CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Practice Management

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 11 No. 4
Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
 

Current Role of Protective Agents in Cancer Treatment

By

Lynn M. Schuchter, MD
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | April 1, 1997


Rescue Agents

The rescue agents include CSFs, erythropoietin(Drug information on erythropoietin) (Epogen, Procrit), and folinic acid (leucovorin). The available CSFs--granulocyte CSF, or G-CSF (filgrastim [Neupogen]), and granulocyte-macrophage CSF , or GM-CSF (molgramostim [Leucomax], sargramostim(Drug information on sargramostim) [Leukine, Prokine]), are lineage-specific for neutrophils and macrophages, respectively. Erythropoietin is specific for red blood cell production. Leucovorin is a rescue agent that bypasses the enzymatic blockade of the antifolates (methotrexate and trimetrexate(Drug information on trimetrexate)).

Colony-stimulating factors, glycoproteins that stimulate the growth and differentiation of myeloid cells from the bone marrow, and cytokines, polypeptides that stimulate or inhibit the chemotaxis and proliferation of white blood cells involved in the immune response, have the potential to lessen the complications associated with chemotherapeutic agents. The identification, cloning, and industrial production of the hematopoietic CSFs have fostered an intense interest in their use to treat myelosuppression and to overcome the dose-limiting toxicity associated with some forms of chemotherapy. Current treatment regimens have focused primarily on G-CSF and GM-CSF. Erythropoietin is also widely used to treat anemia associated with renal disease and has recently been approved for chemotherapy-associated anemia.

Colony-Stimulating Factors

Clinical Trials--The ability of G-CSF and GM-CSF to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutro- penia has been evaluated in clinical trials. In an open-label crossover trial of patients with transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium,[55] a randomized trial of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus G-CSF,[56] and a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients with small-cell lung cancer,[57] G-CSF significantly reduced the incidence of febrile neutropenia and hastened neutrophil recovery following the first cycle of chemotherapy. In two of these studies, G-CSF resulted in a decrease in hospitalization and antibiotic use.[55,57]

The efficacy of G-CSF in reducing the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and resulting complications was assessed in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 211 patients with small-cell lung cancer.[58] Patients received a combination of cyclophosphamide(Drug information on cyclophosphamide), doxorubicin(Drug information on doxorubicin), and etoposide(Drug information on etoposide) (VePesid), with or without G-CSF. In addition to being well tolerated, G-CSF reduced the incidence of complications caused by neutropenia during the first cycle of therapy from 57% to 28% and decreased antibiotic use and hospitalizations by 47% and 45%, respectively.

Granulocyte CSF has also been used in the setting of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. In patients with Hodgkin's disease, G-CSF significantly accelerated the recovery of granulocyte counts.[59] In another study of patients receiving chemotherapy, G-CSF also hastened neutrophil recovery and reduced mucositis after autologous bone marrow transplantation.[60]

Randomized studies of GM-CSF have been conducted after myelosuppressive chemotherapy (standard-dose chemotherapy) and after myeloablative therapy (high-intensity chemoradiation followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation or peripheral stem-cell infusion).[61-65] In trials of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, GM-CSF has not consistently reduced febrile neutropenic events. In one such trial comparing GM-CSF vs placebo in patients with small-cell lung cancer treated with platinum and etoposide and concurrent chest irradiation, GM-CSF failed to cause significant differences in neutrophil recovery; furthermore, an increased incidence of fever and thrombocytopenia was noted in the GM-CSF-treated patients.[61]

Granulocyte-macrophage CSF has also been assessed in patients treated with myeloablative regimens. In several phase III trials evaluating the efficacy of GM-CSF in autologous bone marrow transplantation procedures, neutrophil recovery occurred 4 to 7 days earlier with GM-CSF than with placebo.[62] The incidence of infection, duration of hospitalization, and days of IV antibiotic use were significantly reduced in patients receiving GM-CSF.

