Search

Background: The role of adjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer remains unclear. This report presents the long-term follow-up results of EORTC trial 40891, which assessed the role of chemoradiation in resectable pancreatic cancer., Methods: Two hundred eighteen patients were randomized after resection of the primary tumor. Eligible patients had T1-2 N0-N1a M0 pancreatic cancer or T1-3 N0-N1a M0 periampullary cancers, all histologic proven. Patients in the treatment group (n = 110) underwent postoperative chemoradiation (40 Gy plus 5-FU). Patients in the control group (n = 108) had no further adjuvant treatment., Findings: After a median follow-up of 11.7 years, 173 deaths (79%) have been reported. The overall survival did not differ between the 2 treatment groups (Chemoradiation treatment vs., Controls: death rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.23, P value 0.54). The 10-year overall survival was 18% in the whole population of patients (8% in the pancreatic head cancer group and 29% in the periampullary cancer group)., Interpretation: These results confirm the previous short-term analysis, indicating no benefit of adjuvant chemoradiation over observation in patients with resected pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer. Patients with pancreatic cancer may survive more than 10 years. Only 1 of 31 cases recurred after year 7.

Purpose: This study (EORTC 30891) attempted to demonstrate equivalent overall survival in patients with localized prostate cancer not suitable for local curative treatment treated with immediate or deferred androgen ablation., Patients and Methods: We randomly assigned 985 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer T0-4 N0-2 M0 to receive androgen deprivation either immediately (n = 493) or on symptomatic disease progression or occurrence of serious complications (n = 492)., Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups. Median age was 73 years (range, 52 to 81). At a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 541 of 985 patients had died, mostly of prostate cancer (n = 193) or cardiovascular disease (n = 185). The overall survival hazard ratio was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.48; noninferiority P > .1) favoring immediate treatment, seemingly due to fewer deaths of nonprostatic cancer causes (P = .06). The time from randomization to progression of hormone refractory disease did not differ significantly, nor did prostate-cancer specific survival. The median time to the start of deferred treatment after study entry was 7 years. In this group 126 patients (25.6%) died without ever needing treatment (44% of the deaths in this arm)., Conclusion: Immediate androgen deprivation resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in overall survival but no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality or symptom-free survival. This must be weighed on an individual basis against the adverse effects of life-long androgen deprivation, which may be avoided in a substantial number of patients with a deferred treatment policy.

Purpose: To define the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin for advanced pancreatic carcinoma., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and WHO performance status less than 2 were randomly assigned to receive 21-day cycles of gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 85 mg/m2 on day 8 (arm A) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm B). Primary end points were tumor response and rate of febrile neutropenia grade., Results: Of 96 randomly assigned patients (49 patients in arm A and 47 patients in arm B), 70 patients were analyzed for response (36 in arm A and 34 in arm B) and 89 patients were analyzed for safety (45 in arm A and 44 in arm B). Confirmed responses were observed in 19.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 36.0%) of patients in arm A and 23.5% (95% CI, 10.7% to 41.2%) in arm B. In arm A, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.7 months), median survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0 months), and 1-year survival was 30%. In arm B, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.6 months), median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 8.7 months), and 1-year survival was 16%. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 9% and 16% of patients in arms A and B, respectively., Conclusion: Both regimens are well tolerated and show activity in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. The safety profile and survival analyses favor docetaxel plus gemcitabine for further evaluation.

Purpose: The timing of endocrine treatment for prostate cancer remains controversial. The issue is addressed in protocol 30846 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer for patients with lymph node positive cancer without local treatment of the primary tumor., Materials and Methods: A total of 302 patients with metastatic regional lymph nodes who had not received local treatment for the primary tumor were included in the trial, of whom 234 were randomized to immediate vs delayed endocrine treatment. Endocrine treatment consisted of an luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and 1 month of antiandrogen treatment or surgical castration. The main end point of the trial was overall survival. Analysis followed the intent to treat principle., Results: At a median followup of 9.6 years (8.7 in the randomized sample) 190 patients (62.9%) had died, including 76% of prostate cancer. In the randomized sample the HR for survival on delayed vs immediate treatment was 1.23 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.71), indicating a 23% nonsignificant trend in favor of early treatment. However, the wide CI showed that results remained compatible with true effects, ranging from a 12% benefit in favor of delayed treatment to a 71% detriment for the same treatment approach., Conclusions: While this study suggests an advantage for early treatment, it is under powered to show equivalence or superiority for the early or delayed approach. When dealing with individual patients, the potential survival advantage on early treatment must be balanced against potential advantages in quality of life on delayed treatment.

