Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

F Perrone

Publications and source records attributed to F Perrone.

95 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Carboplatin, cisplatin and paclitaxel in the treatment of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of advanced ovarian cancer is unsatisfactory. Chemotherapy can be intensified combining active drugs at their highest possible doses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I/II trial, 77 untreated patients received escalating doses of paclitaxel (135, 155, 175, 195 and 215 mg/m2, infused over 3 hours) with carboplatin (AUC 3.6) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2). Nine, 16, 13, 8 and 3 patients were treated at the five levels, respectively. A further 28 patients were treated at the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities (one WHO grade 3 constipation, one grade 2 prolonged peripheral neurotoxicity and one grade 3 cardiac toxicity) occurred at 215 mg/m2 in 3 out of 3 patients. MTD was reached at level 4 paclitaxel dose (195 mg/m2). Response was evaluated in 62 patients. A complete response was achieved in 23 patients (37.1%-95% CI 25.2-50.3), including 16 (25.8%) pathological and partial response in 28 (45.2%), for an overall response rate of 82.3% (95% exact CL: 70.5%-90.8%). The probability of response was affected by the degree of initial debulking (p = 0.002) and not by the paclitaxel dose. In patients with stage III-IV disease, median progression-free survival was 17 months (95% CI 14-25). After a median follow-up of 28 months, median survival had not been reached; 2-year estimated survival was 67%. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel can be safely given at the dose of 195 mg/m2 in combination with carboplatin (AUC 3.6) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2). This combination is active and safe and could be considered in clinical settings requiring intensive short treatment.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Carboplatin + epirubicin +VP-16 + lenograstim followed by radiotherapy + carboplatin as radiosensitizer in limited small cell lung cancer. A multicenter phase II study.

UNLABELLED: A phase II trial was undertaken to test the activity and toxicity of carboplatin (300 mg/m2, i.v. day 1) + epirubicin (75 mg/m2, i.v. day 1) + VP-16 (100 mg/m2, i.v. days 1 to 3) + lenograstim (5 mcg/kg, s.c. days 6 to 15) administered every 3 weeks for 4 cycles and subsequent chest irradiation (50 Gy) + daily carboplatin (25 mg/m2) in the first-line treatment of adults affected by limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-stage phase II design was used; the complete response (CR) rate after chest radiotherapy was the primary end-point. Twenty-three CRs were required out of 38 patients to consider the treatment worthy of further study. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) was planned in case of CR. Patients aged < or = 70 were eligible if they had limited SCLC, a performance status not worse than 2 by the ECOG scale and no prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy. RESULTS: From January 1995 to April 1999, 33 patients were enrolled; the median age was 60 years. All the patients started chemotherapy; 23 patients received chest irradiation and concurrent daily carboplatin; 11 patients also received PCI. Toxicity was generally mild. Sixteen CRs (48.5%, 95% CI: 30.8-66.5) were recorded; the objective response rate was 72.7% (95% CI: 54.5-86.7). The median time-to-progression was 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.5-10.4). The median-survival was 10.7 months (95% CI: 9.2-16.1). CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy with carboplatin + epirubicin + VP-16 followed by chest irradiation plus concurrent daily carboplatin is well-tolerated but not sufficiently active to warrant further study in the treatment of patients with limited SCLC.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Physician-patient rapport in practice and clinical research: what do medical students think?].

OBJECTIVES: To investigate attitudes of medical students from the first, fourth and sixth year towards information of patients in clinical research and practice settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multiple-choice questionnaire was administered. Responses were registered on anonymous response-forms. The study was conducted at the two Schools of Medicine of Naples, in southern Italy. RESULTS: 773 students answered the questionnaire. Students believe that the quality of patient care is better within than outside a clinical trial, but anxiety and fear are the most frequent reactions to the idea of being offered the opportunity of participating, as patients, in a clinical trial. The patients' right to be informed of their participation in a clinical experiment is omitted by 30 to 50% of students. The majority of students believe that doctor's uncertainty should not be disclosed. About one-third believe that possible benefits of treatment should not be presented to patients and about one-fifth believe that information on possible drawbacks of treatment should be omitted. Many students believe that information on alternative types of treatment should be denied to patients entering a trial. Fourth year students consistently reported the highest percentage of negative responses. In clinical practice, as compared with clinical research, there is a higher tendency of students to give information to patients. The doctor's role is predominant when students indicate who should decide how much information to give to a patient entering into a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education should focus more closely on uncertainty and error analysis; principles of medical research and ethics should be covered throughout academic medical training.

Adult↗