Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.

Mixed findings on the neuropsychological sequelae of chemotherapy-only treatment for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), without radiation, indicate the need for a comprehensive meta-analytic review. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a meta-analysis assessing neuropsychological and academic functioning differences between children with ALL treated solely with chemotherapy and comparison groups.

Imatinib therapy for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is typically initiated at a dosage of 400mg/d. Two phase 3 studies investigated whether the higher dose of 800 mg/d - administered initially or upon progression on the 400-mg dose - would improve outcomes. Both the studies confirmed the 400mg/d starting dose for most patients. However, two groups benefited from the treatment with 800 mg/d of imatinib: patients with disease progression on standard-dose therapy, and patients whose tumour harbours an exon 9 mutation in KIT. Initial treatment with 800 mg/d of imatinib (400mg BID) should be considered for patients with KIT exon 9-mutant GIST. In unselected patients, dose optimisation to 800 mg/d may be warranted as a first step in managing progressive disease; such patients should be closely monitored.

Sorafenib is used in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) or hepatocellular cancer, and its application in other types of cancers is also undergoing extensive clinical assessment. Hypertension is one of the major side-effects of this drug, and reported incidences vary substantially between clinical trials. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials to establish the incidence of hypertension associated with sorafenib. The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the overall risk of hypertension in patients with cancer who receive sorafenib.

It was the aim of the review to determine the risks and benefits of primary thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants in cancer patients with central venous devices. Medline, Central and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in June 2006. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the quality of RCTs. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects model for the outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis, bleeding and thrombocytopenia. Eight RCTs (1,428 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of catheter-related thrombosis for the use of warfarin versus placebo (3 trials, 425 patients, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.24-2.35, p = 0.63), heparin versus placebo (4 trials, 886 patients, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.18-1.20, p = 0.06) or warfarin, unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin versus placebo (7 trials, 1,311 patients, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31-1.13, p = 0.11). Substantial statistical heterogeneity was noted among these trials (I(2) > 50%). The use of anticoagulants showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of overall bleeding (5 trials, 1,193 patients, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84-1.82, p = 0.28), and thrombocytopenia for heparin versus placebo (4 trials, 958 patients, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.49, 1.46, p = 0.55) without any statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). In cancer patients with central venous devices, thromboprophylaxis has no significant effect on the risk of catheter related thrombosis or bleeding. The use of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters while not causing any harm provides no benefit.

Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is a dose-limiting toxicity associated with sorafenib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor with clinical activity against solid tumors. This study was conducted to determine the risk of developing HFSR among patients receiving sorafenib.

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer is now well established. However, endocrine therapy can be a valid alternative to primary chemotherapy in the treatment of hormone-sensitive tumors, particularly in post-menopausal women. Tamoxifen (TAM) was initially used in older or frail patients who were not candidates for chemotherapy. Response rate of 49% to 68% were observed. These encouraging results prompted subsequent randomized phase III studies demonstrating the superiority of surgery in comparison to TAM as primary treatment. The successful use of aromatase inhibitors (AI) in the metastatic and adjuvant setting has encouraged studies that compare these agents with tamoxifen in the neoadjuvant setting. In terms of response rates, anastrozole and exemestane did not differ from TAM, while letrozole was superior. Nevertheless, all the AI were found to be superior to TAM as far as breast conserving surgery is concerned. The Americal College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) has recently activated a neoadjuvant randomized trial comparing anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor positive tumors. Hopefully, this study will clarify which of these agents is more effective as primary endocrine therapy. In the meantime, neoadjuvant hormonal treatment should be considered in elderly patients with inoperable tumors or tumors not amenable to conservative surgery, with highly expressed estrogen receptors and contraindication to chemotherapy.

To assess the effect of adding interferon-alpha (IFN) +/- interleukin-2 (IL-2) to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS A published data meta-analysis of trials of biochemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma was undertaken. End points evaluated were rates of partial response (PR), complete response (CR) and overall (partial + complete) response (OR); response duration; progression-free survival; overall survival (OS); and toxicity. The only subgroup analysis performed was by type of immunotherapy, with trials divided according to whether IFN only or IFN and IL-2 were administered in the biochemotherapy arm.

