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.     

Ingestion of immune bloodmeals and infection of Aedes fowleri, Aedes mcintoshi, and Culex pipiens with Rift Valley fever virus

Rift Valley fever (RVF) virus infection, dissemination, and transmission rates were determined for Aedes fowleri, Aedes mcintoshi and Culex pipiens 7 or 10 days after sequentially feeding to repletion on RVF virus immune hamsters and RVF viremic hamsters, or after feeding on a mixture of RVF virus immune sheep serum and RVF viremic hamster blood through a pledget. No significant differences in infection or dissemination rates were detected among Ae. fowleri and Cx. pipiens feeding to repletion on immune hamsters before or after feeding to repletion on a viremic hamster. Similarly, no significant differences in infection, dissemination, or transmission rates were observed among Ae. fowleri and Cx. pipiens feeding to repletion on immune hamsters or nonimmune (control) hamsters 0 or 24 hr after inoculation with RVF virus. Infection rates were significantly higher for Ae. fowleri (56/66, 85%) and Cx. pipiens (123/148, 83%) fed only on viremic hamsters than for those interrupted to complete feeding on an immune hamster (Ae. fowleri [24/49, 59%], Cx. pipiens [66/131, 50%]) or a nonimmune hamster (Ae. fowleri [32/51, 63%], Cx. pipiens [69/127, 54%]). However, no significant differences were detected in infection, dissemination, or transmission rates among Ae. fowleri, Ae. mcintoshi or Cx. pipiens fed on a viremic hamster and interrupted to complete feeding on an immune vs. a nonimmune hamster. Results from interrupted feeding experiments were significantly different from pledget feeding experiments.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Successful treatment of an infected vascular graft with gentamicin beads

This short report describes the successful healing of an infected axillo-bifemoral graft by the insertion of Gentamicin beads, this technique cannot be recommended for all infected grafts the majority of which will have to be removed and replaced.     

Inter-study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results?

In determining the role inter-study variation should play in an overview analysis, it is important to consider three factors: which question one is trying to answer; the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of design, and the degree to which heterogeneity of outcomes can be explained. Three questions one might be interested in are: whether treatment can be effective in some circumstances; whether treatment is effective on average, and whether treatment was effective on average in the trials at hand. Under the assumption of no qualitative interaction, the answers to these questions coincide. The O-E analysis most directly answers the third question. Other analyses are suggested when the first question is of interest, using the aspirin post-MI studies as an example.