Biomedical subjects

F Graziano

Publications and source records attributed to F Graziano.

93 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC): a randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine plus etoposide (CAV-E) or teniposide (CAV-T) as induction treatment, followed in complete responders by alpha-interferon or no treatment, as maintenance therapy.

In this phase III, double-random study, we compared CAV-E to CAV-T combination as induction treatment (1st randomization) for SCLC. Subsequently, patients achieving a complete response (CR) were randomized again (2nd randomization) to receive maintenance treatment with alpha-IFN or no treatment. From June 1990 to June 1992, 75 untreated patients were enrolled in this trial. After stratification according to limited disease (LD) or extensive disease (ED), patients were randomized to receive the following treatment: cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, adriamycin 50 mg/m2, vincristine 2 mg, day 1 i.v., plus etoposide (E) 100 mg/m2 (CAV-E: arm-A) or teniposide (T) 60 mg/m2 on day 2, 3, 4 i.v., every 3 weeks (CAV-T: arm-B). LD patients after 3 cycles of treatment received chest radiotherapy and 2 further cycles, whereas ED patients received 5 consecutive cycles. Patients who achieved a CR entered the 2nd randomization receiving a-IFN (3 x 10(6) I.U., i.m. daily x 9 months) or no treatment. A second-line treatment with carboplatin 300 mg/m2 plus E (if T was initially used) or T (if E was initially used) was also scheduled for patients achieving less than CR to induction treatment. Preliminary results are as follows: 75 patients were randomized, 72 were eligible for survival (arm-A = 37 and arm-B = 35) and 60 were fully evaluable for response (arm-A = 34 and arm-B = 26). In patients with LD the overall response rate was 79% (CR 21%) in arm-A vs 92% (CR 50%) in arm-B. In patients with ED, the overall response rate was 80% (CR 33%) in arm-A vs 84% (CR 7%) in arm-B. At a mean observation time of about 1 year (range 1-25 months), median survival of LD patients was 15 months in arm-A and 13 months in arm-B (Chi-square = 1.55; p > 0.05); in ED patients survival was 10.8 months and 8 months respectively (Chi-square = 2.88; p > 0.05). Cumulative survival probability was identical (12 months) in all patients of both arms. Toxicity was mainly haematologic and gastrointestinal: WHO grade 3-4 myelosuppression and vomiting were observed in 20% and 11% respectively, of cycles delivered in arm-A, compared to 19% and 8%, respectively, of cycles in arm-B. Two septic deaths occurred with CAV-T, while 1 patient discontinued treatment due to persistent myelosuppression with CAV-E. After the first and second-line treatment 20 patients showed a CR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Factors influencing response to second-line treatment with teniposide (VM26) in patients with progressive small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Twenty-eight patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), 12 with limited (LD) and 16 with extensive (ED) disease, 22 of them relapsed to first-line treatment and 6 not responsive, were treated with a single-agent second-line treatment consisting of teniposide (VM26) 60 mg/m2, i.v. on days 1 to 5, every three weeks, until progression. After a minimum of two courses, we observed no complete response, 7 (LD/ED = 4/3) partial responses (25%), 4 (LD/ED = 2/2) minor responses (14%), and 17 (LD/ED = 6/11) with no change (61%). Median duration of response (partial plus minor) was 3.5 months (range 1-8). Median duration of survival, from VM26 administration, was in LD 6 months (range 2.5-11), in ED 3 months (range 1.5-6) and in all patients 4 months (1.5-11). Correlating the 11 responses with major prognostic variables present in the patients, we observed that KPS > 70, few initial courses of PL/VP16 and response to first-line treatment were significant determinants for successful salvage treatment. This study suggests the need to consider detailed patient characteristics of exposure to previous treatment before prompting new drug phase II studies on SCLC.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Primary adenocarcinoma of the duodenum: treatment and survival in 89 patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Primary adenocarcinoma of the duodenum is a rare disease and diagnosis is always late in being confirmed because of the non-specific symptoms, consequently leading to poor prognosis. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective review of 89 patients with non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma treated in 36 different surgical departments in Italy between 1980 and 1994 was performed. The signs and symptoms, diagnostic studies conducted, tumor locations, surgical treatment, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Duodenography and endoscopy were the most effective diagnostic tests, showing an accuracy of 81.9% and 88%, respectively. The most common tumor site was periampullary, observed in 62.9% of the cases. A curative resection was performed in 65 of the 89 patients (73%), a partial pancreatoduodenectomy in 37, a segmentary duodenal resection in 15 and a wide local excision in 11. The postoperative mortality rate was 10.1% (9 patients), and the overall 5-year survival was 25%, which was significantly better after resection. The most important prognostic factors were stage and tumor location. CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis of primary duodenal adenocarcinoma is the only way to improve the results, by providing a higher resectability rate.

Adenocarcinoma↗