The use of G-CSF or GM-CSF has allowed physicians to maintain chemotherapy doses. Trillet-Lenoir et al reported that only 29% of patients with small-cell lung cancer who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide with G-CSF support required reductions of 15% or more in their target dose, whereas 61% of patients in the control group required such reductions.[57]

Similar results were achieved in a trial of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received sequential combinations of vincristine, Adriamycin, prednisolone(Drug information on prednisolone), etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and bleomycin(Drug information on bleomycin) (VAPEC-B), either alone or with G-CSF. Patients treated with G-CSF had significantly fewer dose reductions and treatment delays than did controls and maintained a median dosage intensity of 95% (as compared with 83% in controls).[56]

Despite these positive results with G-CSF and GM-CSF, none of the randomized trials has reported a significant difference in overall response rates or survival between CSF- and placebo-treated patients.

Clinical Use--Stimulation of myeloid progenitors by CSFs may increase the pool of granulocyte precursors susceptible to destruction by chemotherapeutic agents. Indeed, it has been shown that CSFs given concurrently with chemotherapy increases the severity of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. As a result, administration of GM-CSF or G-CSF should not begin until at least 24 hours after the last dose of chemotherapy.[61,66,67] Recent data also show that the efficacy of CSFs decreases with repeated courses of chemotherapy.[68]

At currently used subcutaneous doses (5 mcg/kg/d of G-CSF and 125 mcg/kg/d of GM-CSF), the CSFs are well tolerated. The only common toxicity is medullary bone pain, which can usually be controlled with nonnarcotic analgesic agents. Medullary bone pain typically arises when CSF therapy is initiated and again just before the occurrence of neutrophil recovery.

Therapy with GM-CSF is often associated with low-grade fever, nausea, fatigue, chills, and myalgia. Other less common side effects with the first dose of GM-CSF include arthralgia, capillary leakage, and, rarely, dyspnea. It remains unclear whether the side-effect profiles of G-CSF and GM-CSF differ significantly from each other.

Leucovorin Leucovorin (folinic acid, citrovorum factor) is used as a rescue agent in patients receiving high-dose methotrexate(Drug information on methotrexate) or trimetrexate regimens. Methotrexate- or trimetrexate-induced cytotoxicity results from inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), followed by depletion of intracellular folate pools and impaired biosynthesis of purines and pyrimidines.

Leucovorin is a reduced folate that can prevent the toxic effects of methotrexate or trimetrexate, including myelosuppression and GI toxicity.[69] The mechanism of leucovorin rescue of normal cells is repletion of reduced intra-cellular folate levels. In addition, leucovorin competes with methotrexate polyglutamates to overcome the inhibition of thymidylate synthetase. The timing of leucovorin administration relative to methotrexate or trimetrexate is critical to avoid tumor cell rescue.

Leucovorin is available for both oral and IV use. To prevent toxicity from high-dose methotrexate, leucovorin, 15 mg (approximately 10 mg/m²) is administered every 6 hours for 10 doses beginning 24 hours after the initiation of the methotrexate infusion. In the presence of nausea or vomiting, leucovorin should be administered parenterally.

Serum creatinine and methotrexate levels should be determined once daily. Leucovorin should be continued until the serum methotrexate level is less than 45 ×10-8 M (0.05 mcM). Additional modification of the leucovorin dose and duration of therapy may be necessary depending on methotrexate levels.

Current Status, Future Directions

The major question that arises with the use of any chemoprotective agent is whether the protection of normal tissues extends to protection of tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Similarly, with cytokines, one must address the question of whether they stimulate the growth of both tumor cells and stem cells. Obviously, there is little benefit to be gained from a drug that protects or stimulates normal tissue and tumor tissue comparably.

Cytoprotective Agents

Several large, randomized clinical trials have evaluated the use of amifostine(Drug information on amifostine) with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. In these studies, amifostine selectively protected against hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events without compromising the efficacy of the anticancer therapies.[24,40]

More recently, amifostine has been combined with cisplatin(Drug information on cisplatin), vinblastine(Drug information on vinblastine), and irradiation to treat advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with stage IV disease who received amifostine had a response rate of 64% and median survival of 17 months.[70] This high tumor-response rate in non-small-cell lung cancer when amifostine is given with platinum is significantly better than response rates customarily seen with traditional therapies.

