Search

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus thiotepa(TXT/TSPA) and docetaxel plus capecitabine(TXT/CAPE) in patients with metastatic breast cancer., Methods: The patients were randomized to give intravenous TXT 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus intravenous TSPA 60-65 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous TXT 35 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus oral CAPE 1 000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, at least 2 cycles applied., Results: TXT/TSPA group (22 patients) and TXT/CAPE group (24 patients) had consistent baseline. Docetaxel thiotepa group (21 cases) and docetaxel combined with capecitabine group (22 cases) were evaluated for their clinical responses, which showed that 2 of the 21 (9.52%) from TXT/TSPA group and 6 of the 22 (27.27%) from TXT/CAPE group had achieved partial remission; 11 of the 21 (52.38%) from TXT/TSPA group versus 7 of the 22 (31.82%) from TXT/CAPE group for stable diseases; 8 of the 21 (38.10%) from TXT/TSPA group versus and 9 of the 22 (40.91%) from TXT/CAPE group for progressive diseases, respectively. The disease control rate was 61.90% (13/21) and 59.09% (13/22) for TXT/TSPA and TXT/CAPE groups, the median progression-free survival(PFS) was 7.9 months [95% confidence interval(CI) 0.77 to 15.03] from TXT/TSPA group versus 8.3 months (95% CI 4.01 to 11.79) from TXT/CAPE group. One year survival rate was 88.20% for TXT/TSPA versus 81.00% for TXT/CAPE group, respectively. P values all exceeded 0.05, and the two groups showed no difference. No chemotherapy-related deaths occurred. Myelosuppression was the major side effect. The adverse events of grades 3 to 4 respectively occurred in TXT/TSPA and TXT/CAPE groups:leucocytopenia was 45.45% vs. 26.09%; neutropenia 45.45% vs. 21.74%; thrombocytopenia 9.09% vs. 0%; hand-foot syndrome 0% vs. 13.04%. P values all exceeded 0.05, and the two groups showed no difference., Conclusion: Combination of docetaxel and thiotepa in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer has some curative effect and adverse reactions can be tolerated. It can be used as an economical and effective rescue plan.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, survival and toxicity in patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treated with concurrent systemic chemotherapy and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or sequential systemic chemotherapy/WBRT., Methods: A total of 60 NSCLC patients with brain metastases were divided into two groups in this prospective clinical study: concurrent systemic chemotherapy and WBRT group (concurrent group) and sequential systemic chemotherapy/WBRT group (sequential group)., Results: Of 59 assessable patients, the overall response rate was 22.0%, and the brain response rate was 35.6%; the median progression-free survival time was 3.0 months, and the overall 1- and 2-year survival rates were 55% and 24.4%, respectively, with a median survival time of 16.0 months. The overall response rate was 20.0% in the concurrent group and 24.1% in sequential group (P > 0.05). The brain response rates of 43.3% in concurrent group and 27.6% in sequential group were also not significantly different (P > 0.05). The median progression-free survival time for the patients in the concurrent group was 3.0 months versus 4.0 months in the sequential group, and the median survival time was 16.0 months versus 13.0 months (all P > 0.05). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 58.5% and 37.2% versus 52.9% and 18.9%, respectively, with a significant difference in the 2-year survival rate between the two groups (P = 0.011). In the sequential group, leukopenia was more frequent during chemotherapy than that in the concurrent group (P = 0.029)., Conclusion: Concurrent systemic chemotherapy and WBRT is effective with tolerable adverse events in treating brain metastasis from NSCLC with an encouraging survival, and deserves further large sample and randomized multicenter clinical trials.

Background & Objective: Advanced pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis. Gemcitabine (GEM) can improve the quality of life of pancreatic cancer patients. However, the efficacy of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy is uncertain. This study was to compare the efficacy of GEM-based combination therapy and GEM alone on advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: Clinical data of 40 patients with pathologically or clinically diagnosed advanced pancreatic cancer were analyzed. Of the 40 patients, 15 were treated with GEM (1,000 mg/m(2)) alone weekly for 7 weeks followed by a 2-week rest, then received cycles of 3-week administration with 1-week rest; 25 were treated with GEM (1,000 mg/m(2)) weekly for 2 weeks plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (425-600 mg/m(2)) as bolus at Day 1-5 or 120-hour infusion every 21 days, or cisplatin (DDP) (30-37.5 mg/m(2)) at Day 1-2 every 21 days, or oxaliplatin (85-130 mg/m(2)) at Day 1 every 21 days, or capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) twice a day at Day 1-14 every 21 days, respectively. The survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Median time to progression (mTTP), clinical benefit response (CBR), disease control rate, median overall survival (mOS) and toxicity were assessed according to World Health Organization criteria., Results: The rate of CBR was 56.0% in GEM-combination group and 46.7% in GEM alone group. There were no significant differences in disease control rate, mOS, CBR, and adverse events between the two groups (all P>0.05). However, for the patients with stage III-IV advanced pancreatic cancer, the disease control rate was higher in GEM-combination group than in GEM alone group (75.0% vs. 45.5%, P=0.13)., Conclusion: GEM-combination regimens and GEM alone have similar efficacy, and lead to similar clinical benefit response and mOS for the patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.