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.     

Restoring teeth that are endodontically treated through existing crowns. Part I: Survey of pulpal status on access.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the pulpal findings encountered by practitioners when accessing complete-coverage crowns that require nonsurgical root canal treatment and the relevance of coronal leakage to the success of the RTC. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The survey package consisted of a cover letter stating the instructions, rationale, and purpose for the questionnaire, a questionnaire with 8 short-answer questions, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. A randomized sample of active dentists (300 general practitioners, 300 prosthodontists, and 300 endodontists) was selected. Collected data were analyzed with the chi-square test. RESULTS: A 60% response rate was obtained. Statistically significant differences were found among the practitioner groups, depending on the question. General practitioners and endodontists obtain access through crowns and maintain these crowns as final restoration significantly more often than do prosthodontists. Practitioners responded that teeth with complete crowns require nonsurgical root canal treatment after 5 to 10 years. CONCLUSION: Respondents believe that leakage must be addressed when endodontic access cavities in artificial crowns are restored after nonsurgical root canal treatment. General practitioners perform nonsurgical root canal treatment more frequently than do prosthodontists. Practitioners indicated that when teeth with complete crowns require nonsurgical root canal treatment, treatment is most often performed 5 to 10 years after placement of the crown.