Background: Although all first-generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists demonstrate efficacy in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), effective prevention of delayed CINV has not yet been achieved. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron, a novel, second-generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, with ondansetron. Patients and methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, stratified, phase III study, 570 adult cancer patients were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg or ondansetron 32 mg, each administered 30 min before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with no emetic episodes and no rescue medication [complete response (CR)] during the 24 h after chemotherapy administration (acute period). Secondary end points included efficacy in treatment of delayed CINV (≤5 days post-chemotherapy) and overall tolerability. Results: 563 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates were significantly higher (P <0.01) for palonosetron 0.25 mg than ondansetron during the acute (0–24 h) (81.0% versus 68.6%, respectively), delayed (24–120 h) (74.1% versus 55.1%) and overall (0–120 h) (69.3% versus 50.3%) periods. CR rates achieved with palonosetron 0.75 mg were numerically higher but not statistically different from ondansetron during all three time intervals. Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: A single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg was significantly superior to i.v. ondansetron 32 mg in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV.

Background: Combination chemotherapy yields better response rates which do not always lead to a survival advantage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reported differences in the efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) versus combination therapy with cisplatin (CDDP) in endometrial adenocarcinoma lead to significant advantage in favour of the combination. Patients and methods: Eligible patients had histologically-proven advanced and/or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma and were chemo-naïve. Treatment consisted of either DOX 60 mg/m² alone or CDDP 50 mg/m² added to DOX 60 mg/m², every 4 weeks. Results: A total of 177 patients were entered and median follow-up is 7.1 years. The combination DOX–CDDP was more toxic than DOX alone. Haematological toxicity consisted mainly of white blood cell toxicity grade 3 and 4 (55% versus 30%). Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 3 and 4 alopecia (72% versus 65%) and nausea/vomiting (36 % versus 12%). The combination DOX–CDDP provided a significantly higher response rate than single agent DOX (P <0.001). Thirty-nine patients (43%) responded on DOX–CDDP [13 complete responses (CRs) and 26 partial responses (PRs)], versus 15 patients (17%) on DOX alone (8 CR and 7 PR). The median overall survival (OS) was 9 months in the DOX–CDDP arm versus 7 months in the DOX alone arm (Wilcoxon P = 0.0654). Regression analysis showed that WHO performance status was statistically significant as a prognostic factor for survival, and stratifying for this factor, treatment effect reaches significance (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.05–2.03, P = 0.024). Conclusions: In comparison to single agent DOX, the combination of DOX–CDDP results in higher but acceptable toxicity. The response rate produced is significantly higher, and a modest survival benefit is achieved with this combination regimen, especially in patients with a good performance status.

Breast cancer research has developed at a rapid pace over the last decades. Recent discoveries promise to provide individualized treatment options, increased long-term survival for women with breast cancer, and the possibility of moving toward curative intent in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Age, race, tumor size, histological tumor type, axillary nodal status, standardized pathological grade, and hormone-receptor status are accepted as established prognostic and/or predictive factors for selection of systemic adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The role of other promising new factors, such as p53 mutations, HER-2 status, plasminogen activator system, histological evidence of vascular invasion, and quantitative parameters of angiogenesis will be determined in ongoing prospective studies. Currently, 5 years' treatment with adjuvant tamoxifen in women with hormone-positive receptor status, is regarded as the optimal duration of treatment. Long-term follow-up on the randomized trials will determine the added benefit of treatment beyond 5 years. Ovarian ablation has shown a reduction in recurrence and death, and the exact role and extent of adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal women with hormone-responsive tumors is under discussion. Combination hormonal and chemo-hormonal therapies are also being evaluated. There are no convincing data on the survival impact of tamoxifen as a preventative therapy for breast cancer: longer-term follow-up is required, and the planned meta-analyses in 2005 should help shed light on this issue. Statistically significant benefits have been observed with adjuvant chemotherapy (particularly with anthracycline-containing regimens in premenopausal women) versus no adjuvant chemotherapy. The optimal length of adjuvant anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens needs further evaluation as do randomized comparisons of AC to cyclophosphamide/ doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cyclophosphamide/epirubicin/5-FU. Although taxanes promise to provide an additive benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9344 and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-28 studies evaluating paclitaxel in the adjuvant setting have not yet demonstrated statistically significant benefits on disease-free survival and overall survival. In the year 2000, all adjuvant therapy studies conducted by the Co-operative Groups in both node-negative and node-positive disease involve a taxane. High-dose chemotherapy evaluations are still ongoing. The numerous prospective adjuvant therapy trials (hormonal; selective estrogen-receptor modulators; aromatase inhibitors; chemotherapy, involving anthracyclines/taxanes/platinum/trastuzumab; biological factors; elderly women (>70 years); high-risk patients; radiotherapy in 1-3 positive lymph nodes), and neoadjuvant studies might further define the chances to enhance cure rates in the treatment of primary breast cancer.

Background: The prophylactic use of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (setrons), after the first 24 h (acute phase) of exposure to emetic chemotherapy, to decrease the incidence of ‘delayed phase’ emesis increases costs. We designed a study to evaluate the efficacy of a setron (granisetron) in the delayed phase, compared with metoclopramide, each combined with a corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Patients on their first course of single-day emetic chemotherapy (cisplatin, carboplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and others) received granisetron 2 mg p.o. and dexamethasone 8 mg p.o. on day 1, followed for 5 days by dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. od combined with either metoclopramide 20 mg p.o. tds or granisetron 1 mg bd in a double-blinded double-dummy protocol. Patients evaluated the results using a diary card. Randomization was stratified by institution, sex, emetic chemotherapy naïve versus previous, alcohol consumption and platinum versus non-platinum regimen. Results: 131 evaluable patients received granisetron in the delayed phase, and 127 received metoclopramide. Control of acute emesis in both arms was similar (86% granisetron; 85% metoclopramide). The 35 patients experiencing acute emesis had poor control in the delayed phase, with only four granisetron and three metoclopramide patients having no or mild nausea and no vomiting. Conclusions: In daily practice, a combination of oral dexamethasone and oral granisetron achieves an extremely high control of acute emesis (86% protection). Our data suggest that routine prescription of setrons for delayed phase control is not advisable as it increases costs without any benefit for the majority of patients. Delayed emesis in the rare patients with acute phase emesis remains an unsolved problem.