1.
Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for recurrent prostate carcinoma: results of a prospective clinical trial.
Schuster, DM, Nieh, PT, Jani, AB, Amzat, R, Bowman, FD, Halkar, RK, Master, VA, Nye, JA, Odewole, OA, Osunkoya, AO, et al
The Journal of urology. 2014;(5):1446-53
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE We prospectively evaluated the amino acid analogue positron emission tomography radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC compared to ProstaScint® ((111)In-capromab pendetide) single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography to detect recurrent prostate carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 93 patients met study inclusion criteria who underwent anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography plus (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma within 90 days. Reference standards were applied by a multidisciplinary board. We calculated diagnostic performance for detecting disease. RESULTS In the 91 of 93 patients with sufficient data for a consensus on the presence or absence of prostate/bed disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 90.2% sensitivity, 40.0% specificity, 73.6% accuracy, 75.3% positive predictive value and 66.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 67.2%, 56.7%, 63.7%, 75.9% and 45.9%, respectively. In the 70 of 93 patients with a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 55.0% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, 72.9% accuracy, 95.7% positive predictive value and 61.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 10.0%, 86.7%, 42.9%, 50.0% and 41.9%, respectively. Of 77 index lesions used to prove positivity histological proof was obtained in 74 (96.1%). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC identified 14 more positive prostate bed recurrences (55 vs 41) and 18 more patients with extraprostatic involvement (22 vs 4). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography correctly up-staged 18 of 70 cases (25.7%) in which there was a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic involvement. CONCLUSIONS Better diagnostic performance was noted for anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography than for (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for prostate carcinoma recurrence. The former method detected significantly more prostatic and extraprostatic disease.
2.
Antiemetic therapy of fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone combined with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for head and neck carcinomas.
Tsukahara, K, Nakamura, K, Motohashi, R, Sato, H, Endo, M, Katsube, Y, Ueda, Y, Suzuki, M
Acta oto-laryngologica. 2014;(11):1198-204
Abstract
CONCLUSION Concomitant antiemetic therapy comprising fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective for head and neck carcinoma. OBJECTIVE A patient diary was constructed to determine the effectiveness of concomitant antiemetic therapy with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant), 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (palonosetron), and dexamethasone in accordance with guidelines. METHODS Subjects comprised 41 patients who received 71 courses of chemotherapy, along with fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. A patient diary was compiled concerning the presence/absence of vomiting, vomiting episodes, presence/absence of rescue therapy, food intake, presence/absence of nausea, and general condition. RESULTS The frequency of the primary end point of complete response in the overall phase was 69.0%. The proportion of patients with no vomiting in the overall phase was 90.1%. In the acute phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 91.5%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 87.3%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition was 85.9%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 56.3%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 43.7%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition together was 53.5%.