Dexrazoxane is currently indicated for use as a cytoprotector against anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. However, this drug was originally tested as an anticancer agent. Its weak activity in this domain is apparently related to the ability of certain bisdioxopiperazines to inhibit DNA topoisomerase II.[71]

Recent studies have focused on the potential use of this class of compounds as facilitators of cancer therapies. In vitro assays have demonstrated that dexrazoxane can enhance the antiproliferative effect of cisplatin on ovarian cancer cells in a synergistic and dose-dependent manner, resulting in a decrease in cisplatin inhibitory concent (IC50).[72] In addition, dexrazoxane has been used recently with good results as a sensitizer of radiation therapy in patients with inoperable rectal cancer.[73] This suggests that this agent may, under certain circumstances, be used as both a cardioprotector and a facilitator of therapy in cancer cells.

Mesna has been tried successfully as an orally administered uroprotective agent.[74,75] This type of administration is advantageous in therapeutic settings where outpatient chemotherapy is likely to increase.

Colony-Stimulating Factors

Colony-stimulating factors can reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In addition, CSFs can shorten the period of neutropenia and reduce infectious complications after myeloablative therapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation or peripheral stem-cell transplantation and perhaps after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Overall, G-CSF and GM-CSF have little effect on platelet nadir or duration of thrombocytopenia. Colony-stimulating factors do not protect stem cells and are not to be given concurrently with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, as they have enhanced bone marrow toxicity in this setting.

Recent clinical data obtained from patients with head and neck cancer who were treated with combination cisplatin-fluorouracil-leucovorin chemotherapy suggest that GM-CSF may reduce mucositis, another dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy.[76] There is increasing evidence that maintenance of GI epithelial structure and function is regulated by a cytokine network, analogous to that present in bone marrow.

Several cytokines with potential epithelial activity have been described, including GM-CSF, G-CSF, interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-11, and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). These cytokines are now in preclinical or clinical development as mucosal protectants. Interleukin-11 has recently been shown to stimulate recovery of mucosal cells of the small intestine after cytoablative therapy.[77] Similarly, TGF-beta3 slows the proliferation rate of mucosal cells, making them less vulnerable to chemotherapeutic agents.[78]

The use of hematopoietic CSFs in patients with myeloid malignancies (acute myeloblastic leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes) has been a concern because most myeloid leukemia cells express CSF receptors.[79] Several clinical trials that address this issue have been completed, and results vary with respect to the interference of CSFs with antitumor efficacy.[80,83]

Evidence suggests that GM-CSF may also act as a growth activator on a variety of tumor cells of nonhematopoietic origin.[84] However, in a trial of patients with ovarian cancer receiving carboplatin(Drug information on carboplatin)-cyclophosphamide therapy and GM-CSF, the patients in the GM-CSF arm showed less severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia but no difference in tumor response rate when compared with controls.[85]

Cytoprotective Plus Rescue Agents

Preclinical studies show that the combination of amifostine pretreatment, irradiation, and G-CSF after radiation enhances hematologic recovery.[86,87] Assessment of these combined effects merits clinical investigation. Cytoprotection with amifostine can reduce the extent of toxic damage to normal tissues, including proliferating cell populations, kidneys, and peripheral nerves. Once the chemotherapeutic or radiotherapeutic treatment phase has been accomplished, myeloid progenitors (now present at a higher baseline) can be stimulated by growth factors (CSFs or cytokines).

Conclusions

Cytoprotective and rescue agents can reduce the acute and cumulative toxicities associated with more intensive and more effective therapeutic regimens. Oncologists must learn how to use these agents in order to improve the quality and duration of life of cancer patients.

Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.



Franco Muggia, MD


1. DeVita VT, Hubbard CM, Longo DL: The chemotherapy of lymphomas: Looking back, moving forward--The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Cancer Res 47:5810-5824, 1987.

2. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, et al: Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 332:901-906, 1995.

