5.36 vs 3.68 months, and objective response rates were 37.1% vs 23.7% (p = 0.009), respectively in combination and single-agent arms.Conclusions: Combination therapy with gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel had better overall and progression-free survival than gemcitabine alone. Also, combination therapy showed increased response rate without toxicity or deteriorated QoL. Combination treatment with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel may provide significant benefit for advanced pancreatic cancer.Trial Registration: This study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03807999 on January 8, 2019 (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present study was to determine whether there are any clinicopathological or prognostic differences between patients with α-fetoprotein-secreting gastric carcinoma (AFP-SGC) and non-AFP-SGC. Pathological parameters, clinical parameters, and treatment efficacy were compared in patients with AFP-SGC and non-AFP-SGC. In total, 362 patients (53 with AFP-SGC and 309 with non- AFP-SGC) were included in the present study. Patients with AFP-SGC had significantly higher levels of lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion (PNI), rate of liver metastasis, and stage IV cancer compared with patients with non-AFPSGC (P<0.05). The median overall survival (OS) rate was 12.6 months in the AFP-SGC group, and 22.1 months in the non-AFP-SGC group (P<0.001). The median OS and disease free survival (DFS) of patients with stage I-III AFP-SGC were 28.1 and 13.4 months, respectively, whereas for patients with non-AFP-SGC, the OS and DFS were 45.3 and 38.0 months, respectively (P=0.01; P=0.02). The median OS for the stage IV AFP-SGC and non-AFP-SGC groups was 9.3 and 11.5 months, respectively (P=0.14). Multivariate analysis of the entire patient group revealed that the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of ≥2, lymph node involvement, presence of PNI, high levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, and distant metastasis were significantly correlated with OS. The lymph node involvement, ECOG performance score of ≥2, AFP-SGC type, and weight loss at diagnosis were also significant factors influencing the DFS in the stage I-III group. In conclusion, patients with AFP-SGC had more aggressive clinicopathological features and biological behavior with an increased tendency of liver metastasis compared with patients with non-AFP-SGC. In the near future, AFP may become an important surrogate marker to manage therapies of patients with gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tamoxifen-induced ocular complications including cataracts, keratopathies, retinopathy, impaired visual acuity, ocular irritation, optical neuritis, and retinal vein occlusion are uncommonly reported in the literature. Herein, we report on a premenopausal patient with right-side breast carcinoma who received adjuvant tamoxifen therapy (20 mg/day) for 1.5 years and developed sudden visual loss. Fundal examination revealed an obstruction in the branch of the retinal vein. The diagnosis was confirmed by fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography. Thus, tamoxifen was switched to an aromatase inhibitor. Tamoxifen-induced ocular complications should be kept in mind when visual symptoms are seen in patients undergoing tamoxifen therapy. In such cases, a complete ocular examination should be performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goals: It is generally recommended to wait for at least 24 h before starting chemotherapy after implanting venous port catheters (VPC). Our aim was to evaluate whether it is safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation.Patients and Methods: One hundred eighty patients who had to be given chemotherapy on the day of VPC implantation at our institution from June 2005 to April 2007 were included.Main Results: Of patients, 122 were male (67.8%) and median age was 55 years. Majority (133, 72.8%) had colon and gastric adenocancer. Median time to chemotherapy onset from VPC implantation was 102 min (minimum-maximum, 12-402). One hundred sixty-four (91.1%) received prolonged chemotherapy infusions beyond 48 h. No life-threatening acute complications like pneumothorax and hemothorax developed. In one patient extravasation (empty saline extravasation secondary to wrong insertion of the needle), in 17 (9.4%) pain, and in 41 (22.8%) minor bleeding as echymosis were seen. Thrombosis developed in 11 (6.1%). Reasons for VPC removal were thrombosis (2), sepsis (2), cellulitis (1), skin dehiscence (1), and patient will (1).Conclusion: Chemotherapy administration immediately after VPC implantation appears safe without increased acute and chronic complications in inpatient setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]