Polymeric and monomeric IgA response in serum and milk after parenteral cholera and oral typhoid vaccination

SCOPUS: ar.j

Significant variations of Anti-Müllerian hormone serum levels during pregnancy and during oral contraception

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

Doxifluridine and leucovorin: an oral treatment combination in advanced colorectal cancer

Purpose: This study was designed to test the activity and feasibility of an all-oral regimen of levo-leucovorin and doxifluridine (dFUR) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and to establish whether the pharmacokinetics of dFUR and fluorouracil (FU) are affected by demographic and/or biologic parameters. Materials and Methods: One hundred eight patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer received orally administered levo-leucovorin 25 mg followed 2 hours later by dFUR 1,200 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5, with the cycle being repeated every 10 days. Results: Among 62 previously untreated patients, two complete responses (CRs) and 18 partial responses (PRs) were observed (overall response rate, 32%; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 45%). The median response duration was 4 months (range, 2 to 13) and the median survival time, 14 months. Among 46 pretreated patients, there were three CRs and three PRs (response rate, 13%; 95% confidence interval, 5% to 26%). In this group of patients, the median response duration was 4 months (range, 1 to 12) and the median survival time, 12 months. No toxic deaths were observed. The only World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 side effect was diarrhea (32 patients). Conclusion: This regimen is active in previously untreated colorectal cancer patients and combines good compliance with safety. Limited but definite efficacy was also detected in the patients previously treated with FU, which suggests incomplete cross- resistance between the two drugs. The pharmacokinetic results suggest that the conversion rate of dFUR to FU increases between days 1 and 5, but that FU levels remain low in comparison to those measured after classical FU therapy. Under the experimental conditions used in this study, the interpatient variability of pharmacokinetic parameters remains largely unexplained by the tested variables.