3. Hryniuk WM: The importance of dose intensity in the outcome of chemotherapy, in DeVita V, Hellman S, Rosenberg S (eds): Important Advances in Oncology, pp 121-141. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1988.

4. Myers CE, McGuire WP, Liss RH, et al: Adriamycin: The role of lipid peroxidation in cardiac toxicity and tumor response. Science 197:165-167, 1977.

5. Hay J, Shahzeidi S, Laurent G: Mechanisms of bleomycin-induced lung damage. Arch Toxicol 65:81-94, 1991.

6. McDonnell TJ, Meyn RE, Robertson LE: Implication of apoptotic cell death regulation in cancer therapy. Semin Cancer Biol 6:53-60, 1995.

7. Moreira LF, Naomoto Y, Hamada M, et al: Assessment of apoptosis in oesophageal carcinoma preoperatively treated by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Anticancer Res 15:639-644, 1995.

8. Elledge RM, Allred DC: The p53 tumor suppressor gene in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 32:39-47, 1994.

9. Keith FJ, Bradbury DA, Zhu YM, et al: Inhibition of bcl-2 with antisense oligonucleotides induces apoptosis and increases the sensitivity of AML blasts to Ara-c. Leukemia 9:131-138, 1995.

10. Gasparini G, Barbareschi M, Doglioni C, et al: Expression of bcl-2 protein predicts efficacy of adjuvant treatments in operable node-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1:189-198, 1995.

11. Dole M, Nunez G, Merchant AK, et al: Bcl-2 inhibits chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma. Cancer Res 54:3253-3259, 1994.

12. Kerr JF, Winterford CM, Harmon BV: Apoptosis: Its significance in cancer and cancer therapy. Cancer 73(8):2013-2026, 1994.

13. Krajewski S, Blomqvist C, Franssila K, et al: Reduced expression of proapoptotic gene BAX is associated with poor response rates to combination chemotherapy and shorter survival in women with metastatic breast adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 55:4471-4478, 1995.

14. Milas L, Stephens LC, Meyn RE: Relation of apoptosis to cancer therapy. In Vivo 8:665-673, 1994.

15. Anand S, Verma H, Kumar L, et al: Induction of apoptosis in chronic myelogenous leukemia lymphocytes by hydroxyurea and adriamycin. Cancer Lett 88:101-105, 1995.

16. Li X, Gong J, Feldman E, et al: Apoptotic cell death during treatment of leukemias. Leuk Lymphoma 13 (suppl 1):65-70, 1994.

17. Perry RR, Kang Y, Greaves BR: Relationship between tamoxifen-induced transforming growth factor b1 expression, cytostasis and apoptosis in human breast cancer cells. Br J Cancer 72:1441-1446, 1995.

18. Frankfurt OS, Sugarbaker EV, Robb JA, et al: Synergistic induction of apoptosis in breast cancer cells by tamoxifen and calmodulin inhibitors. Cancer Lett 97:149-154, 1995.

19. Havrilesky LJ, Elbendary A, Hurteau JA, et al: Chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in epithelial ovarian cancers. Obstet Gynecol 85:1007-1010, 1995.

20. Skeel RT, Lachant NA: Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, 3rd ed, pp 147-148. Boston, Little Brown, 1995.

21. Walther MM: Cystitis, in DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds): Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology, 4th ed, pp 2358-2362. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1993.

22. Schuchter LM, Glick J: The current status of WR-2721 (amifostine): A chemotherapy and radiation therapy protector. Biologic Therapy of Cancer 3:1-10, 1993.

23. Yuhas JM: Active versus passive absorption kinetics as the basis for selective protection of normal tissues by 3-2-(3-aminopropylamino) ethyl-phosphorothioic acid. Cancer Res 40:1519-1524, 1980.

24. Schuchter LM, Luginbuhl WE, Meropol NJ: The current status of toxicity protectants in cancer therapy. Semin Oncol 19:742, 1992.

25. Coleman N, Bump E, Kramer R: Chemical modifiers of cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 6:709-733, 1988.

