Library

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

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

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-1750
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Springer
    Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 121 (1995), S. R17 
    ISSN: 1432-1335
    Keywords: NSCLC ; Vindesine ; Etoposide ; Dexverapamil
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract To determine whether the chemotherapy resistance of non-small cell lung cancer could be modified by oral dexverapamil, the D-isomer of verapamil, 54 patients were entered into a randomised phase II study of oral dexverapamil plus chemotherapy (vindesine/etoposide) (arm B) versus chemotherapy (arm A) alone in January 1994. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous vindesine 3 mg/m2 bolus on days one and five and etoposide 140 mg/m2 on days two and four. Dexverapamil was given for six days, 1500 mg a day divided into six doses of 250 mg every four hours starting 24 h prior to chemotherapy. According to the individual tolerability, the single dose could be increased up to a maximum of 400 mg. Cycles were repeated 3 weekly up to four courses. At this stage of the analysis, 34 patients (18 in arm A and 16 in arm B) are evaluable for toxicity and response. Cardiovascular side effects were more marked in the patient group with dexverapamil. On average, the dose of dexverapamil was 1800 mg a day. There were 5 partial remissions (31.3%) and 9 no changes (56.3%) in the group with dexverapamil as opposed to 2 partial remissions (11.1%) and 6 no changes (33.3%) in the group without dexverapamil. As far as the preliminary results show, the addition of dexverapamil to vindesine/etoposide chemotherapy in this study seems to be associated with improved outcome.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    ISSN: 1569-8041
    Keywords: cisplatin ; etoposide ; gemcitabine ; non-small-cell lung cancer ; randomised phase II study
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Background: This randomised study was designed to determine the responserate, survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine andcisplatin–etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advancedor metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given asa 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria includedhistologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease,Zubrod PS 0–2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measuredlesion, and no CNS metastases. Results: 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75patients on cisplatin–etoposide. Patient characteristics were wellmatched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72cisplatin–etoposidepatients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabinepatients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8–30) and 11cisplatin–etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI:7.9–25.7).Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatmentswith respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological andlaboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisationbecause of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%)cisplatin–etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients.Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differencesin nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29%cisplatin–etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT-3antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin–etoposide), and alopecia(grade 3 and 4: 3% gemcitabine vs. 62%cisplatin–etoposide). Conclusions: In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was atleast as active but better tolerated than the combinationcisplatin–etoposide.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    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...