Search

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are validated tools to assess the impact of efficacy and toxicities of cancer treatments on patients' health status. Because of the demonstrated little reliability of humans in reporting memories of painful experiences, this work explores the reliability of cancer patients in reporting chemotherapy-related toxicities., Aim: This study aims to evaluate the concordance between toxicities experienced by the patients during chemotherapy and toxicities reported to the doctor at the end of the cycles., Methods: Questionnaires concerning chemotherapy-related toxicities were administered on days 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 of each chemo cycle and at the end of the same cycle to patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The co-primary end-points were Lins's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and mean difference between real-time and retrospective toxicity assessments., Results: In total, 7182 toxicity assessments were collected from 1096 questionnaires. Concordance was observed between the retrospective evaluations and the toxicity assessments at early (day 2), peak (maximum toxicity), late (day 14 or 17), and mean real-time evaluations for each chemotherapy cycle (CCC for mean ranging from 0.52 to 0.77). No systematic discrepancy was found between real-time and retrospective evaluations, except for peak, which was systematically underestimated retrospectively., Conclusions: Toxicities reported by the patients to the doctor at the end of each chemotherapy cycle reflect what they actually experienced without any substantial distortion. This result is very relevant both for the clinical implications in daily patients' management and in the light of the current growing impact on digital monitoring of PROs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: the APICE study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel - Nab-P) + gemcitabine (G) vs G alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) from the Italian National Health Service (INHS) standpoint., Research Design and Methods: A 4-year, 4 health states (progression-free; progressed; end of life; death) Markov model based on the MPACT trial was developed to estimate costs (Euro [€], 2017 values), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients were assumed to receive intravenously Nab-P 125 mg/m 2  + G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G alone 1000 mg/m 2 weekly for 7 out of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles) until progression. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty surrounding the baseline incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR)., Results: Nab-P + G totals 0.154 incremental QALYs and €7082.68 incremental costs vs G alone. ICUR (€46,021.58) is lower than the informal threshold value of €87,330 adopted by the Italian Medicines Agency during 2010-2013 for reimbursing oncological drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline findings., Conclusions: Nab-P + G in MPC patients can be considered cost-effective for the INHS.

Background: The RAF-MEK-ERK pathway is commonly activated in pancreatic cancer because of a high frequency of KRAS-BRAF mutations. A phase II randomized trial was designed to investigate the activity of sorafenib in combination with chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: Locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin plus gemcitabine with sorafenib 400mg bid (arm A) or without sorafenib (arm B)., Results: One hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled; of these, 43 (74.6%) patients progressed in arm A and 44 (82.4%) in arm B. Median progression-free survival was 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.7-6.5) and 4.5 months (95% CI: 2.5-5.2), respectively (HR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.62-1.35). Median overall survival was 7.5 (95% CI: 5.6-9.7) and 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.2-8.7), respectively (HR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.62-1.48). Response rates were 3.4% in arm A and 3.6% in arm B., Conclusions: Sorafenib does not significantly enhance activity of chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer patients, and therefore should not be assessed in phase III trials., (Copyright © 2013 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: asparagine-glycine-arginine-human tumour necrosis factor (NGR-hTNF), an agent selectively damaging the tumour vasculature, showed a biphasic dose-response curve in preclinical models. Previous phase I trials of NGR-hTNF indicated 0.8 and 45 μg/m(2) as optimal biological and maximum-tolerated dose, respectively., Patients and Methods: Two sequential cohorts of 12 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who had failed standard therapies received NGR-hTNF 0.8 or 45 μg/m(2) in combination with capecitabine-oxaliplatin (XELOX)., Results: Median number of prior treatment lines was 3 in the low-dose and 2 in the high-dose cohort. Overall, 21 patients had been pretreated with oxaliplatin-based regimens. No grade 3-4 NGR-hTNF-related toxicities were observed. Grade 1-2 chills were reported in 43% and 40% of cycles in the low-dose and high-dose cohorts, respectively. In the low-dose cohort, one patient achieved a partial response and five had stable disease for a median of 4.6 months. In the high-dose cohort, six patients had stable disease for a median of 3.6 months. Three-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 50% and 33% in the low-dose and high-dose cohort, respectively. Three patients in low-dose cohort experienced PFS longer than PFS on last prior therapy., Conclusions: Both NGR-hTNF doses were safely combined with XELOX in pretreated CRC patients. Hint of activity was apparent only with low-dose NGR-hTNF., (© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab administered with gemcitabine to treat cancer cachexia and to explore a functional measure of clinical benefit, investigators involved in this multicenter, phase II, placebo-controlled study randomized 89 patients with stage II-IV pancreatic cancer and cachexia to receive either placebo or 3 mg/ kg or 5 mg/kg of infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 4 and then every 4 weeks to week 24; patients also received 1,000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine weekly from weeks 0-6 and then for 3 of every 4 weeks until their disease progressed. The primary endpoint was change in lean body mass (LBM) at 8 weeks from baseline; major secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, Karnofsky performance status, and 6-minute walk test distance. In addition, quality of life was measured. The mean change in LBM at 8 weeks was +0.4 kg for patients receiving placebo, +0.3 kg for those receiving 3 mg/kg of infliximab, and +1.7 kg for those receiving 5 mg/kg of infliximab. No statistically significant differences in LBM or secondary endpoints were observed among the groups. Safety findings were similar in all groups. Adding infliximab to gemcitabine to treat cachexia in advanced pancreatic cancer patients was not associated with statistically significant differences in safety or efficacy when compared with placebo.