26. Yuhas JM, Spellman JM, Jordan SW: Treatment of tumours with the combination of WR-2721 and cis-dichlorodiammineplatinum (II) or cyclophosphamide. Br J Cancer 42:574-585, 1980.

27. Yuhas JM, Spellman JM, Culo F: The role of WR-2721 in radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cancer Clin Trials 3:211-216, 1980.

28. Shaw L, Glover D, Turrisi A, et al: Pharmacokinetics of WR-2721. Pharmacol Ther 39:195-201, 1988.

29. Smoluk GD, Fahey RC, Ward JF: Interaction of glutathione and other low molecular weight thiols with DNA: Evidence for counter ion condensation and coion depletion near DNA. Radiat Res 114:3-10, 1988.

30. Grdina DJ, Shigametsu N, Dale P, et al: Thiol and disulfide metabolites of the radiation protector and chemopreventive agent WR 2721 are linked to both its anti-cytotoxic and anti-mutagenic mechanisms of action. Carcinogenesis 16:767-774, 1995.

31. Milas L, Hunter N, Stephens CL, Peters LJ: Inhibition of radiation carcinogenesis by S-2-3 aminopropylamino-ethylphosphorothioic acid. Cancer Res 44:5567-5569, 1984.

32. Grdina DJ, Nagy B, Sigdestad CP: Radioprotectors in treatment therapy to reduce risk in secondary tumor induction. Pharm Ther 39:21-25, 1988.

33. Woloschak GE, Paunesku T, Chang-Liu CM, Grdina DJ. Expression of thymidine kinase messenger RNA and a related transcript is modulated by radioprotector WR-1065. Cancer Res 55:4788-4792, 1995.

34. Glover D, Glick J, Weiler C, et al: Phase I trials of WR-2721 and cis-platinum. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10:1781-1784, 1984.

35. Kligerman M, Glover D, Turrisi A, et al: Toxicity of WR-2721 administered in single and multiple doses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10:1773-1776, 1984.

36. Glover D, Grabelsky S, Fox K, et al: Clinical trials of WR 2721 and cis-platinum. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 16:1201-1204, 1989.

37. Mollman JE, Glover DJ, Hogan WM, et al: Cisplatin neuropathy: Risk factors, prognosis, and protection by WR-2721. Cancer 61:2192-2195, 1988.

38. Al-Sarraf M, Fletcher WS, Oishi N, et al: Cisplatin hydration with and without mannitol in refractory disseminated malignant melanoma: A Southwest Oncology Group Study. Cancer Treat Rep 66:31-35, 1982.

39. Glover D, Glick J, Weiler C, et al: WR-2721 protects against the hematologic toxicity of cyclophosphamide: A controlled phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 4(4):584-588, 1986.

40. Kemp G, Rose P, Lurain J, et al: Amifostine pretreatment for protection against cyclophosphamide- and cisplatin-induced toxicities: Results of a randomized control trial in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:2101-2112, 1996.

41. Di Paola R, Rodriguez R, Recio A, et al: A phase I study of amifostine and paclitaxel in patients with advanced malignancies. Am Med Soc Clin Oncol (15)488, 1966.

42. Liu T, Liu Y, He S, et al: Use of radiation with or without WR-2721 in advanced rectal cancer. Cancer 69:2820-2825, 1992.

43. Shpall EJ, Stemmer SM, Hami L, et al: Amifostine (WR-2721) shortens the engraftment period of 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide C purged bone marrow in breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support. Blood 83(11):3132-3137, 1994.

44. Douay L, Mu C, Giarratana M-C, et al: Amifostine improves the antileukemic theapeutic index of mafosfamide: Implication for bone marrow purging. Blood 88:2849-2855, 1995.

45. Glover D, Riley L, Carmichael K, et al: Hypocalcemia and inhibition of parathyroid hormone secretion after administration of amifostine (a radioprotective and chemoprotective agent). N Engl J Med 309:117-1141, 1983.

46. Budd GT, Ganapathi R, Bauer L, et al: Phase I study of WR-2721 and carboplatin. Eur J Cancer 29A:1122-1127, 1993.

47. Green MD, Alderton P, Sobol MM, et al: ICRF-187 (ADR-529) cardioprotection against anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: clinical and preclinical studies, in Muggia FM (ed): New Drugs, Concepts, and Results in Cancer Chemotherapy. pp 101-117. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.

