scholarly journals IASI NG instrument performance status

Author(s):  
E. Baldit ◽  
A. Penquer ◽  
F. Bernard ◽  
F. Bermudo
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 2S269-2S280
Author(s):  
V. Gounant ◽  
G. Soussi ◽  
J. Pluvy ◽  
S. Brosseau ◽  
L. Hachon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

The Synergist ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Judson Kenoyer

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiko Izuishi ◽  
Hirohito Mori

Recently, many strategies have been reported for the effective treatment of gastric cancer. However, the strategy for treating stage IV gastric cancer remains controversial. Conducting a prospective phase III study in stage IV cancer patients is difficult because of heterogeneous performance status, age, and degree of cancer metastasis or extension. Due to poor prognosis, the variance in physical status, and severe symptoms, it is important to determine the optimal strategy for treating each individual stage IV patient. In the past decade, many reports have addressed topics related to stage IV gastric cancer: the 7th Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM staging system has altered its stage IV classification; new chemotherapy regimens have been developed through the randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (REAL)-II, S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 in RCT in the treatment for stomach cancer (SPIRITS), trastuzumab for gastric cancer (ToGA), ramucirumab monotherapy for previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD), and ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW) trials; and the survival efficacy of palliative gastrectomy has been denied by the reductive gastrectomy for advanced tumor in three Asian countries (REGATTA) trial. Current strategies for treating stage IV patients can be roughly divided into the following five categories: palliative gastrectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, gastric stent, or bypass. In this article, we review recent publications and guidelines along with above categories in the light of individual symptoms and prognosis. Abbreviations: APC: argon plasma coagulation; AVAGAST: anti-angiogenic antibody bevacizumab, the avastin in gastric cancer; BSC: best supportive care; CF: cisplatin and fluorouracil; CRP: C-reactive protein; DCF: docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU; FISH: fluorescent in-situ hybridization; GJ: gastrojejunostomy; GPS: Glasgow Prognostic Score; HER: human epidermal growth factor receptor; HR: hazard ratio; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS: overall survival; PS: performance status; QOL: quality of life; RAINBOW: ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; RCTs: randomized controlled trials; REAL: randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer; REGARD: ramucirumab monotherapy for previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; REGATTA: reductive gastrectomy for advanced tumor in three Asian countries; SEER: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results; SEMS: self-expandable metal stents; SPIRITS: S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 in RCT in the treatment for stomach cancer; ToGA: trastuzumab for gastric cancer; TTP: time-to-progression; VEGFR: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 887-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Catalano ◽  
Giandomenico Roviello ◽  
Raffaele Conca ◽  
Alberto D’Angelo ◽  
Valeria Emma Palmieri ◽  
...  

Background: The phase III MPACT trial demonstrated the superiority of gemcitabine (Gem) combined with Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) versus gemcitabine alone in previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Gem/Nab-P in routine clinical practice. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, patients with metastatic PDAC receiving firstline treatment with a combination of gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel were included in a multicentre retrospective observational study. Exploratory analyses of efficacy, and prognostic and predictive markers, were performed. Results: The cohort comprised 115 patients (median age 65 [range 50-84] years) with good performance status (ECOG PS 0-1). The median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95% CI; 9-13) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months (95% CI 5-7). Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 44 and 30 patients, respectively, yielding an overall disease control rate (DCR) of 64.3%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity frequency was 22.61% for neutropenia, 5.22% for anemia, and 3.48% for thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 asthenia was recorded in 2.61% of patients. No grade 4 non-hematological events were reported. Dose reduction was necessary in 51.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Our results confirm the efficacy and safety of a first-line regimen comprising gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel in metastatic PDAC in a real-life population.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Karen A. Gelmon ◽  
Christian Kollmannsberger ◽  
Stephen Chia ◽  
Anna V. Tinker ◽  
Teresa Mitchell ◽  
...  

Background/Objective: With the increasing interest in natural products, a phase I openlabel study of OMN54 (Aneustat™) in patients with advanced malignancies was initiated to determine toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokinetics (PK). OMN54 is a multitargeted agent, combining three Chinese botanicals; Ganoderma lucidium, Salvia miltiorrhiza and Scutellaria barbata. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were >18 years of age with advanced solid tumors, able to swallow oral capsules, ECOG performance status < 2, measurable disease as defined by RECIST 1.1 and adequate organ function. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in 6 dose levels, 2 with daily dosing and 4 with twicedaily dosing ranging from 1 to 5 grams daily. All were evaluated for toxicity and 20 for response. No treatment-related dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined to be 2.5 g twice daily. Seven adverse events in 5 patients were reported as possibly drug-related; 6 were GI toxicity and 1 was a skin disorder. All were grade 1 except one grade 2 vomiting. No RECIST responses were seen. Six pts were treated with > 2 cycles; one for 8 cycles. Four patients had reductions in TGF –β and EGF, exploratory biomarkers possibly suggestive of a drug effect. Plasma half-lives of 1 -2 hours were noted for all parent drug chemical markers with no accumulation over time. Conclusion: OMN54 was well tolerated, with no DLTs observed. Further studies at the RP2D will assess the biological activity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document