Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo-controlled,double-blind crossover study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain. METHODS: Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded. RESULTS: No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned.     

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed has shown varied response rates in advanced breast cancer. This randomized, double-blind, phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of two doses of pemetrexed in a homogeneous population. A secondary objective was to identify molecular biomarkers correlating with response and toxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer or locally recurrent breast cancer received 600 mg/m(2) (P600 arm) or 900 mg/m(2) (P900 arm) of pemetrexed on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation. RESULTS: The P600 (47 patients) and P900 (45 patients) arms had response rates of 17.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.7-30.8%) and 15.6% (95% confidence interval, 6.5-29.5%) with approximately 50% stable disease per arm, median progression-free survival of 4.2 and 4.1 months, and median times to tumor progression of 4.2 and 4.6 months, respectively. Both arms exhibited minimal toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia <20%, leukopenia <9%, and other toxicities <5%). Tumor samples from 49 patients were assessed for the expression levels of 12 pemetrexed-related genes. Folylpolyglutamate synthetase and thymidine phosphorylase correlated with efficacy. Best response rates and median time to tumor progression for high versus low thymidine phosphorylase expression were 27.6% versus 6.3% (P = 0.023) and 5.4 versus 1.9 months (P = 0.076), and for folylpolyglutamate synthetase were 37.5% versus 10.0% (P = 0.115) and 8.6 versus 3.0 months (P = 0.019), respectively. gamma-Glutamyl hydrolase expression correlated with grade 3/4 toxicities: 78.6% for high versus 27.3% for low gamma-glutamyl hydrolase (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The two pemetrexed doses yielded similar efficacy and safety profiles. Exploratory biomarker analysis identified efficacy and toxicity correlations and warrants further evaluation.     

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) improves pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer already receiving a strong opioid regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding regular acetaminophen (paracetamol) could improve pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer and pain despite strong opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants took acetaminophen for 48 hours and placebo for 48 hours. The order (acetaminophen or placebo first) was randomly allocated. Pain was the primary outcome. Preferences, number of opioid breakthrough doses, overall well-being, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, constipation, and cold sweats were secondary outcomes. Patients rated themselves daily with visual analog scales (VAS) and a verbal numeric scale (VNS) for pain, all scaled from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed the trial. The oral opioid was morphine in 23 patients and hydromorphone in seven patients. The median daily opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 200 mg (range, 20 to 2,100 mg). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or both were used by 16 patients. Pain and overall well-being were better for patients receiving acetaminophen than for those receiving placebo. The mean difference was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8; P =.03) in VNS for pain, 0.6 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.3; P =.09) in VAS for pain, and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.4; P =.05) in VAS for overall well-being. More patients preferred the period they took acetaminophen (n = 14) than the period they took placebo (n = 8), but many had no preference (n = 8). There were no differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Acetaminophen improved pain and well-being without major side effects in patients with cancer and persistent pain despite a strong opioid regimen. Its addition is worth considering in all such patients.     

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone-dependent advanced breast cancer: a prospective,randomized, phase III study

A prospective phase III trial comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal, hormone-dependent, advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients were randomized to anastrozole 1 mg daily (n = 121) or tamoxifen 40 mg daily (n = 117). Efficacy and tolerability were evaluated after 3 months' therapy, and survival was evaluated at median time of follow-up. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, clinical benefit (CB) was achieved in 83% and 56% of anastrozole and tamoxifen patients, respectively (p < 0.001); median time to disease progression (TTP) in patients achieving CB was 18.0 months and 7.0 months, respectively, (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.08-0.20, p < 0.01). At data cutoff, 89% of tamoxifen patients had died, compared with 60% of anastrozole patients; median time to death was 17.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003). Therapy was well tolerated in both groups. Anastrozole showed significant advantages over tamoxifen for CB, median TTP in patients gaining CB, and survival. These data further support routine use of anastrozole as first-line treatment for postmenopausal hormone-dependent ABC.     

Marimastat as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The prognosis for unresectable pancreatic cancer remains dismal (1-year survival rate, < 10%; 5-year survival rate, < 5%). Recent advances in conventional chemotherapy and novel molecular treatment strategies warrant investigation. This, the largest randomized study in pancreatic cancer performed to date, compares marimastat, the first of a new class of agents, with gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred fourteen patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were randomized to receive marimastat 5, 10, or 25 mg bid or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2. The primary end point was survival. Progression-free survival, patient benefit, and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in survival between 5, 10, or 25 mg of marimastat and gemcitabine (P =.19). Median survival times were 111, 105, 125, and 167 days, respectively, and 1-year survival rates were 14%, 14%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. There was a significant difference in survival rates between patients treated with gemcitabine and marimastat 5 and 10 mg (P <.003). Both agents were well tolerated, although grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported in 22% and 12% of the gemcitabine- and marimastat-treated patients, respectively. The major toxicity of marimastat was musculoskeletal (44% of marimastat patients, compared with 12% of gemcitabine patients; musculoskeletal toxicity was severe in only 8% of marimastat patients). CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence of a dose response for marimastat in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The 1-year survival rate for patients receiving marimastat 25 mg was similar to that of patients receiving gemcitabine. In view of the manageable tolerability of marimastat and its ease of administration, further studies are warranted.     