48. Koning J, Palmer P, Franks CR, et al: Cardioxane-ICRF-187: Towards anticancer drug specificity through selective toxicity reduction. Cancer Treat 18:1-19, 1991.

49. Hasinoff BB: The iron (III) and copper (II) complexes of adriamycin promote the hydrolysis of the cardioprotective agent ICRF-187 [(+)-1,2-bis(3,5-dioxopiperazinyl-1-yl)propane). Agents Actions 29:374-381, 1990.

50. Herman EH, Mhatre RM, Chadwick DP: Modification of some of the toxic effects of daunorubicin (NSC082,151) by pretreatment with the antineoplastic agent ICRF-159. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 27:517-526, 1974.

51. Speyer JL, Green MD, Zelenluch-Jacquotte A, et al: ICRF-187 permits longer treatment with doxorubicin in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 10:117-127, 1992.

52. Bokkel-Huinink WW, Schreuder JE, Dubbleman R, et al: ICRF-187 protects against doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy. Ann Oncol 3 (suppl 1):A221, 1992.

53. Schoenike SE, Dana WJ: Ifosfamide and mesna. Clin Pharm 9:179-191, 1990.

54. Mohrmann M, Kupper S, Schonfield B, et al. Ifosfamide and mesna: effects of the Na/M exchanger activity in renal epithelial cells in culture (LLC-PK1). Ren Physiol Biochem 18(3):118-127, 1995.

55. Gabrilove J, Jakubowski A, Scher H, et al: Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med 318:1414-1422, 1988.

56. Pettengell R, Gumey H, Radford JA, et al: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent dose-limiting neutropenia in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A randomized controlled trial. Blood 80:1430-1436, 1992.

57. Trillet-Lenoir V, Green J, Manegold C, et al: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 29A(3):319-324, 1993.

58. Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, et al: Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 325:164-170, 1991.

59. Taylor K McD, Jannagath S, Spitzer G, et al: Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor shortens granulocyte recovery after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 7:1791-1799, 1989.

60. Lieschke GJ, Ramenghi U, O'Connor MP, et al: Studies of oral neutrophil levels in patients receiving G-CSF after autologous marrow transplantation. Br J Haematol 82:589-595, 1992.

61. Bunn PA, Crowley J, Hazuka M, et al: The role of GM-CSF in limited stage SCLC: A randomized phase III study of the Southwest Oncology Group. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:292, 1992.

62. Nemunaitis J, Rabinowe SN, Singer JW, et al: Recombinant human GM-CSF after autologous bone marrow transplantation for lymphoid cancer. N Engl J Med 324:1773-1778, 1991.

63. Antman KH: GM-CSF in marrow transplant. Eur J Cancer 29A (suppl 3):S2-S6, 1993.

64. Gerhartz HH, Engelhard M, Meusers P, et al: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as adjunct to induction treatment of high-grade malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Blood 82:2329-2339, 1993.

65. Gianni AM, Bregni M, Siena S, et al: Recombinant human GM-CSF reduces hematologic toxicity and widens clinical applicability of high-dose cyclophosphamide treatment in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 8(5):768-778, 1990.

66. Meropol NJ, Miller IL, Korn EL, et al: Severe myelosuppression resulting from concurrent administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and cytotoxic chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1201-1203, 1992.

67. Momin F, Kraut M, Lattin P, et al: Thrombocytopenia in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy and G-CSF for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:294, 1992.

68. Yau JC, Neidhart JA, Triozzi P, et al: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating-factor support for dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin. Am J Hematol 51:289-295, 1996.

69. Stoller RG, Handi KR, Jacobs SA, et al: Use of plasma pharmacokinetics to predict and prevent methotrexate toxicity. N Engl J Med 297:630-634, 1977.

70. Schiller JH, Storer B, Berlin J, et al: Amifostine, cisplatin and vinblastine in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A report of high response rates and prolonged survival. J Clin Oncol 14:1913-1921, 1996.