The oncology community usually perceives phase I oncology trials as associated with poor or limited benefits and substantial risks. There is scarce data concerning outcome and survival of patients enrolled in current phase I oncology trials.

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical announcement recommended i.p. therapy for women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Its basis was a summary of eight randomised controlled trials and two systematic reviews, which appear to indicate benefit of i.p. therapy. However, the systematic reviews that inform the recommendations have been inappropriately presented and interpreted. The systematic reviews inappropriately pooled results from 'confounded' trials in which different drugs and different doses of drugs were given in the control and i.p. treatment arms. Therefore, it is not possible to assess which component of treatment is responsible for improving outcome. In addition, none of the trials use a control arm of the internationally accepted standard of care. Using just the unconfounded trials, indirect comparisons show that the magnitude of benefit observed when i.p. regimens are compared with older i.v. regimens [hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006] is smaller than the magnitude of benefit achieved with modern day standard of i.v. treatment compared with the same i.v. regimen used as control in the unconfounded i.p. trials (HR for OS 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.80, P < 0.001). A further difficulty is that the reviews cannot recommend an i.p. regimen for standard use. Drug-related toxicity and catheter complications that occur with i.p. therapy are considerable. The NCI recommendations have major implications for the treatment of women with ovarian cancer and for the next generation of clinical trials. We do not believe that the body of evidence currently available supports the recommendation that i.p. therapy should form part of routine care. The choice of treatment of women with newly diagnosed, optimally debulked, ovarian cancer, where therapy has the best chance of influencing OS, is too important to be left with this uncertainty. A clinical trial that investigates a practical and acceptable regimen which gives some or all chemotherapy by the i.p. route and compares this with standard i.v. chemotherapy should be a priority for those who wish to promote its use.

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

To identify which neuropsychological tests have been used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced impairment in various domains of cognitive function in patients with breast cancer and to determine the sensitivity of each of the tests through estimation of effect size.

Benefits of prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in adults and children receiving cancer chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation (SCT) are unclear.

To characterise the population pharmacokinetics of trabectedin (ET-743, Yondelis(R)) in cancer patients.

To estimate the efficacy of third-generation (3G) chemotherapy agents (paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and irinotecan) on response and survival in stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

To systematically review the research evidence on the effectiveness of hypnosis for cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). A comprehensive search of major biomedical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClNAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Specialist complementary and alternative medicine databases were searched and efforts were made to identify unpublished and ongoing research. Citations were included from the databases' inception to March 2005. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were appraised and meta-analysis undertaken. Clinical commentaries were obtained. Six RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of hypnosis in CINV were found. In five of these studies the participants were children. Studies report positive results including statistically significant reductions in anticipatory and CINV. Meta-analysis revealed a large effect size of hypnotic treatment when compared with treatment as usual, and the effect was at least as large as that of cognitive-behavioural therapy. Meta-analysis has demonstrated that hypnosis could be a clinically valuable intervention for anticipatory and CINV in children with cancer. Further research into the effectiveness, acceptance and feasibility of hypnosis in CINV, particularly in adults, is suggested. Future studies should assess suggestibility and provide full details of the hypnotic intervention.

Recent clinical trials showed that gemcitabine (GEM) of fixed-dose rate infusion has certain effect on advanced pancreatic cancer. Some meta-analyses suggest that GEM plus cisplatin (DDP) or its analogues is better than GEM alone in treating advanced pancreatic cancer. This study was to evaluate the efficacy of GEM of fixed-dose rate infusion plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX regimen) as first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer by meta-analysis.

While head-to-head clinical trials demonstrate pegfilgrastim to be as efficacious as filgrastim in reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these studies lacked the statistical power to demonstrate better outcomes with one therapy compared to the other. Our objective was to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim on incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and related outcomes among patients with solid tumors and malignant lymphomas receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

A meta-analysis of chemotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was performed. We sought to update prior analyses by focusing exclusively on GBM, including new trials of novel treatments, assessing effectiveness of individual treatment categories and presenting data in a clinically useful format.