Citations

Purpose To investigate the biomechanical effects of superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial allograft spacer on superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure. Methods Eight cadaveric shoulder specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact rotator cuff, (2) supraspinatus tear and superior capsule excision, (3) superior capsule reconstruction with human dermal allograft, and (4) superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft. In each condition, specimens were tested at 0, 30, 60, and 90° of shoulder abduction in balanced and unbalanced loaded states for subacromial contact pressure and superior humeral head translation. Statistical comparisons were made using a repeated‐measures analysis of variance test, followed by a Tukey post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. A P value <.05 was set as statistically significant. Results Superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure were increased after irreparable rotator cuff tear ( P = .001). There was no significant difference between superior capsule reconstruction and intact cuff in regard to superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure at all abduction angles. Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing decreased superior humeral head translation relative to intact (0°, P = .004; 30°, P = .02; 60°, P = .08; 90°, P = .01), superior capsule reconstruction (0°, P = .001; 30°, P = .003; 60°, P = .019; 90°, P = .001), and cuff‐deficient states ( P = .001). Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing resulted in nonsignificant increases in subacromial contact pressure relative to intact cuff at 0 to 90° abduction angles. Conclusions Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft results in decreased superior humeral head translation relative to superior capsule reconstruction with human dermal allograft only, while increasing subacromial contact pressure. Clinical Relevance Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft reduces superior humeral head translation while increasing subacromial contact pressure in a cadaveric model.

Purpose Treatment options for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) remain limited. This trial assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) of bevacizumab or interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) added to octreotide among patients with advanced NETs. Patients and Methods Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S0518, a phase III study conducted in a US cooperative group system, enrolled patients with advanced grades 1 and 2 NETs with progressive disease or other poor prognostic features. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with octreotide LAR 20 mg every 21 days with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days or 5 million units of IFN-α-2b three times per week. The primary end point was centrally assessed PFS. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00569127. Results A total of 427 patients was enrolled, of whom 214 were allocated to bevacizumab and 213 to IFN-α-2b. The median PFS by central review was 16.6 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 19.6 months) in the bevacizumab arm and was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 18.6 months) in the IFN arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18; P = .55). By site review, the median PFS times were 15.4 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.2 months) for bevacizumab and 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.5 to 14.4 months) for interferon (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .33). Time to treatment failure was longer with bevacizumab than with IFN (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P = .003). Confirmed radiologic response rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) for bevacizumab and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for IFN. Common adverse events with bevacizumab and octreotide included hypertension (32%), proteinuria (9%), and fatigue (7%); with IFN and octreotide, they included fatigue (27%), neutropenia (12%), and nausea (6%). Conclusion No significant differences in PFS were observed between the bevacizumab and IFN arms, which suggests that these agents have similar antitumor activity among patients with advanced NETs.

Purpose Given that the clinical course of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy is not well defined, the current study was performed to better understand clinical parameters associated with its presentation. Methods Acute and chronic neuropathy was evaluated in patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) on study N08CB (North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Alliance). Acute neuropathy was assessed by having patients complete daily questionnaires for 6 days with each cycle of FOLFOX. Before each dose of FOLFOX and as long as 18 months after chemotherapy cessation, chronic neurotoxicity was assessed with use of the 20-item, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Results Three hundred eight (89%) of the 346 patients had at least one symptom of acute neuropathy with the first cycle of FOLFOX; these symptoms included sensitivity to touching cold items (71%), sensitivity to swallowing cold items (71%), throat discomfort (63%), or muscle cramps (42%). Acute symptoms peaked at day 3 and improved, although they did not always resolve completely between treatments. These symptoms were about twice as severe in cycles 2 through 12 as they were in cycle 1. For chronic neurotoxicity, tingling was the most severe symptom, followed by numbness and then pain. During chemotherapy, symptoms in the hands were more prominent than they were in the feet; by 18 months, symptoms were more severe in the feet than they were in the hands. Patients with more severe acute neuropathy during the first cycle of therapy experienced more chronic sensory neurotoxicity (P < .0001). Conclusion Acute oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy symptoms do not always completely resolve between treatment cycles and are only half as severe on the first cycle as compared with subsequent cycles. There is a correlation between the severities of acute and chronic neuropathies.

Purpose There are few effective therapies for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). Recent placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitor sunitinib have noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). Preclinical studies have suggested enhanced antitumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF pathway–targeted therapy. We conducted a clinical trial to evaluate combination therapy against these targets in PNETs. Patients and Methods We conducted a two-stage single-arm phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus 25 mg intravenously (IV) once per week and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV once every 2 weeks in patients with well or moderately differentiated PNETs and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Coprimary end points were tumor response rate and 6-month PFS. Results A total of 58 patients were enrolled, and 56 patients were eligible for response assessment. Confirmed response rate (RR) was 41% (23 of 56 patients). PFS at 6 months was 79% (44 of 56). Median PFS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 16.6). Median overall survival was 34 months (95% CI, 27.1 to not reached). For evaluable patients, the most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events attributed to therapy were hypertension (21%), fatigue (16%), lymphopenia (14%), and hyperglycemia (14%). Conclusion The combination of temsirolimus and bevacizumab had substantial activity and reasonable tolerability in a multicenter phase II trial, with RR of 41%, well in excess of single targeted agents in patients with progressive PNETs. Six-month PFS was a notable 79% in a population of patients with disease progression by RECIST criteria within 7 months of study entry. On the basis of this trial, continued evaluation of combination mTOR and VEGF pathway inhibitors is warranted.

Purpose Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to test the efficacy of doxepin hydrochloride in the reduction of radiotherapy-induced OM pain. Patients and Methods In all, 155 patients were randomly allocated to a doxepin oral rinse or a placebo for the treatment of radiotherapy-related OM pain. Patients received a single dose of doxepin or placebo on day 1 and then crossed over to receive the opposite agent on a subsequent day. Pain questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Patients were then given the option to continue doxepin. The primary end point was pain reduction as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scale using data from day 1. Results Primary end point analysis revealed that the AUC for mouth and throat pain reduction was greater for doxepin (−9.1) than for placebo (−4.7; P < .001). Crossover analysis of patients completing both phases confirmed that patients experienced greater mouth and throat pain reduction with doxepin (intrapatient changes of 4.1 for doxepin-placebo arm and −2.8 for placebo-doxepin arm; P < .001). Doxepin was associated with more stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, and greater drowsiness than the placebo rinse. More patients receiving doxepin expressed a desire to continue treatment than did patients with placebo after completion of each of the randomized phases of the study. Conclusion A doxepin rinse diminishes OM pain. Further studies are warranted to determine its role in the management of OM.