Dextromethorphan for the reduction of immediate and late postoperative pain and morphine consumption in orthopedic oncology patients: a randomized,placebo-controlled,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is mediated centrally by N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. The beneficial effects of preincision oral dextromethorphan (DM), which is an NMDA antagonist, on postoperative pain and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) morphine (MO) consumption have been examined in patients undergoing surgery. The authors investigated 75 patients who underwent surgery for bone and soft tissue malignancies, in whom postoperative pain is more severe compared with patients who undergo general surgery. METHODS: Patients received placebo, DM 60 mg, or DM 90 mg (25 patients per group) before surgery and on each of the two following days in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled manner. Postoperative IV-PCA MO was started when subjective pain intensity was >/= 4/10 (visual score) and lasted for 72 hours. Rescue drugs on demand were oral paracetamol or dipyrone. RESULTS: The patients in the DM60 and DM90 groups similarly experienced 50-80% less pain (P < 0.01) compared with patients in the placebo group, both immediately and up to 3 days postoperatively, as well as a 50% reduction in the estimated overall maximal pain intensity (P < 0.01). Both DM groups consumed 50-70% less MO than the nonmedicated individuals in the placebo group (P < 0.01), and their demand for rescue drugs on the first postoperative day also was significantly lower (P < 0.01). Patients in the DM groups also were sedated less ( approximately 70%; P < 0.01). There were no differences among the groups in terms of when the patients left their beds, when they were discharged home, or the number of overall side effects. CONCLUSIONS: DM is associated with reduced pain intensity, sedation, and analgesic requirements, even in patients undergoing surgery for bone and soft tissue malignancies. A 3-day DM administration neither increased the incidence of side effects nor accelerated ambulation and discharge home.     

Venlafaxine versus clonidine for the treatment of hot flashes in breast cancer patients: a double-blind,randomized cross-over study

Purpose Breast cancer patients with treatment-induced menopause experience frequent and severe hot flashes (HF). We compared venlafaxine and clonidine for the treatment of HF with regard to side effects, efficacy, quality of life and sexual functioning. Methods In a double-blind, cross-over study, 60 breast cancer patients experiencing HF were randomized to 8 weeks venlafaxine followed by 2 weeks wash-out, and 8 weeks clonidine or vice versa. HF frequency and severity, side effects, quality of life and sexuality were assessed. Results Thirty patients started with venlafaxine and 30 with clonidine. Premature discontinuation for toxicity occurred in 14/59 during venlafaxine and 5/53 during clonidine (P = .038). Venlafaxine induced more side effects. Median reduction in HF score was 49% for venlafaxine and 55% for clonidine (ns). Conclusion Venlafaxine and clonidine are equally, but moderately effective in HF reduction. Side effects are the main reason for drug discontinuation, occurring more often with venlafaxine. C. Buijs and C. H. Mom have contributed equally.     

强阿片类药物治疗癌性疼痛的临床研究

目的:评价强阿片类药物治疗中、重度癌痛的疗效及安全性,探讨镇痛治疗对生活质量和预后的影响.方法:应用强阿片类药物治疗伴有中、重度疼痛的恶性肿瘤患者122例,观察药物荆量、疗效、不良反应及生存期;采用生活质量量表EORTCQLQ-C30(V3.0)中文版评估66例肺癌疼痛患者镇痛前后的生活质量变化,并对不同疼痛程度和不同疼痛缓解程度癌痛患者的预后进行比较分析.结果:使用阿片类药物治疗后,中度、重度疼痛患者疼痛缓解率分别为94.9%和86.7 %;与治疗前相比疼痛程度明显减低,P＜0.05.治疗过程中便秘发生率47.5%、恶心呕吐11.5%、排尿困难9.0%、头晕4.9%.经镇痛治疗后91.4 %的患者生活质量明显改善,尤以失眠改善最为明显.Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示,中度癌痛患者半年总疼痛治疗生存率明显优于重度疼痛者,疼痛程度与生存显著相关,P=0.000.疼痛完全缓解和明显缓解者半年总疼痛治疗生存率明显高于中度和轻度缓解者,疼痛缓解程度与生存显著相关,P=0.003.Cox多因素分析结果显示,疼痛部位和疼痛程度是影响预后的独立危险因素.结论:强阿片类药物治疗中、重度癌性疼痛是安全有效的;它能明显提高癌痛患者生存率、延长其生存期,并能提高肺癌癌痛患者的生活质量.     

