placeholder
and
and

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Language: English
    In: The lancet oncology, 2013, Vol.14 (3), p.210-218
    Description: Summary Background Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Methods A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes—including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination—are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00297791. Findings The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100–400] vs 400 mL [200–700], p〈0·0001); however, laparoscopic procedures took longer (240 min [184–300] vs 188 min [150–240]; p〈0·0001). In the laparoscopic surgery group, bowel function returned sooner (2·0 days [1·0–3·0] vs 3·0 days [2·0–4·0]; p〈0·0001) and hospital stay was shorter (8·0 days [6·0–13·0] vs 9·0 days [7·0–14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin (〈2 mm) was noted in 56 (10%) of 588 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 30 (10%) of 300 in the open surgery group (p=0·850). Median tumour distance to distal resection margin did not differ significantly between the groups (3·0 cm [IQR 2·0–4·8] vs 3·0 cm [1·8–5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. Interpretation In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint—locoregional recurrence—are expected by the end of 2013. Funding Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.
    Subject(s): Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Colorectal cancer ; Europe ; Female ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; Laparoscopic surgery ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Lymph Nodes - surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery ; Neoplasm Staging ; Rectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Rectal Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Treatment Outcome
    ISSN: 1470-2045
    E-ISSN: 1474-5488
    Source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Language: English
    In: The lancet oncology, 2013, Vol.14 (11), p.1055-1066
    Description: Summary Background Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. Methods This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1–21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs 〉75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01311687 , and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. Findings The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2–13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6–4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9–2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39–0·60]; p〈0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group. Interpretation Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Funding Celgene Corporation.
    Subject(s): Aged ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - therapeutic use ; Care and treatment ; Dexamethasone ; Dexamethasone - administration & dosage ; Dosage and administration ; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm - drug effects ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; Male ; Multiple myeloma ; Multiple Myeloma - drug therapy ; Multiple Myeloma - mortality ; Multiple Myeloma - pathology ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - drug therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - mortality ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - pathology ; Neoplasm Staging ; Product development ; Prognosis ; Salvage Therapy ; Steroids ; Survival Rate ; Thalidomide - administration & dosage ; Thalidomide - analogs & derivatives
    ISSN: 1470-2045
    E-ISSN: 1474-5488
    Source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...