Objectives: This trial was designed to compare the efficacy of Flutamide (FLU) versus Cyproterone acetate (CPA) in men with metastatic prostate cancer and favourable prognostic factors. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival, disease specific survival, time to progression and side effects were secondary endpoints. The results pertaining to sexual function were already reported [Br J Cancer 82(2) (2000) 283]., Material and Methods: The trial was designed to detect a 50% improvement in median overall survival with 80% power. At the time of the present report, the trial provides 88% power to detect the planned difference of 50% with a 2-sided Logrank test and 80% power to detect a difference of 43% in median survival., Results: 310 patients were randomized to treatment by FLU (250 mg t.i.d. p.o.) or CPA (100 mg t.i.d. p.o.). Of the 310 patients, 12 (3.9%) were ineligible. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for age which was significantly younger in the CPA group and for the presence of soft tissue metastases which were absent in the FLU group and present in 6 patients in the CPA group. The median follow-up was 8.6 years, 245 patients died, 158 (64.5%) of prostate cancer. There was no significant difference between the treatment arms with respect to overall survival, specific survival nor time to progression. Side effect profiles were studied and found to be more favourable for CPA overall and in particular with respect to gynecomastia, diarrhea and nausea., Conclusions: The trial shows no significant differences in efficacy between Flutamide and CPA monotherapy. The number of patients who died of prostate cancer up to this time is insufficient for a definitive analysis of specific survival. Erectile function and sexual activity are not preserved with FLU but decay slowly with both antiandrogens, toxicity is more pronounced with FLU.

Purpose/objective: This study evaluates the dosimetric benefits and feasibility of a deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique in the treatment of lung tumors. The technique has two distinct features--deep inspiration, which reduces lung density, and breath-hold, which immobilizes lung tumors, thereby allowing for reduced margins. Both of these properties can potentially reduce the amount of normal lung tissue in the high-dose region, thus reducing morbidity and improving the possibility of dose escalation., Methods and Materials: Five patients treated for non-small cell lung carcinoma (Stage IIA-IIIB) received computed tomography (CT) scans under 4 respiration conditions: free-breathing, DIBH, shallow inspiration breath-hold, and shallow expiration breath-hold. The free-breathing and DIBH scans were used to generate 3-dimensional conformal treatment plans for comparison, while the shallow inspiration and expiration scans determined the extent of tumor motion under free-breathing conditions. To acquire the breath-hold scans, the patients are brought to reproducible respiration levels using spirometry, and for DIBH, modified slow vital capacity maneuvers. Planning target volumes (PTVs) for free-breathing plans included a margin for setup error (0.75 cm) plus a margin equal to the extent of tumor motion due to respiration (1-2 cm). Planning target volumes for DIBH plans included the same margin for setup error, with a reduced margin for residual uncertainty in tumor position (0.2-0.5 cm) as determined from repeat fluoroscopic movies. To simulate the effects of respiration-gated treatments and estimate the role of target immobilization alone (i.e., without the benefit of reduced lung density), a third plan is generated from the free-breathing scan using a PTV with the same margins as for DIBH plans., Results: The treatment plan comparison suggests that, on average, the DIBH technique can reduce the volume of lung receiving more than 25 Gy by 30% compared to free-breathing plans, while respiration gating can reduce the volume by 18%. The DIBH maneuver was found to be highly reproducible, with intra breath-hold reproducibility of 1.0 (+/- 0.9) mm and inter breath-hold reproducibility of 2.5 (+/- 1.6) mm, as determined from diaphragm position. Patients were able to perform 10-13 breath-holds in one session, with a comfortable breath-hold duration of 12-16 s., Conclusion: Patients tolerate DIBH maneuvers well and can perform them in a highly reproducible fashion. Compared to conventional free-breathing treatment, the DIBH technique benefits from reduced margins, as a result of the suppressed target motion, as well as a decreased lung density; both contribute to moving normal lung tissue out of the high-dose region. Because less normal lung tissue is irradiated to high dose, the possibility for dose escalation is significantly improved.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 has been adopted by the Council of the European Communities, in 1992, to improve information exchange on certain dangerous chemicals with third countries, particularly developing countries. To implement the notification procedure in accordance with the Regulation, a database has been developed to manage and simplify the procedure. The software exists in three versions; one adapted for use by the Designated Authorities of the Member States, another for the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) and the third one is an information version aimed at Designated National Authorities outside the European Union and Industry. The database "EDEXIM" is currently working in a PC environment and is being developed as an on-line system with a stand-alone client/server architecture.