Background. Evidence on the management and treatment of male breast cancer is scant. We report the analysis of a multicenter Italian series of patients with male breast cancer treated with eribulin. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the use or eribulin in this setting. Patients and Methods. Patients were retrospectively identified in 19 reference centers. All patients received eribulin treatment, according to the standard practice of each center. Data on the identified patients were collected using a standardized form and were then centrally reviewed by two experienced oncologists. Results. A total of 23 patients (median age, 64 years; range, 42-80) were considered. The median age at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer was 57 years (range, 42-74). HER2 status was negative in 14 patients (61%), and 2 patients (9%) had triple-negative disease. The most common metastatic

In this study we evaluated the antiemetic activity of a combination of 3 mg granisetron in a short i.v. infusion followed by 12 mg dexamethasone i.v. in 64 patients with cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy scheduled in a single day. No patient had previously undergone chemotherapy and three consecutive cycles were evaluated. Response to antiemetic treatment was graded as follows: complete response, no episodes of vomiting; major response, only one episode; minor response, two to four episodes; failure, more than four episodes. Nausea was graded as absent, mild, moderate or severe (patients bedridden). At the first cycle a complete protection from acute vomiting and nausea was achieved in 95% and 73% of patients respectively; the rate of complete response for delayed vomiting was 90%, while 45% of patients complained of delayed nausea. The antiemetic and antinausea efficacy remained substantially unchanged during the second and third cycles of chemotherapy. Constipation and headache were the most frequent adverse events. In conclusion this antiemetic regimen appears very effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

The Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (GOIRC) randomized 55 naive patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) between intravenous fluorouracil (5FU) 400 mg/m2, days 1-5 and folinic acid (FA) 200 mg/m2, days 1-5 alone, using Machover's schedule, or with FU, FA, and ifosfamide (IFO) 5 g/m2, day 1 and Mesna. In both arms, treatment was repeated every 28 days. Fifty-one patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 6% (3 out of 51), 1 out of 29 (3%) complete response (CR) in the arm with FU plus FA, and 2 out of 22 (9%) partial responses (PR) in the arm with IFO. The duration of response rate was 39, 55, and 74 weeks, respectively. Median survival time was 21 weeks (range, 4-83 weeks) for 5FU/FA and 16 weeks (range, 3-106 weeks) for the FU/FA/IFO arm. Diarrhea, mucositis, and vomiting occurred in the majority of patients. One patient died due to toxicity. The combination of 5FU plus FA failed to demonstrate therapeutic activity in patients with APC and was associated with moderate to severe toxicity that could lower the quality of life of these patients. Ifosfamide did not potentiate the activity of this combination. Neither of these combinations should be considered for treatment of patients with APC.

This study aimed to verify whether the advantage in terms of response rate and survival of dacarbazine plus tamoxifen over dacarbazine alone in metastatic malignant melanoma reported in a previous randomized trial was due to a specific interaction of dacarbazine with tamoxifen. A total of 125 patients with locoregional or disseminated malignant melanoma were randomized to receive dacarbazine (250 mg/m(2) days 1-5 every 3 weeks) plus tamoxifen (arm A) or vindesine (3 mg/m(2) every week for 6 weeks, then every 2 weeks) plus tamoxifen (arm B). Of the 125 randomized patients, 57 and 59 were evaluable in arm A and B, respectively. The complete response rates were the same (2% versus 2%) and the complete plus partial response rates were similar (11% versus 14%) in the two groups. There was no significant difference in survival. Neither response or survival correlated with gender. In conclusion, when combined with tamoxifen, dacarbazine does not have a specific effect on response or survival compared with vindesine. The lower response rate to dacarbazine plus tamoxifen (11%) than that reported in the previous trial (28%) might be explained by actual differences in patient and/or participating centre accrual characteristics in the presence of apparently identical eligibility criteria.

The Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research tested two experimental chemotherapy strategies in an attempt to improve the results achievable with conventional chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. One hundred sixty-two patients were randomly allocated as follows: (a) to the conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy regimen (CMF); (b) to a rotational crossing program (ROT-CROSS); or (c) to a sequential intensification program (SEQ-INT). The same single agents (C, M, F, cisplatin, etoposide, and doxorubicin) were administered in both experimental arms, but following a different policy. The SEQ-INT program induced a significantly higher complete response (32% vs. 6%, p = 0.0006) and objective response rate (72% vs. 42%, p = 0.0047) than CMF did. There were no differences in survival between CMF and either experimental arm. A number of side effects were significantly more with both experimental chemotherapies than with CMF, but the treatments were generally tolerable. Although some caution is required when interpreting a significant advantage found between an entire chemotherapeutic strategy and a single conventional combination, this study documents the potential therapeutic advantage of administering different sequential chemotherapies, and changing each at the time of maximum result without waiting for a progression. The impressive cytoreductive effects achievable with this policy (SEQ-INT) in metastatic disease merit further investigation in the adjuvant setting.