Search

Prevalence data on the off-label use (OLU) of anticancer drugs are limited despite OLU being controversial for medical, pharmaco-economic, and ethical reasons. We therefore quantified and characterized the OLU of anticancer drugs and compared OLU based on the national drug label with international treatment recommendations. We prospectively collected data on patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy between October and December 2012 at hospitals affiliated with the Eastern Switzerland Oncology Network. Individual data on patient characteristics, tumor disease, and systemic treatment were collected, and each individual treatment was compared with the national drug label and international treatment guidelines. A total of 985 consecutive patients receiving 1,737 anticancer drug treatments were included in the study. Overall, 32.4 % of all patients received at least one off-label drug, corresponding to 27.2 % of all anticancer drugs administered. Major reasons for OLU were the lack of approval for the specific disease entity (15.7 %) and modified application of the anticancer drug (10 %). OLU that was unsupported by the current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) treatment recommendations was rare (6.6 %) but higher for bevacizumab (29.6 %) due to its use in treating advanced ovarian cancer beyond the second-line setting and advanced breast cancer beyond the first-line setting and for lenalidomide (22.6 %) due to its use in treating Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Based on data collected on our patient cohort, OLU of anticancer drugs in a European clinical setting applies to one-third of all cancer patients. ESMO-unsupported use of chemotherapies or molecularly-targeted drugs is rare, opposing concerns that the off-label use of newer anticancer drugs is a substantial clinical problem.

We assessed the impact of hepatic dysfunction on the safety and pharmacology of gemcitabine/capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatico-biliary cancer.We included 12 patients receiving 3 weekly gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) day 1, 8 and oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) b.i.d. over 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Patients were included into one normal hepatic function cohort [total bilirubin (TB) ≤15 μmol/L] and 3 cohorts with increasing TB (16-39, 40-80,80 μmol/L). Three patients with a creatinine clearance60 ml/min were also included. Patients were sampled for gemcitabine, difluoro-deoxy uridine, intracellular gemcitabine triphosphates, capecitabine, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine and 5-fluorouracil up to 4 h after initiation of chemotherapy on day 1, and up to 90 min on day 8. All compounds were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Nonlinear mixed-effect modeling was used for population analysis.Hepatic dysfunction was caused by intrahepatic cholestasis in 4 out of 8 patients (50 %) and extrahepatic cholestasis in another 4 patients (50 %). Dose-limiting toxicity was increasing hyperbilirubinemia and severe neutropenia in 2 patients each. Hepatic dysfunction was not associated with dose-limiting toxicity or severe hematological or non-hematological toxicity. However, hepatic dysfunction was associated with low clearance of both gemcitabine (p = 10(-3)) and capecitabine (p = 10(-5)), and low intracellular gemcitabine triphosphate concentrations (p = 10(-3)).Gemcitabine/capecitabine can be given at the standard dose in patients with severe hyperbilirubinemia, though the present data suggest that gemcitabine's activity may be limited due to poor intracellular activation. In patients with severe hyperbilirubinemia, initial monotherapy with capecitabine should be considered, followed by the addition of gemcitabine with improving hyperbilirubinemia.

This update includes articles on upper GI-cancers published in 2011 and in early 2012, which we consider particularly interesting for medical oncologists. In addition, abstracts from the 2011 ASCO meeting are also considered We reviewed the important literature in the field of GI-oncology and selected articles, which addressed key topics related to the treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer, and of cancers of the pancreas, the ampulla of Vater and the biliary tract, respectively. As the format of a short review is limited, we have focused on articles which are considered relevant for routine care.

The approval of sorafenib as the first effective drug for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a milestone in the treatment of this disease. Likewise, the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine was adopted as a first-line standard chemotherapy option for the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancers based on the results from a large randomized study (ABC-02). This review will briefly summarize the rationale, status and future perspectives of innovative targeted approaches for the treatment of hepatocellular and biliary tract carcinomas. Data from ongoing trials will likely result in a further refinement of treatment recommendations over the course of the next few years.

Background Obesity is a risk factor for developing pancreatic cancer. We investigated the impact of obesity on survival in patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods In a multicentre, retrospective study, we included all patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated at four Swiss hospitals between 1994 and 2004. We categorized patients into four body mass index (BMI) groups (

The goals of this study were the assessment (1) of all costs of terminal care of patients with osteolytic bone disease and pain and (2) of the economic consequences of the pamidronate treatment as observed in a prospective clinical trial on the effectiveness of pamidronate. A total of 70 patients were recruited, who were all suffering from advanced tumour diseases (60% breast cancer, 21% multiple myeloma, and 19% other tumours). In a single-institution study the patients were randomly assigned to receive, in a double-blinded setting, pamidronate 60 mg i.v. or 90 mg i.v. every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Perception of pain intensity was recorded by self-assessment, using a linear analogue scale. Follow-up lasted 6 months after treatment. All elements of direct costs of in-patient and out-patient care were recorded in cooperation with the hospital administration and the health insurance companies [Krankenkassen]. Average monthly direct costs amounted to ECU 1,290 (+/-410) and 1,050 (+/- 430) during the treatment phase and follow-up, respectively. Average in-patient costs were about three times the out-patient costs. Significantly higher costs (by a factor of 2) were observed for terminal care in hospital (last 3 months before death) than for continued care (of patients surviving the study period). The treatment with pamidronate reduced pain significantly but did not add noticeably to the costs. The study showed that it is practicable and quite efficient to combine a pharmaco-economic evaluation with a clinical trial, although it may be difficult (depending on the setting and availability of information) to assess true costs, i.e. total resource usage.

The aim of this double-blind, randomized study was to compare the effects of two pamidronate dosages, given as repeated infusions in patients with advanced malignant osteolytic bone disease and bone pain. Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive pamidronate 60 mg or 90 mg i.v. every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Pain parameters, analgesic consumption and performance status were assessed at baseline and throughout the study. Furthermore, total-body bone mineral density was measured using dual- energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline, after three and after six infusions. Sixty percent (95% CI 41–77%) of the patients in the 60 mg group and 63% (95% CI 44–79%) of the patients in the 90-mg group had a sustained reduction of pain intensity and were classified as pain responders. Median duration of pain response was 15 versus 12 weeks in the 60-mg and 90-mg groups, respectively (P=0.32). After two infusions, significant changes in pain intensity, pain frequency, general well-being and WHO pain score were observed (P