Retrospective review of pemetrexed with or without platinum in malignant mesothelioma: The Australian 'Special Access Scheme' experience

Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin have recently been shown to significantly improve survival compared with cisplatin alone. However, there are only limited data reflecting teaching hospital experience outside a clinical trial. Pemetrexed has only been available in Australia on a restricted basis since 2002. We reviewed our experience of patients treated on the Australian ‘Special Access Scheme’ at three major thoracic oncology units. Methods: Charts were reviewed for all patients enrolled on the scheme. Data was extracted on age, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, histology, prior therapy, time from diagnosis to starting pemetrexed, chemotherapy (pemetrexed alone or with a platinum), cycle number, response rate, actuarial progression‐free and overall survival. Doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC = 5 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m² every 21 days. Results: 52 patients (32 male and 20 female) were reviewed. Median age was 58 years and 88% were WHO 0–1. Histology included 54% epithelial, 17% biphasic (epithelial and sarcomatoid) and 21% undefined. The median time from diagnosis to administration of pemetrexed was 145 days. Sixty‐five percent had minimal surgical intervention with video assisted thoracoscopy, pleurodesis and biopsy, while 19% had received prior palliative radiation. Seventy‐one percent were chemotherapy naïve, the remaining 29% having received previous platinum and/or gemcitabine regimens. Twenty‐three percent had pemetrexed alone, 35% in combination with carboplatin and 42% with cisplatin. The median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–13). The response rate was 33%. No toxicity was observed in 20% grade 3–4 toxicity in 10% (majority nausea/vomiting). The median progression‐free and overall survival times from starting pemetrexed were 184 days and 298 days, respectively. Conclusions: Pemetrexed‐based regimens are safe and effective in a community setting in malignant mesothelioma.     

Does supervised exercise offer adjuvant benefit over exercise advice alone for the treatment of intermittent claudication? A randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Exercise advice is the main treatment for symptom relief in the UK for patients with mild to moderate Intermittent Claudication (IC). Would a weekly exercise and motivation class for 6 months offer adjuvant benefit over written and verbal exercise advice alone? PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients attending a regional vascular centre for whom IC was the main factor affecting mobility were randomised to either exercise advice alone (n=30) or exercise advice with a once a week 45 min supervised exercise/motivation class (n=29). The mean age was 68 years. Baseline and 6-month assessment included a Quality of Life Questionnaire--the Short-Form-36, the Charing Cross Symptom Specific Claudication Questionnaire (CCCQ) and treadmill walking distance (3.5 km/h 12%). RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up the supervised exercise group had improved their treadmill walking by 129% compared to 69% in the advice alone group (p=0.001). This significant improvement was maintained at the subsequent 9 and 12-month follow-up assessments. By the 9-month stage the advice only group CCCQ score had improved 16% from baseline, while the supervised exercise group had a significantly better 43% improvement in base line score (p<0.05). Self reported frequency of walks was higher in the exercise class group being significant for improvement in CCCQ score. CONCLUSION: A weekly, supervised exercise and motivation class for a 6-month period provides a significant improvement in patients' symptoms, quality of life, and distance walked compared with advice alone and this improvement continues after attendance at class has ceased.