Quality of life in men receiving radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer:Results from a prospective longitudinal study

Aim. To report a study measuring the quality of life and side effects in men receiving radiotherapy and hormone ablation for prostate cancer up to 1year after treatment. Background. Prostate cancer incidence is increasing with the result that more men are living longer with the disease and the side effects of treatment. It is important to know the effects this has on their quality of life. Design. Survey. Method. Between September 2006-September 2007, all men who were about to undergo radical conformal radiotherapy ± neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer were invited to participate in the study; 149 men were recruited. They completed the European Organization on Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire C-30 and Prostate Cancer module PR25 at four time-points. Results. At 4-6weeks after radiotherapy, participants experienced the biggest relative decline in global quality of life, social, physical, and role functioning and an increase in treatment side effects. At 6months postradiotherapy the majority of men experienced an improvement in their side effects. However, a minority of men were experiencing severe side effects of radiotherapy at 1year post-treatment. Single men and men who had a low quality of life prior to radiotherapy, reported a lower quality of life at 1year after treatment in comparison to married men. Conclusion. Men with prostate cancer suffer limitations due to the symptoms they experience and disruption to their quality of life. It is essential that nurses develop and deliver follow-up care which is flexible and appropriate to the individual needs of these men. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The major facilitator superfamily transporter MdtM contributes to intrinsic resistance of Escherichia coli to quaternary ammonium compounds

OBJECTIVES:
Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) are used extensively as biocides and their misuse may be contributing to the development of bacterial resistance. Although the major intrinsic resistance to QACs of Gram-negative bacteria is mediated by the action of tripartite multidrug transporters of the resistance-nodulation-division family, we aimed to test if the promiscuity of the recently characterized major facilitator superfamily multidrug transporter, MdtM, from Escherichia coli enabled it also to function in the efflux of QACs.
METHODS:
The ability of the major facilitator mdtM gene product, when overexpressed from multicopy plasmid, to protect E. coli cells from the toxic effects of a panel of seven QACs was determined using growth inhibition assays in liquid medium. Interaction between QACs and MdtM was studied by a combination of substrate binding assays using purified protein in detergent solution and transport assays using inverted vesicles.
RESULTS:
E. coli cells that overproduced MdtM were less susceptible to the cytotoxic effects of each of the QACs tested compared with cells that did not overproduce the transporter. Purified MdtM bound each QAC with micromolar affinity and the protein utilized the electrochemical proton gradient to transport QACs across the cytoplasmic membrane. Furthermore, the results suggested a functional interaction between MdtM and the tripartite resistance-nodulation-division family AcrAB-TolC efflux system.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results support a hitherto unidentified capacity for a single-component multidrug transporter of the major facilitator superfamily, MdtM, to function in the efflux of a broad range of QACs and thus contribute to the intrinsic resistance of E. coli to these compounds.

Predictive markers for colorectal cancer:current status and future prospects

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although there is clear evidence of the benefit of chemotherapy in adjuvant and metastatic settings, its use continues to be suboptimal because of intrinsic or acquired drug resistance. 5-Fluorouracil continues to be the mainstay of CRC therapy, and combinations with newer chemotherapeutic agents such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin have resulted in improved response rates and survival. The role of other agents including cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, epidermal growth factor receptor, and farnsyl transferase inhibitors remains to be elucidated. Despite these improvements, many patients undergo chemotherapy without benefit. Increased understanding of the biology of CRC has led to the identification of prognostic markers that may help identify patients who will benefit from chemotherapy. Furthermore, studies have also begun to identify markers that predict whether a tumor will respond to a particular chemotherapy. The ultimate goal of this research is to prospectively identify patients who should receive chemotherapy and, thus, to tailor treatment to the molecular profile of the tumor and patient. Such an approach has the potential to dramatically improve response rates. This review highlights potentially important prognostic and predictive factors in CRC and discusses the potential for their use in the treatment of this disease.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine versus oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: The MRC COIN Trial.

Background:

COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC).


Methods:

Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment.


Results:

In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(±cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (±cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(±cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50–80?ml?min-1 on OxCap(±cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function.


Conclusions:

Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50–80?ml?min-1 on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.