RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, methyl 2-octynoate, CAS Registry Number 111-12-6

Methyl 2-octynoate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data show that methyl 2-octynoate is not genotoxic. Data provided methyl 2-octynoate a NESIL of 110 μg/cm² for the skin sensitization endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class II material, and the exposure to methyl 2-octynoate is below the TTC (0.009 mg/kg/day, 0.009 mg/kg/day, and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; methyl 2-octynoate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; methyl 2-octynoate was found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., PEC/PNEC), are <1.

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly: effective and well tolerated weekly gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen. A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The frequency of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increases with age and more effective and less toxic chemotherapy schedules are needed in elderly patients. Cisplatin-based regimens are considered the best treatment for advanced NSCLC, although they produce only a modest advantage in overall survival with considerable toxicity.

METHODS

In the present study the activity and toxicity of a weekly gemcitabine and cisplatin schedule was evaluated in a small group of advanced NSCLC patients aged 68 years or more. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 i.v. and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 i.v., both given weekly on days 1, 8, 15 followed by 1 week of rest.

RESULTS

Fifteen previously untreated patients entered the study; their median age was 72 years (range 68-76). One hundred and sixteen weekly administrations were delivered. The median dose-intensity was 614.5 mg/m2 per week for gemcitabine (82%) and 21 mg/m2 per week for cisplatin (80%). All the 15 patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The overall response rate was 40% [95% CI = 16-68%]. The main toxicity was WHO grade III-IV thrombocytopenia that was recorded in 6 patients (40%). Other major toxicities were very low and no treatment-related deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This schedule appears to be active, to have a favourable toxicity profile and can be considered in advanced NSCLC elderly patients. Of interest, the patients enrolled received high dose intensities of both drugs.