Gronberg B.H.,Norwegian University of Science and Technology |
Ciuleanu T.,Institute Of Oncology Prof Dr Ion Chiricuta Cluj Napoca |
Flotten T.,University of Bergen |
Knuuttila A.,University of Helsinki |
And 7 more authors.
Lung Cancer | Year: 2012
Introduction: Enzastaurin is a protein kinase C inhibitor with anti-tumor activity. This study was designed to determine if maintenance enzastaurin improved the outcome of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in lung cancer (LC) patients with brain metastases (BMs). Methods: Patients with LC (any histology) who had received WBRT for BMs were randomized to receive oral maintenance enzastaurin (1125. mg on Day 1 followed by 500. mg daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) of BMs. Results: Fifty-four patients received enzastaurin and 53 patients received placebo. The median TTP of BMs was (months) enzastaurin: 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4-11.9); placebo: 4.9 (95% CI: 3.6-not assessable); p= 0.82. Median overall survival (OS) was (months) enzastaurin: 3.8 (95% CI: 2.6-5.6); placebo: 5.1 (95% CI: 3.7-5.7); p= 0.47. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was (months) enzastaurin: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.1-2.3); placebo: 2.0 (95% CI: 1.3-2.3); p= 0.75. The overall response rate (ORR) for extracranial disease was enzastaurin: 0%; placebo: 4.5% (p= 0.49) and for intracranial disease was enzastaurin: 9.3%; placebo 6.8% (p= 0.71). Grade 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were (enzastaurin vs. placebo) thrombocytopenia (5.6% vs. 1.9%) and neutropenia (5.6% vs. 0%). There was 1 treatment-related death in each arm (enzastaurin: unknown cause; placebo: pulmonary embolism). No significant differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were observed. Conclusions: Enzastaurin was well tolerated but did not improve TTP of BMs, ORR, OS, PFS, or HRQoL after WBRT in LC patients with BMs. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Source
Gultekin M.,Baskent University |
Dursun P.,Baskent University |
Vranes B.,University of Belgrade |
Laky R.,Gynaekologie und Geburtshilfe Verbund Krages Burgenland |
And 35 more authors.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | Year: 2011
Objective: The objectives of the study were to highlight some of the differences in training systems and opportunities for training in gynecologic oncology across Europe and to draw attention to steps that can be taken to improve training prospects and experiences of European trainees in gynecologic oncology. Methods: The European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists national representatives from 34 countries were asked to review and summarize the training system in their countries of origin and fulfill a mini-questionnaire evaluating different aspects of training. We report analysis of outcomes of the mini-questionnaire and subsequent discussion at the European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists national representatives Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention meeting in Istanbul (April 2010). Results: Training fellowships in gynecologic oncology are offered by 18 countries (53%). The median duration of training is 2.5 years (interquartile range, 2.0-3.0 years). Chemotherapy administration is part of training in 70.5% (24/34) countries. Most of the countries (26/34) do not have a dedicated national gynecologic-oncology journal. All trainees reported some or good access to training in advanced laparoscopic surgical techniques, whereas 41% indicated no access, and 59% some access to training opportunities in robotic surgery. European countries were grouped into 3 different categories on the basis of available training opportunities in gynecologic oncology: well-structured, moderately structured, and loosely structured training systems. Conclusions: There is a need for further harmonization and standardization of training programs and structures in gynecologic oncology across Europe. This is of particular relevance for loosely structured countries that lag behind the moderately structured and well-structured ones. Copyright © 2011 by IGCS and ESGO. Source