European Journal of Cancer: Highlights of Issue 40:03

Period analyses provide a more 'up to date' picture

Period estimates are more 'up to date'

This is the conclusion of Brenner and colleagues in this issue. Using data from the robust Finnish Cancer Registry, they compared survival rates analysed by period analysis with those analysed by the more traditional cohort analysis. Their results suggested that period estimates quite closely predicted the long-term survival rates that were observed later for that particular time period. Period estimates provide more 'up to date' estimates of long-term cancer patient survival than traditional methods of survival analysis, they said. "These results imply that period analysis should be very useful for both the clinical setting and public health applications". Nevertheless, the authors propose that cohort-based analyses should remain the 'method of choice' in certain situations and period analyses are a powerful tool that should therefore supplement, but not replace, such methods.

Results of SIOPEL 2

CDDP monotherapy and surgery appears effective in standard-risk hepatoblastoma (HB) patients, Perilongo and colleagues report in this issue. These patients had HB confined to the liver and involving no more than three hepatic sectors. A 90% response rate was observed and 3 year overall and progression-free survival rates were 91% and 89%, respectively. By contrast, patients with HB in 4 sectors and/or lung metastases or intra-abdominal extra-hepatic spread (known as high-risk HB) had a response rate of 78% and 3 year overall and progression-free survival rates of 53% and 48%, respectively, despite more intensive treatment. "We believe that SIOPEL 2 contributes to research on childhood HB by demonstrating the potential for cure in a substantial cohort of HB patients presenting with favourable clinical findings", they said.

Aprepitant is effective anti-emetic therapy in patients given cisplatin

Aprepitant added to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist is more effective at reducing nausea and vomiting than the dual therapy alone, de Wit and colleagues report in this issue. In a pooled analysis of data from 2 multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trials, the authors used a traditional probabilities approach to show that aprepitant - an oral NK1 antagonist- was more effective not only in the initial cycle, but that this effect was maintained during subsequent cycles." These data show that the addition of aprepitant to standard anti-emetic therapy represents an important advance in supportive care for patients receiving multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy", they said.

Back . . .