Fentanyl buccal soluble film (FBSF) for breakthrough pain in patients with cancer: a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled study

BackgroundFentanyl buccal soluble film (FBSF) has been developed as a treatment of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of FBSF at doses of 200–1200 μg in the management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer receiving ongoing opioid therapy.Patients and methodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-crossover study that included opioid-tolerant adult patients with chronic cancer pain who experienced one to four daily episodes of breakthrough pain. The primary efficacy assessment was the sum of pain intensity differences at 30 min (SPID30) postdose.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population consisted of 80 patients with ≥1 post-baseline efficacy assessment. The least-squares mean (LSM ± SEM) of the SPID30 was significantly greater for FBSF-treated episodes of breakthrough pain than for placebo-treated episodes (47.9 ± 3.9 versus 38.1 ± 4.3; P = 0.004). There was statistical separation from placebo starting at 15 min up through 60 min (last time point assessed). There were no unexpected adverse events (AEs) or clinically significant safety findings.ConclusionsFBSF is an effective option for control of breakthrough pain in patients receiving ongoing opioid therapy. In this study, FBSF was well tolerated in the oral cavity, with no reports of treatment-related oral AEs.     

Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.     

Meropenem versus ceftazidime in the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind trial.

PURPOSE: To compare meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at medical centers in North America and the Netherlands. A total of 411 cancer patients (196 treated with meropenem and 215 treated with ceftazidime), who had 471 episodes of fever, participated in the trial. For each neutropenic episode, patients were allocated at random to receive intravenous administration of meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 hours). Treatment could be modified at any time. Key end points were clinical and bacteriologic outcomes, eradication of infecting organism, and adverse events. RESULTS: The rate of successful clinical response at the end of therapy was significantly higher for patients treated with meropenem than for those on ceftazidime for all episodes (54% v 44%, respectively) and for episodes of fever of unknown origin (62% v 46%, respectively), but differences between groups were not statistically significant for clinically defined or microbiologically defined infections. Meropenem was significantly more effective than ceftazidime in severely neutropenic (相似文献   

Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, for advanced breast cancer versus megestrol acetate.

PURPOSE: To compare two doses of letrozole (0.5 mg and 2.5 mg every day) and megestrol acetate (40 mg qid) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, multicenter, multinational study enrolled 602 patients, all of whom were included in the primary analysis in the protocol. Patients had advanced or metastatic breast cancer with evidence of disease progression while receiving continuous adjuvant antiestrogen therapy, had experienced relapse within 12 months of stopping adjuvant antiestrogen therapy given for at least 6 months, or had experienced disease progression while receiving antiestrogen therapy for advanced disease. Tumors were required to be estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive or of unknown status. Confirmed objective response rate was the primary efficacy variable. Karnofsky Performance Status and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life assessments were collected for 1 year. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the three treatment groups for overall objective tumor response. Patients treated with letrozole 0.5 mg had improvements in disease progression (P =.044) and a decreased risk of treatment failure (P =.018), compared with patients treated with megestrol acetate. Letrozole 0.5 mg showed a trend (P =.053) for survival benefit when compared with megestrol acetate. Megestrol acetate was more likely to produce weight gain, dyspnea, and vaginal bleeding, and the letrozole groups were more likely to experience headache, hair thinning, and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Given a favorable tolerability profile, once-daily dosing, and evidence of clinically relevant benefit, letrozole is equivalent to megestrol acetate and should be considered for use as an alternative treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women after treatment failure with antiestrogens.     

Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin and paclitaxel versus the combination, as first-line chemotherapy, in advanced breast cancer: a randomized study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of two different schedules of epirubicin and paclitaxel, as first-line chemotherapy, in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 1997 until May 1999, 183 eligible patients with ABC entered the study. Chemotherapy in group A (93 patients) consisted of four cycles of epirubicin at a dose of 110 mg/m(2) followed by four cycles of paclitaxel at a dose of 225 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion. All cycles were repeated every 2 weeks with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. The therapeutic regimen in group B (90 patients) consisted of epirubicin (80 mg/m(2)) immediately followed by paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion) every 3 weeks for six cycles. RESULTS: In total, 79 patients (85%) in group A and 72 patients (80%) in group B completed treatment. The median relative dose-intensity of epirubicin was 0.96 in both groups, and that of paclitaxel was 0.96 and 0.97 in groups A and B, respectively. The complete response rate was higher in group A (21.5% v 9% P =.02). Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the overall response rate between the two groups (55% v 42%, P =.10). Severe neutropenia was more frequently observed with concurrent treatment. After a median follow-up of 16.5 months, median time to progression was 10 months in group A and 8.5 months in group B (P =.27), and median survival was 21.5 and 20 months, respectively (P =.17). CONCLUSION: The present study failed to demonstrate a significant difference in overall response rate between dose-dense sequential administration of epirubicin and paclitaxel compared with the combination of the two drugs given on the same day, even though the sequential treatment resulted in a significantly higher complete response rate.     

