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.     

Identifying mobility dysfunctions in elderly patients. Standard neuromuscular examination or direct assessment?

The need to assess functions such as mobility in elderly patients is increasingly recognized. Lacking other methods, clinicians may rely on the standard neuromuscular examination to evaluate mobility. Therefore, we checked the sensitivity of the neuromuscular examination for identifying mobility problems by comparing relevant neuromuscular findings with performance during four routine mobility maneuvers: (1) getting up from a chair, (2) sitting down, (3) turning while walking, and (4) raising the feet while walking. The subjects investigated were 336 elderly persons living in the community. Many subjects who performed poorly during mobility maneuvers did not have the corresponding neuromuscular abnormalities. For example, although hip and knee flexion are needed to sit down safely, abnormal hip flexion was found in only 15% and abnormal knee flexion in only 30% of the subjects who had difficulty sitting down. The relationship between neuromuscular findings and functional mobility was not predictable enough to rely on neuromuscular findings for identifying mobility problems. Therefore, a simple assessment that reproduces routine daily mobility maneuvers should be developed for use in the clinical care of elderly patients.