1. |
- Fassnacht, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Combination chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:23, s. 2189-2197
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare cancer that has a poor response to cytotoxic treatment.METHODS:We randomly assigned 304 patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma to receive mitotane plus either a combination of etoposide (100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 2 to 4), doxorubicin (40 mg per square meter on day 1), and cisplatin (40 mg per square meter on days 3 and 4) (EDP) every 4 weeks or streptozocin (streptozotocin) (1 g on days 1 to 5 in cycle 1; 2 g on day 1 in subsequent cycles) every 3 weeks. Patients with disease progression received the alternative regimen as second-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival.RESULTS:For first-line therapy, patients in the EDP-mitotane group had a significantly higher response rate than those in the streptozocin-mitotane group (23.2% vs. 9.2%, P<0.001) and longer median progression-free survival (5.0 months vs. 2.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.69; P<0.001); there was no significant between-group difference in overall survival (14.8 months and 12.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.02; P=0.07). Among the 185 patients who received the alternative regimen as second-line therapy, the median duration of progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the EDP-mitotane group and 2.2 months in the streptozocin-mitotane group. Patients who did not receive the alternative second-line therapy had better overall survival with first-line EDP plus mitotane (17.1 month) than with streptozocin plus mitotane (4.7 months). Rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments.CONCLUSIONS:Rates of response and progression-free survival were significantly better with EDP plus mitotane than with streptozocin plus mitotane as first-line therapy, with similar rates of toxic events, although there was no significant difference in overall survival.
|
|
2. |
- Sullivan, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - London : Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 12:10, s. 933-980
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.
|
|
3. |
- Taïeb, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Management of phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma in patients with germline SDHB pathogenic variants : an international expert Consensus statement
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Endocrinology. - : Springer Nature. - 1759-5029 .- 1759-5037. ; 20:3, s. 168-184
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adult and paediatric patients with pathogenic variants in the gene encoding succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunit B (SDHB) often have locally aggressive, recurrent or metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs). Furthermore, SDHB PPGLs have the highest rates of disease-specific morbidity and mortality compared with other hereditary PPGLs. PPGLs with SDHB pathogenic variants are often less differentiated and do not produce substantial amounts of catecholamines (in some patients, they produce only dopamine) compared with other hereditary subtypes, which enables these tumours to grow subclinically for a long time. In addition, SDHB pathogenic variants support tumour growth through high levels of the oncometabolite succinate and other mechanisms related to cancer initiation and progression. As a result, pseudohypoxia and upregulation of genes related to the hypoxia signalling pathway occur, promoting the growth, migration, invasiveness and metastasis of cancer cells. These factors, along with a high rate of metastasis, support early surgical intervention and total resection of PPGLs, regardless of the tumour size. The treatment of metastases is challenging and relies on either local or systemic therapies, or sometimes both. This Consensus statement should help guide clinicians in the diagnosis and management of patients with SDHB PPGLs.
|
|