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized,double-blind,multicenter phase 2 trial

BackgroundIpilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab + paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).DesignPatients (n = 130) with chemotherapy-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m²)/carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsPhased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio) = 0.64; P = 0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR = 0.93; P = 0.37) or OS (HR = 0.75; P = 0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively.ConclusionThese results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.     

Lung cancer chemoprevention: a randomized, double-blind trial in Linxian, China.

We examined the effect of supplementation with four different combinations of vitamins and minerals in the prevention of lung cancer mortality among 29,584 healthy adults from Linxian, China. In accord with a partial factorial design, the participants were randomly assigned to take either a vitamin/mineral combination or a placebo for 5.25 years. The combinations tested in this trial were as follows: factor A, retinol and zinc; factor B, riboflavin and niacin; factor C, ascorbic acid and molybdenum; factor D, beta-carotene, alpha-tocopherol, and selenium. Lung cancer deaths (n = 147) identified during the trial period (1986-1991) and 10 years after the trial ended (1991-2001) were the study outcome. No significant differences in lung cancer death rates were found for any of the four combinations of supplements tested in this study, using log-rank tests (all P values are >0.20) or Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, commune, and other treatments. No significant interactions were seen for age, sex, or smoking status. Supplementation with combinations of vitamins and minerals at nutrient-repletion levels for 5.25 years did not reduce lung cancer mortality in this nutrient-inadequate population in Linxian, China.     

Analgesic effect of paracetamol on cancer related pain in concurrent strong opioid therapy. A prospective clinical study

INTRODUCTION: In palliative cancer care, when approaching death, swallowing difficulties and the burden of tablet intake frequently makes us reconsider each individual drug prescribed. Through the last two decades the routine of always combining a strong opioid with paracetamol has been widely spread in Sweden. Clinical experience has challenged this routine as many patients seem to manage equally well without paracetamol. To find out whether this might be of clinical importance, we wanted to perform a more systematic registration. MatERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four incurable cancer patients with well controlled pain (NRSB4), treated by specialised palliative home care teams, with ongoing medication with the strong opioid paracetamol combination was recruited to this prospective clinical study. The effect of completely stopping paracetamol medication was evaluated four days later at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up nine patients (26%) felt more pain compared to when they entered the study, two patients (6%) felt less pain and 23 (68%) felt no difference. When asked about their preference about future paracetamol treatment 18 patients (53%) wanted to stop taking it, six patients (18%) wanted to continue with regular paracetamol medication as before, and ten patients (29%) wanted to take paracetamol as needed. No clinical predictors of paracetamol response could be identified. DISCUSSION: The results of this study indicate that a critical evaluation, in every patient, of the subjective additive analgesic effect of paracetamol in concurrent strong opioid therapy is advisable and that stopping paracetamol medication not necessarily implies increased pain. Rather in some patients the cessation of paracetamol medication is experienced as a relief as pain control is maintained with a lesser tablet burden.     

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) to 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 267 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) followed 24 hours later by paclitaxel 220 mg/m(2)) or FAC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)), each administered every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Patients had to have measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. Only one prior non-anthracycline, nontaxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was allowed. RESULTS: Overall response rates for patients randomized to AT and FAC were 68% and 55%, respectively (P =.032). Median time to progression and overall survival were significantly longer for AT compared with FAC (time to progression 8.3 months v 6.2 months [P =.034]; overall survival 23.3 months v 18.3 months [P =.013]). Therapy was generally well-tolerated (median of eight cycles delivered in each arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with AT than with FAC (89% v 65%; P <.001); however, the incidence of fever and infection was low. Grade 3 or 4 arthralgia and myalgia, peripheral neuropathy, and diarrhea were more common with AT, whereas nausea and vomiting were more common with FAC. The incidence of cardiotoxicity was low in both arms. CONCLUSION: AT conferred a significant advantage in response rate, time to progression, and overall survival compared with FAC. Treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected toxicities.