71. Ishida R, Hamatake M, Wasserman RA, et al: DNA topoisomerase II is the molecular target of bisdioxopiperazine derivatives ICRF-159 and ICRF-193 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cancer Res 55(11):2299-2303, 1995.

72. Scambia G, Della Bitta R, Benedetti Panici P, et al: Bisdioxopiperazine, (+)-1,2-bis(3,5-dioxopiperazinyl-1-yl)propane (ICRF 187), enhances the antiproliferative effect of cisplatin on human ovarian cancer cells. Gynecol Oncol 57(1):16-22, 1995.

73. Rhomberg W, Eiter H, Hergan K, et al: Inoperable recurrent rectal cancer: Results of a prospective trial with radiation therapy and razoxane. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30(2):419-425, 1994.

74. Goodman TL, McKenna LM, Li JT: Clinical pharmacology and efficacy of mesna given to outpatients treated with ifosfamide for solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:272, 1992.

75. Katz S, Epelman S, Annelli A, et al: Mesna-based uroprotection: sustained and simplified schedule--results of a randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:1351, 1992.

76. Chi K-H, Chen C-M, Chan W-K, et al: Effect of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients after cisplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 13:2620-2628, 1995.

77. Du XX, Doezschuck CM, Orazi A, et al: A bone marrow stromal-derived growth factor, interleukin 11, stimulates recovery of small intestinal mucosal cells after cytoablative therapy. Blood 1:33-37, 1994.

78. Sonis ST, Lindqvist L, Van Vugt AA, et al: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced ulcerative mucositis by transforming growth factor b3. Cancer Res 54:1135-1138, 1994.

79. Motoji T, Watanabe M, Uzumaki H, et al: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) receptors on acute myeloblastic leukaemia cells and their relationship with the proliferative response to G-CSF in clonogenic assay. Br J Haematol 77:54-59, 1991.

80. Rowe JM, Anderson J, Mazza JJ, et al: A randomized placebo controlled phase III study of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors in adult patients (> 55-70 years of age) with acute myelogenous leukemia: A study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E 1490) AML. Blood 86(2):457-462, 1995.

81. Estey E, Thall PF, Kantarjian H, et al: Treatment of newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) before and during continuous-infusion high-dose ara C + daunorubicin: Comparison to patients treated without GM-CSF. Blood 79:2246-2255, 1992.

82. Schuster MW, Larson RA, Thompson JA, et al: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS): Results of multi-center, randomized, controlled trial (abstract). Blood 76(suppl 1):318a, 1990.

83. Greenberg P, Taylor K, Larson R, et al: Phase III randomized multicenter trial of G-CSF vs observation for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (abstract) Blood 82(suppl 1):196a, 1993.

84. Dedhar S, Gaboury L, Galloway P, et al: Human granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor is a growth factor active on a variety of cell types of nonhematopoietic origin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9253-9257, 1988.

85. de Vries EGE, Biesnu B, Willemse PMB, et al: A double blind placebo-controlled study with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 51:116-122, 1991.

86. Patchen ML, MacVittie TJ, Souza LM: Postirradiation treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and preirradiation WR-2721 administration synergize to enhance hematopoietic reconstitution and increase survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 22:773-779, 1992.

87. MacVittie TJ, Brandenburg R, Farese AM, et al: Enhanced recovery from supralethal radiation exposure using combined modality WR-2721 plus recombinant human (rh) G-CSF. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 33:505, 1992.


 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • Skin Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • Palliative Radiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Bone Metastases Improves Quality of Life
  • Staying Fit Could Ward Off Lung and Colorectal Cancer for Middle-Age Men
  • Obesity Impairs Efficacy of L-Asparaginase in Leukemia Treatment
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Practice Management
Evidence on Practice Management
Guidelines on Practice Management
Patient Education on Practice Management
Clinical Trials on Practice Management
Practical Articles on Practice Management
Research and Reviews on Practice Management
All "Practice Management" results

CancerNetwork on Facebook

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy