TAX 324 Phase III Study Shows Docetaxel Increases Survival in Head, Neck Cancer

2/13/2007 Boston, MA web-based article - no attribution CancerFocus.net Marshall R. Posner, MD, medical director of the Head and Neck Oncology Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the randomized Phase III TAX 324 Study Group. 501 patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinomaterm of the head and neck (SCCHN) (oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx and hypopharynx) were the focus of the study. In the study, patients receiving docetaxel in combination with cisplatin and 5-FUterm as induction (neoadjuvant) therapy, followed by chemoradiotherapy and surgery were compared to those not receiving docetaxel. The results showed an impressive 70.6 months median overall survival in patients who took docetaxel compared to 30.1 months for those not receiving docetaxel in their treatment. There was a 30% reduction in mortality rate for those patients receiving docetaxel. There was an absolute three-year survival improvement of 14% in the docetaxel group as well. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly greater with the docetaxel regimen with two-year PFS at 53% compared to 42%. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 85% of the docetaxel group and 56% in the non-docetaxel group. However, there was no other significant increase in toxicity, and other trials are continuing in conjunction with other targeted molecular agents for treatment of SCCHN.

2009-04-14T11:30:52-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Recovery involves adjusting to changed life – Part 4

2/12/2007 California, USA Daniel Borenstein ContraCostaTimes.com (Note: This is the fourth of a four part series) About 9:45 each morning for six weeks, I walked past the warning sign ("Caution, High Radiation Area") in the basement of Berkeley's Herrick Hospital, propped myself up on the table and laid down. Technicians placed a preformed mesh mask over my face and shoulders and snapped it to the table. My head was locked in place as the staff members carefully nudged my body to the left or right a bit to ensure I was perfectly aligned. Then everyone left. It was just me on that table. The X-ray beams were turned on from next door. For each of my 15 daily blasts, the machine sounded like the tone from the emergency broadcast signal. ("Had this been a real emergency ...") It drowned out the classical music on the boom box in the corner -- and it killed the tranquil effect of the idyllic birch trees and spring flowers painted on the ceiling tiles overhead. This was the latest radiation technology for cancer treatment. The intensity of the beams could be regulated and the computer-controlled equipment programmed in three dimensions. During the 15-minute cycle, the emitting disk swept 180 degrees, from my left side to overhead to my right side. It radiated my mouth, throat and neck. The daily treatment was combined with weekly IV chemotherapy drugs. My mouth and throat were so raw that I couldn't eat solid foods. Mashed potatoes were too [...]

2009-04-14T11:29:58-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Fear and uncertainty cloud every decision – Part 3

2/12/2007 California, USA Daniel Borenstein ContraCosta Times (www.contracostatimes.com) (Note: this is the third of a four part series) Setting the boundaries for the next phase of my cancer therapy was all about balancing long-term risk -- weighing the chances of the disease recurring against the permanent side effects of extra radiation. No matter which way I went, there was no certainty. The data were sketchy and the doctors disagreed on the best option. They had one consistent message: I needed to pick my path. As one doctor put it: "Ultimately, you have to decide. You have to do what feels most comfortable to you." I didn't think I would ever feel comfortable with the decision. I felt totally unqualified to make it. For guidance, I visited physicians in the East Bay, as well as the UC San Francisco medical school and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. The East Coast doctors endorsed the cutting-edge chemotherapy I had received. That was something I needed to hear after a UCSF doctor suggested it had been a waste of time. It enabled me to put that issue behind me and move on to the big decision: Whether to irradiate one or both sides of my head and neck, and whether to include the nasal passages above my palate. I had what was broadly called head-and-neck cancer, usually found in smokers or heavy drinkers. I was never much of a drinker, and none of the doctors thought that my teenage smoking for less than [...]

2009-04-14T11:29:27-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Learning to decipher language of treatment – Part 2

2/12/2007 California, USA Daniel Borenstein ContraCosta Times (www.contracostatimes.com) (Note: This is the second of a four part series.) When I began my cancer therapy, I didn't understand the differences among the doctors who would be caring for me. I didn't appreciate that when a patient receives cutting-edge treatment, he must be ready for changes in plans along the way. And I didn't understand that, in the end, I was going to have to make the tough decisions even though I started my treatment without a basic understanding of cancer treatments. I quickly learned that a "primary" is the site where the cancer originates, and that cancer can migrate, or "metastasize," to other parts of the body. In my case, the "metastasis," the site of the migration, was obvious. There was a bulge, a cyst, on the right side of my neck. But the microscopic primary was never located. The doctors didn't know where my cancer began. As a result, they disagreed on my treatment. My wife was a doctor who could explain the medicine to me in simple terms. And my oncologist, Randy Oyer, was a good friend who wasn't put off by my flurry of inquisitive e-mails. Randy planned to hit me with a heavy dose of chemotherapy and then follow with radiation to mop up bad cells in key areas of my mouth and neck. The regimen of starting with three potent chemo drugs for head-and-neck cancers like mine was new. It had been tried only for a [...]

2009-04-14T11:28:48-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Diagnosis sets harrowing journey in motion – Part 1

2/12/2007 California, USA Daniel Borenstein Contra Costa Times (www.contracostatimes.com) This is the first of a four part series. "I think you are cured," my oncologist told me April 24. It was just about a year after I had been diagnosed with cancer. I had endured chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I had traveled across the country for expert opinions to ensure I was making the right treatment decisions. I had nearly died and was hospitalized for 12 days when things went awry. But I had made it through. This story has a happy ending. I'm going to live. As I've come to fully appreciate, we all have to go someday. But the cancer probably won't kill me. I was lucky. I had a type of cancer that could be cured with intense doses of chemotherapy and radiation. I had health insurance to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills. I was married to a doctor who could educate me and assist me in making critical decisions. And I was personal friends with one of my oncologists, who was willing to use the latest treatments. Nevertheless, it was a terrifying journey. I've never been so sick, so weak or so scared. I've never had to make so many difficult decisions. I'm hardly alone. This year, an estimated 1.4 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in this country, according to the American Cancer Society. The five-year survival rate for all cancers diagnosed from 1996 to 2002 was 66 percent. Many [...]

2009-04-14T11:28:18-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Slashing NCI’s Budget Would Hurt Industry Too, Critics Say

2/10/2007 Washington, D.C. Aaron Lorenzo BioWorld News (www.bioworld.com) The National Cancer Institute faces a funding cut in the coming fiscal year, per President Bush's proposed budget, and oncology drug developers are in for a pinch. Cancer study cooperative groups, which include researchers, cancer centers and community doctors who evaluate investigational and approved therapies, are expected to pare back their work significantly. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups, comprised of the 10 U.S. groups whose research is sponsored by the NCI, says up to 95 of their trials may have to be closed or delayed this year. That's nearly half of the studies they conduct annually, and such cuts would affect up to 3,000 patients. That's a sizable chunk of the 20,000 enrolled in their trials each year for access to investigational drugs, newer frontline treatment modalities and quality care. Such reductions, said Richard Schilsky, chairman of a study cooperative called Cancer and Leukemia Group B, "can trickle down" to biotech companies "in a fairly negative way." Because these groups enroll nearly half the patients in the U.S. who participate in cancer trials, there will be a direct impact on drug development firms. That's especially true of smaller firms with limited finances that make their investigational products available to the NCI for use in cooperative group testing. "Oftentimes these are Phase II, but also occasionally even Phase III studies," he told BioWorld Today, though he noted that Phase II trials are most likely to absorb the cuts. That translates to less [...]

2009-04-14T11:27:46-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

A Better Way to Deliver Cancer Drugs

2/9/2007 web-based article Tyler Hamilton Technology Review (www.technologyreview.com) A paper-thin, biodegradable implant is proving an effective way to attack cancer cells without punishing the body with chemotherapy. The implant is a clear, flexible film that can be designed in any shape or size. A key ingredient in the film is chitosan, which is derived from a natural material extracted from algae and the exoskeletons of shellfish. Researchers at the University of Toronto have developed a way to dissolve a high concentration of various cancer-fighting drugs within the film, which is then applied directly to a site where a tumor has been removed. The drugs, which are loaded into polylactide nanoparticles, are control-released over several weeks as the implant breaks down in the body. "The formulation appears to be quite flexible," says Micheline Piquette-Miller, an assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the university and codeveloper of the drug-delivery system. "We can incorporate very diverse types of chemicals into it, and that's what a lot of other systems have had trouble with." Piquette-Miller and her team are currently focusing their research on ovarian cancer, which has a high relapse rate and typically requires several rounds of chemotherapy following tumor removal. Cancer drugs administered orally or intravenously often don't reach the right organ or region of the body in strong enough doses. By applying a high concentration of cancer-fighting agents directly to a tumor site, the drugs are more likely to kill the target cells. "We're also working on an injectable formulation," says [...]

