MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study looked at patients who had palliative chemotherapy with either cisplatin/5FU or carboplatin/5FU for metastatic and recurrent SCCHN and NPC. It included patients who were treated at UKMMC from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 with either palliative IV cispaltin 75 mg/m2 D1 only plus IV 5FU 750 mg/m2 D1-5 infusion or IV Carboplatin AUC 5 D1 only plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 infusion plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 bolus. The specific objectives were to determine the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy in terms of overall response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and to evaluate the toxicities of both regimens.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were eligible for this study. There were 17 in the cisplatin/5FU arm and 24 in the carboplatin/5FU arm. The ORR was 17.7 % for cisplatin/5FU arm and 37.5 % for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.304). The median PFS was 7 months for cisplatin/5FU and 9 months for carboplatin/5FU (p-value=1.015). The median OS was 10 months for cisplatin/5FU arm and 12 months for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.110). There were 6 treatment-related deaths (6/41=14.6%), four in the carboplatin/5FU arm (4/24=16.7%) and 2 in the cisplatin/5FU arm (2/17=11.8%). Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity was also more common with carboplatin/5FU group, this difference being predominantly due to grade 3-4 granulocytopenia (41.6% vs. 0), grade 3-4 anemia (37.5% vs. 0) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs. 0).
CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin/5FU is not inferior to cisplatin/5FU with regard to its efficacy. However, there was a high rate of treatment-related deaths with both regimens. A better alternative needs to be considered.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T3-4, N2 M0 breast cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 and who received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Thirty-four patients were identified from the Chemotherapy Daycare Records and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen administered was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. Breast tumour size and nodal status was assessed at diagnosis, at each cycle and before surgery.
RESULTS: All 34 patients had invasive ductal cancer. The median age was 52 years (range 27-69). 65% had T4 disease and 76% were clinically lymph node positive at diagnosis. The median size of the breast tumour at presentation was 80 mm (range 42-200 mm). Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity was seen in less than 40% and HER2 positivity, by immunohistochemistry, in 27%. The majority (85%) of patients had anthracycline based chemotherapy, without taxanes. The overall response rate (clinical CR+PR) was 67.6% and pathological complete responses were apparent in two (5.9%). 17.6% of patients defaulted part of their planned treatment. Recurrent disease was seen in 44.1% and the median time to relapse was 11.3 months. The three year disease free and overall survival rates were 52.5% and 58% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer in a Malaysian setting confers response and pCR rates comparable to published clinical trials. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at risk of defaulting part of their treatment and therefore their concerns need to be identified proactively and addressed in order to improve outcomes.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with GCTs and treated with at least two cycles of BEP chemotherapy between January 2003 and Oct 2009 were eligible for this study. Patients received 4-6 cycles of bleomycin 30,000IU IV D1, D8 and D15 and either etoposide 100mg/m2 IV D1- D5 and cisplatin 20mg/m2 IV D1- D5 (5 day BEP regimen) or etoposide 165 mg/m2 D1- D3 and cisplatin 50mg/m2 D1-3 (3 day BEP regimen) every three weeks per cycle. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) from days 6 to 10 of each cycle. The overall response rates, 2 year progression-free survival and overall survival of the whole cohort were assessed.
RESULTS: Thirty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Non-seminomatous GCTs comprised 93.3% of cases and gonadal and mediastinal primary sites were the most common. Sixty percent were classified as IGCCCG poor risk disease. Median follow-up was 26.6 months. The overall response rate (CR+PR) was 70%. The two year PFS and OS were 70% and 66%. There was a significant difference in terms of the overall response rate (85% vs 40%, p = 0.03) and in PFS (94.7% vs 50%, p = 0.003) between gonadal and extragonadal primary sites.
CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve outcomes similar to those in international clinical trials with close monitoring and good supportive care of patients undergoing BEP chemotherapy. There is a strong argument for patients with IGCCCG poor prognosis disease to be treated in specialist tertiary centres to optimize treatment outcomes.