Literature DB >> 3823915

Scientific basis for adjuvant and primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy.

J H Goldie.   

Abstract

It can be stated as a general biological principle that there are many compelling reasons why chemotherapy should be directed at minimal tumor burdens. This is true whatever the nature of the tumor and becomes especially valid when one is dealing with tumors that are not curable when treated at the advanced stage. The patients who are likely to have the greatest benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy are, somewhat paradoxically, those who are at the least risk for recurrence following primary treatment. This is because, on the average, these patients will have the least tumor burdens. Patients who are at very high risk for relapse in breast cancer, (stage II patients with four plus positive nodes) will be the ones with the greatest subclinical burdens and may well have already crossed the threshold of curability to incurability. Directing effective chemotherapy programs at patients with lesser risk of recurrence complicates the ethical problems associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. To some degree, these ethical concerns can be assuaged by the appreciation that it is likely that protracted programs of chemotherapy (1 to 2 years) may well not be necessary. In general, curative drug programs can generally accomplish objectives with 3 to 6 months of fairly intensive treatment. Reducing the duration of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil (CMF) from 12 months to 6 months did not appear to have an adverse effect on long-term results. Factors such as dose intensity and early use of effective noncross-resistant agents may be much more important than the chronic administration of agents in suboptimal dosage. The narrower question as to whether advancing the time forward of adjuvant chemotherapy will make additional significant impact on survival cannot be answered yet but clearly is an important issue. There are several theoretical reasons why neoadjuvant treatment might be of particular benefit, and even if it ultimately transpires that breast cancer is not an ideal model disease for this approach, it does not preclude this particular technique for being effective in other types of malignancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3823915

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Oncol        ISSN: 0093-7754            Impact factor:   4.929


  6 in total

Review 1.  Intralesional treatment for advanced melanoma: what's on the horizon?

Authors:  Sanjiv Agarwala
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2016-05-25

Review 2.  Management of locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  P I Borgen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Authors:  Federico Coccolini; Federico Gheza; Marco Lotti; Salvatore Virzì; Domenico Iusco; Claudio Ghermandi; Rita Melotti; Gianluca Baiocchi; Stefano Maria Giulini; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Prophylaxis with intraoperative chemohyperthermia against peritoneal recurrence of serosal invasion-positive gastric cancer.

Authors:  Y Yonemura; I Ninomiya; M Kaji; K Sugiyama; K Fujimura; T Sawa; K Katayama; S Tanaka; Y Hirono; K Miwa
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1995 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  An ETP model (exclusion-tolerance-progression) for multi drug resistance.

Authors:  Subburaj Kannan
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2005-04-27       Impact factor: 2.432

Review 6.  Intralesional therapy for advanced melanoma: promise and limitation.

Authors:  Sanjiv S Agarwala
Journal:  Curr Opin Oncol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.645

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.