2009-04-14T11:27:15-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

No spitting

2/8/2007 Hampton Roads, VA staff DailyPress.com Here's what the Surgeon General said about smokeless tobacco: "The oral use of smokeless tobacco represents a significant health risk. It is not a safe substitute for smoking cigarettes. It can cause cancer and a number of noncancerous oral conditions and can lead to nicotine addiction and dependence." Here's what the National Cancer Institute says about smokeless tobacco: "Smokeless tobacco can cause permanent gum recession, mouth sores, precancerous lesions in the mouth, and cancers of the mouth and throat. ... Oral cancer ... is one of the most difficult cancers to treat. It can spread to other parts of the body quickly. Surgery needed to treat oral cancer is often extensive and disfiguring. On average, only half of those with the disease will survive more than five years." Here's what Philip Morris says about smokeless tobacco: "Smokeless tobacco products are addictive, cause serious diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and other diseases of the mouth, gums, teeth; may increase the risk of serious diseases when used in combination with smoking; cause adverse reproductive effects and should not be used during pregnancy; and are not a safe alternative to smoking." Here's what Gov. Tim Kaine and the York County Board of Supervisors say about smokeless tobacco: Let's give Philip Morris hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to make the stuff. In fact, Walter Zaremba, chairman of the county board, is quoted in the governor's press release as saying this of Philip Morris: "They have been [...]

2009-04-14T11:26:43-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Tattooing Improves Response To DNA Vaccine

2/7/2007 web-based article staff Science Daily (www.sciencedaily.com) A tattoo can be more than just a fashion statement -- it has potential medical value, according to an article published in the online open access journal, Genetic Vaccines and Therapy. Martin Müller and his team at the Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center), Heidelberg, Germany, have shown that tattooing is a more effective way of delivering DNA vaccines than intramuscular injection. Using a coat protein from the human papillomavirus (HPV, the cause of cervical cancer) as a model DNA vaccine antigen, they compared delivery by tattooing the skin of mice with standard intramuscular injection with, and without, the molecular adjuvants that are often given to boost immune response. The tattoo method gave a stronger humoral (antibody) response and cellular response than intramuscular injection, even when adjuvants were included in the latter. Three doses of DNA vaccine given by tattooing produced at least 16 times higher antibody levels than three intramuscular injections with adjuvant. The adjuvants enhanced the effect of intramuscular injection, but not of tattooing. Tattooing is an invasive procedure done with a solid vibrating needle, causing a wound and sufficient inflammation to 'prime' the immune system. It also covers a bigger area of the skin than an injection, so the DNA vaccine can enter more cells. These effects may account for the stronger immune response arising from introducing a DNA vaccine into the body by tattooing. Of course, the tattooing approach may not be to everyone's taste -- as it is [...]

2009-04-14T11:26:17-07:00February, 2007|Archive|

Machine learning could speed up radiation therapy for cancer patients

2/7/2007 Hickory, NC staff www.hulliq.com A new computer-based technique could eliminate hours of manual adjustment associated with a popular cancer treatment. In a paper published in the Feb. 7 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology, researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center describe an approach that has the potential to automatically determine acceptable radiation plans in a matter of minutes, without compromising the quality of treatment. "Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) has exploded in popularity, but the technique can require hours of manual tuning to determine an effective radiation treatment for a given patient," said Richard Radke, assistant professor of electrical, computer, and systems engineering at Rensselaer. Radke is leading a team of engineers and medical physicists to develop a "machine learning" algorithm that could cut hours from the process. A subfield of artificial intelligence, machine learning is based on the development of algorithms that allow computers to learn relationships in large datasets from examples. Radke and his coworkers have tested their algorithm on 10 prostate cancer patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. They found that for 70 percent of the cases, the algorithm automatically determined an appropriate radiation therapy plan in about 10 minutes. "The main goal of radiation therapy is to irradiate a tumor with a very high dose, while avoiding all of the healthy organs," Radke said. He described early versions of radiation therapy as a "fire hose" approach, applying a uniform stream of particles to overwhelm cancer cells with radiation. IMRT adds nuance and [...]

2009-04-14T11:25:44-07:00February, 2007|Archive|
Go to Top