Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
-
To identify areas of concern regarding the conduct of phase I trials, the perceived expectations and motivations of the parents of children entered, the expectations of toxicity and benefit, and the ethical concerns of pediatric hematologists and oncologists in the United Kingdom and North America. ⋯ The respondents in this survey expressed mainly ethical concerns regarding the conduct of phase I trials and had realistic expectations of the potential for toxicity and benefit for those children who participate in these studies.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Randomized cross-over trial of progenitor-cell mobilization: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus G-CSF.
Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient. ⋯ We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Health-related quality of life in patients treated with temozolomide versus procarbazine for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.
To determine whether chemotherapy with temozolomide (TMZ) versus procarbazine (PCB) for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was associated with improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). ⋯ Treatment with TMZ was associated with improvement in HRQOL scores compared with treatment with PCB. The deterioration reported by PCB-treated patients was likely because of toxicity. Delaying disease progression by treatment with TMZ is beneficial to the HRQOL status of patients with recurrent GBM.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Post hoc economic analysis of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced metastatic melanoma.
To determine the potential economic implications resulting from oral temozolomide (TEM) compared with intravenous (IV) dacarbazine (DTIC) for metastatic melanoma. ⋯ Although the base-case efficacy of TEM compared with DTIC was not statistically significant, its associated incremental CE would be comparable with many interventions. TEM for metastatic melanoma illustrates the tension confronting providers choosing between similar agents that markedly differ in convenience and costs.