Gastrointestinal malignancies

Low-dose levomepromazine in refractory emesis in advanced cancer patients: an open-label study

Seventy patients with advanced cancer and refractory emesis were treated with subcutaneous boluses of levomepromazine (median daily dose: 6.25 mg; range: 3.12-25) in an open-label prospective study. Treatment was associated with a decrease in nausea from a median of 8/10 at baseline (IQR 7-8) to a median of 1 (IQR 0-2) after two days of treatment (P<0.0001); vomiting ceased in 92% of cases. It was possible to remove the nasogastric tube from all 11 patients who had one. The most frequently reported side effect was sedation, with a median of 2/10 (25-75% percentile 1-3), which was not correlated with the dose of levomepromazine. This study suggests that treatment with low-dose levomepromazine is an effective and safe option for advanced cancer patients who fail to respond to first-line antiemetic treatment.

Supportive care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer

BACKGROUND

Supportive care has traditionally been given to optimise the comfort of patients and their ability to function, as well as to minimise the side-effects of anti-cancer treatments. The scope of modern comprehensive supportive care however is broadening and covers not only specific palliative treatment but non-tumour specific treatment such as social, psychological and spiritual support. In oncology, best supportive care (BSC) has been used as a comparator arm of randomised controlled trials in chemotherapy. However the BSC arm is usually not well defined and its evaluation is therefore difficult because of the heterogeneity of the definitions. A systematic review was undertaken of the evidence from all RCTs of gastrointestinal cancers (includes gastrointestinal/gastric, colorectal/colon cancer but excludes pancreatic cancer trials) which include a BSC/SC arm.

OBJECTIVES

1. To examine the effectiveness/outcomes of best supportive care interventions versus cancer therapies for gastrointestinal cancer trials;2. To determine whether trials containing best supportive care include a definition of this.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases, grey literature sources, citation searching and reference checking, handsearches of journals and discussion with experts were used to identify potentially eligible trials from both published and unpublished sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing BSC/SC versus anticancer therapies in patients with gastrointestinal cancers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four RCTs were found and reviewed. Because of the heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis was not attempted. Data was extracted from the included papers and the quality of each included study was assessed using the Jadad 1996 and Rinck 1997 methods of assessing the quality of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

Data from four trials (483 patients) were included. Due to the heterogeneity of studies (in terms of populations studied, the interventions used, the variety of outcomes and assessments used) it was not possible to make direct comparisons between the studies. The primary outcome in all four trials was survival, in spite of patients with advanced/metastatic gastrointestinal cancer having a poor prognosis, and the interventions being primarily palliative.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall the results show that for most of the trials included in this review, certain forms of chemotherapy plus supportive care improve both survival and quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (gastric and colorectal cancers) compared to receiving supportive care alone. Trials involving BSC/SC in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer require careful evaluation. Oncologists and researchers alike should strive for improvements in trial design and reporting. Future trials should focus on clearer definitions of supportive care. The EORTC definition of supportive care can be used as a guide. BSC/SC trials should use standardised validated outcome measures for symptom control, quality of life, toxicity and other useful palliative measures.

Colorectal polyps in the elderly: what should be done?

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality among Western nations, and is more common in the elderly than in younger individuals. With the general acceptance of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, the current consideration is that colorectal cancer is preventable if all adenomas are removed before they have the chance to progress to cancer. To that end, physicians should now advocate screening for colorectal cancer and through this effort a large number of patients with adenomatous polyps will be discovered. It is important to understand the strategy in dealing with this growing population of patients with adenomas. After an initial polypectomy, patients with adenomas should be entered into a surveillance program to detect and remove recurrent adenomas. Recommended surveillance intervals are shorter for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer, those with multiple adenomas (>2), large adenomas (> or = 1cm), or those whose adenomas have high-grade dysplasia, villous architecture, or that are cancerous. Effective chemoprevention would be a potential method of lengthening colonoscopic surveillance intervals. Unfortunately, no treatment has been found to be effective enough to alter our current surveillance practice. The only recommendation that can be made at this time for those patients with a history of colonic adenomas is to add 3 g/day of calcium carbonate to their diet, though its effect on adenoma recurrence is modest.