No abstract

Background : The aim of this study was to investigate quality of life (QOL) and night-time sleep disturbance in colon cancer patients with middle risk chemotherapy for proper antiemetic therapy. Methods : The study enrolled 139 patients with colorectal cancer. All patients received oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Patients completed a questionnaire about chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and sleep disturbance. Sleep disturbance was checked, and the relationship between sleep disturbance and nausea was analyzed. Results : The prevalence of nausea was 48.9% (68 / 139). The degree of the nausea was slight / moderate / severe in 51 / 11 / 6 patients, and 12 patients had vomiting. Appetite showed no change / slightly decreased / half / onefourth / none in 51 / 34 / 33 / 6 / 7 patients. There were significant differences in the mental component summary (MCS) score and the role-social component score (RCS). (MCS : nausea(+) vs nausea(-) 46.4 ± 1.1 vs 54.1 ± 1.1 p < 0.01 RCS : nausea(+) vs nausea(-) 33.1 ± 2.1 vs 41.6 ± 2.1 p < 0.01). Using the MCS with a cut-off score of 50, patients were divided into two groups, and nausea was significantly correlated with a low MCS score. Furthermore, patients were divided into two groups using a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index cut-off score of 6, and sleep disturbance was correlated with old age and second-line chemotherapy. Conclusions : Nausea affects QOL and night-time sleep of colon cancer patients with middle risk chemotherapy.

Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with 5-FU has been widely used to improve local control of disease and to preserve anal sphincter in the treatment of rectal cancer. UFT and S-1 as oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD)-inhibitory fluoropyrimidines enhance the therapeutic effect of 5-FU by modulating its metabolic pathways. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of CRT using UFT versus S-1 in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: Fifty-nine patients who received preoperative CRT (40 Gy radiotherapy) were randomly assigned to either UFT or S-1 groups. UFT and S-1 were administered during the radiotherapy course. Response to CRT was determined using a histopathologic examination and RECIST of surgically resected specimens and classified as responders (CR, PR and Grade 2, 3) or nonresponders (SD, PD and Grade 0, 1). Results: All patients were randomly allocated to S-1 group (n = 30) or UFT group (n = 29). Pathological response rate (Grade 2 and Grade 3) was 57% in the S-1 group and 45% in the UFT group (p = 0.36). Pathological complete response (CR) rate (Grade3) was 7% in the S-1 group and 4% in the UFT group (p = 0.98). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in regard to the response rate of RECIST (p = 0.52). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups based on the downstaging rate, resection of tumor, sphincter preservation and marginal invasion. The incidence of Grade 3 diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the S-1 group (7%) compared with the UFT group (0%) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The results supported the conclusion that CRT using UFT or S-1 is effective and feasible for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

No abstract

No abstract