UNLABELLED: Amifostine has emerged as a pancytoprotectant shown protection against nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity in preclinical studies. METHODS: We designed a prospective comparative randomized trial to evaluate the cytoprotective effects of amifostine in patients with osteosarcoma receivingcisplatin and doxorrubicin. Patients were evaluated for renal, hearing and cardiac toxicity. RESULTS: We included 28 patients, mean age was 11.6 years, five had metastatic disease. Fifteen patients received amifostine and 13 did not. 20% of patients receiving amifostine developed renal toxicity compared to 30% in the control group (p = 0.318). Grade 1 and 2 audiologic toxicity was present in 100% of the experimental group against 85% of the controls (p = 0.501). Grade 1 cardiac toxicity was present in 2 patients in the control group (p = 0.175). There were no statistical significant differences between the two groups for chemotherapy-related toxicity. Response to chemotherapy was significantly better in the amifostine group. CONCLUSION:amifostine did not reduce the ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity of our treatment regime. It was not well tolerated due to emesis. It is a selective cytoprotectant without reducing the effect of chemotherapy.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Amifostine has emerged as a pancytoprotectant shown protection against nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity in preclinical studies. METHODS: We designed a prospective comparative randomized trial to evaluate the cytoprotective effects of amifostine in patients with osteosarcoma receiving cisplatin and doxorrubicin. Patients were evaluated for renal, hearing and cardiac toxicity. RESULTS: We included 28 patients, mean age was 11.6 years, five had metastatic disease. Fifteen patients received amifostine and 13 did not. 20% of patients receiving amifostine developed renal toxicity compared to 30% in the control group (p = 0.318). Grade 1 and 2 audiologic toxicity was present in 100% of the experimental group against 85% of the controls (p = 0.501). Grade 1 cardiac toxicity was present in 2 patients in the control group (p = 0.175). There were no statistical significant differences between the two groups for chemotherapy-related toxicity. Response to chemotherapy was significantly better in the amifostine group. CONCLUSION:amifostine did not reduce the ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity of our treatment regime. It was not well tolerated due to emesis. It is a selective cytoprotectant without reducing the effect of chemotherapy.
Authors: Claudia Lanvers-Kaminsky; Jason A Sprowl; Ingrid Malath; Dirk Deuster; Maria Eveslage; Eberhard Schlatter; Ron Hj Mathijssen; Joachim Boos; Heribert Jürgens; Antionette G Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen; Alex Sparreboom; Giuliano Ciarimboli Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: James G Gurney; Johnnie K Bass; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Jie Huang; Murali Chintagumpala; Eric Bouffet; Tim Hassall; Sridharan Gururangan; John A Heath; Stewart Kellie; Richard Cohn; Michael J Fisher; Atmaram Pai Panandiker; Thomas E Merchant; Ashok Srinivasan; Cynthia Wetmore; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Clinton F Stewart; Gregory T Armstrong; Alberto Broniscer; Amar Gajjar Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Xiong Min; Han Heng; Hua-Long Yu; Mao Dan; Chen Jie; Yun Zeng; He Ning; Zhi-Gang Liu; Zhi-Yong Wang; Wang Lin Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Duncan T Vincent; Yasmine F Ibrahim; Michael Graham Espey; Yuichiro J Suzuki Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Saro H Armenian; Gregory T Armstrong; Gregory Aune; Eric J Chow; Matthew J Ehrhardt; Bonnie Ky; Javid Moslehi; Daniel A Mulrooney; Paul C Nathan; Thomas D Ryan; Helena J van der Pal; Elvira C van Dalen; Leontien C M Kremer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven E Lipshultz; Melissa B Diamond; Vivian I Franco; Sanjeev Aggarwal; Kasey Leger; Maria Verônica Santos; Stephen E Sallan; Eric J Chow Journal: Paediatr Drugs Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.022
Authors: Lesley A Smith; Victoria R Cornelius; Christopher J Plummer; Gill Levitt; Mark Verrill; Peter Canney; Alison Jones Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 4.430