Gefitinib in Combination With Irradiation With or Without Cisplatin in Patients With Inoperable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Trial.

Purpose : To establish the feasibility and tolerability of gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) with radiation (RT) or concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and Methods : In this multicenter Phase I study, 5 patients with unresectable NSCLC received 250 mg gefitinib daily starting 1 week before RT at a dose of 63 Gy (Step 1). After a first safety analysis, 9 patients were treated daily with 250 mg gefitinib plus CRT in the form of RT and weekly CDDP 35 mg/m(2) (Step 2). Gefitinib was maintained for up to 2 years until disease progression or toxicity.Results : Fourteen patients were assessed in the two steps. In Step 1 (five patients were administered only gefitinib and RT), no lung toxicities were seen, and there was no dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Adverse events were skin and subcutaneous tissue reactions, limited to Grade 1-2. In Step 2, two of nine patients (22.2%) had DLT. One patient suffered from dyspnea and dehydration associated with neutropenic pneumonia, and another showed elevated liver enzymes. In both steps combined, 5 of 14 patients (35.7%) experienced one or more treatment interruptions.Conclusions : Gefitinib (250 mg daily) in combination with RT and CDDP in patients with Stage HI NSCLC is feasible, but CDDP likely enhances toxicity. The impact of gefitinib on survival and disease control as a first-line treatment in combination with RT remains to be determined. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

The tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptors TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 have distinct cross-linking requirements for initiation of apoptosis and are non-redundant in JNK activation.

Overexpression of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptors, TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2, induces apoptosis and activation of NF-kappaB in cultured cells. In this study, we have demonstrated differential signaling capacities by both receptors using either epitope-tagged soluble TRAIL (sTRAIL) or sTRAIL that was cross-linked with a monoclonal antibody. Interestingly, sTRAIL was sufficient for induction of apoptosis only in cell lines that were killed by agonistic TRAIL-R1- and TRAIL-R2-specific IgG preparations. Moreover, in these cell lines interleukin-6 secretion and NF-kappaB activation were induced by cross-linked or non-cross-linked anti-TRAIL, as well as by both receptor-specific IgGs. However, cross-linking of sTRAIL was required for induction of apoptosis in cell lines that only responded to the agonistic anti-TRAIL-R2-IgG. Interestingly, activation of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) was only observed in response to either cross-linked sTRAIL or anti-TRAIL-R2-IgG even in cell lines where both receptors were capable of signaling apoptosis and NF-kappaB activation. Taken together, our data suggest that TRAIL-R1 responds to either cross-linked or non-cross-linked sTRAIL which signals NF-kappaB activation and apoptosis, whereas TRAIL-R2 signals NF-kappaB activation, apoptosis, and JNK activation only in response to cross-linked TRAIL.

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies. OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise and synthesise available research evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain in people living with SCI. SEARCH METHODS: The search was run on the 1st March 2011. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), four other databases and clinical trials registers. In addition, we manually searched the proceedings of three major scientific conferences on SCI. We updated this search in November 2014 but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention not involving intake of medication or other active substances to treat chronic pain in people with SCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcome was any measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, anxiety, depression and quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to calculate standardised mean differences for each type of intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 trials involving a total of 616 participants. Eight different types of interventions were studied. Eight trials investigated the effects of electrical brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES); five trials) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; three trials). Interventions in the remaining studies included exercise programmes (three trials); acupuncture (two trials); self-hypnosis (one trial); transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (one trial); and a cognitive behavioural programme (one trial). None of the included trials were considered to have low overall risk of bias. Twelve studies had high overall risk of bias, and in four studies risk of bias was unclear. The overall quality of the included studies was weak. Their validity was impaired by methodological weaknesses such as inappropriate choice of control groups. An additional search in November 2014 identified more recent studies that will be included in an update of this review.For tDCS the pooled mean difference between intervention and control groups in pain scores on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10) was a reduction of -1.90 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.33; P value 0.02) in the short term and of -1.87 (95% CI -3.30 to -0.45; P value 0.01) in the mid term. Exercise programmes led to mean reductions in chronic shoulder pain of -1.9 score points for the Short Form (SF)-36 item for pain experience (95% CI -3.4 to -0.4; P value 0.01) and -2.8 pain VAS units (95% CI -3.77 to -1.83; P value < 0.00001); this represented the largest observed treatment effects in the included studies. Trials using rTMS, CES, acupuncture, self-hypnosis, TENS or a cognitive behavioural programme provided no evidence that these interventions reduce chronic pain. Ten trials examined study endpoints other than pain, including anxiety, depression and quality of life, but available data were too scarce for firm conclusions to be drawn. In four trials no side effects were reported with study interventions. Five trials reported transient mild side effects. Overall, a paucity of evidence was found on any serious or long-lasting side effects of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to suggest that non-pharmacological treatments are effective in reducing chronic pain in people living with SCI. The benefits and harms of commonly used non-pharmacological pain treatments should be investigated in randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size and study methodology.