Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where John C. Michalak is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by John C. Michalak.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1994

Megestrol acetate for the prevention of hot flashes.

Charles L. Loprinzi; John C. Michalak; Susan K. Quella; Judith R. O'Fallon; Alan K. Hatfield; Robert A. Nelimark; Ann Marie Dose; Tammy Fischer; Claudia Johnson; Nancy E. Klatt; Walter W. Bate; Raylene M. Rospond; Joseph E. Oesterling

Background Vasomotor hot flashes are a common symptom in women during menopause and in men who have undergone androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Although treatment with estrogens in women and androgens in men can attenuate these symptoms, these hormones may be contraindicated in women with breast cancer and in men with prostate cancer. Pilot trials have suggested that the progestational agent megestrol acetate can ameliorate hot flashes in both groups of patients. Methods The patients included 97 women with a history of breast cancer and 66 men with prostate cancer who had undergone androgen-deprivation therapy. All patients had experienced bothersome hot flashes (median number per day at base line, 6.1 for the women and 8.4 for the men). After a one-week pretreatment observation period, the patients received megestrol acetate (20 mg twice daily) for four weeks, followed by placebo for four weeks, or vice versa in a double-blind manner as determined by pretreatment randomization. The patien...


Cancer | 2007

Efficacy of gabapentin in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (N00C3)

Ravi D. Rao; John C. Michalak; Jeff A. Sloan; Charles L. Loprinzi; Gamini S. Soori; Daniel A. Nikcevich; David O. Warner; Paul J. Novotny; Leila A. Kutteh; Gilbert Y. Wong

The antiepileptic agent, gabapentin, has been demonstrated to relieve symptoms of peripheral neuropathy due to various etiologies. On the basis of these data, a multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover, randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of gabapentin on symptoms of chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 1993

Phase III evaluation of four doses of megestrol acetate as therapy for patients with cancer anorexia and/or cachexia.

Charles L. Loprinzi; John C. Michalak; Daniel J. Schaid; James A. Mailliard; Laurie M. Athmann; Richard M. Goldberg; Loren K. Tschetter; Alan K. Hatfield; Roscoe F. Morton

PURPOSE Several placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that megestrol acetate can result in appetite stimulation and nonfluid weight gain in patients with cancer anorexia/cachexia. The present trial was designed to compare megestrol acetate doses ranging from 160 to 1,280 mg/d. METHODS This trial randomized 342 assessable patients with cancer anorexia/cachexia to receive oral megestrol acetate at doses of 160, 480, 800, or 1,280 mg/d. Patients were evaluated monthly by history, examination, patient-completed questionnaires, and serum albumin levels. RESULTS The data demonstrate that there is a positive dose-response effect for megestrol acetate on appetite stimulation (P < or = .02). In concert, there was a trend for more nonfluid weight gain with higher drug doses. Megestrol acetate was well tolerated in this group of patients with advanced malignant disease. CONCLUSION The positive dose-response effect that we observed for megestrol acetate on appetite stimulation supports both our prestudy hypothesis and other available literature. Nonetheless, based primarily on the cost and inconvenience associated with the use of higher doses of this drug, it is reasonable to use 160 mg/d for the initial treatment of cancer anorexia/cachexia in routine clinical practice.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1999

LACK OF EFFECT OF COUMARIN IN WOMEN WITH LYMPHEDEMA AFTER TREATMENT FOR BREAST CANCER

Charles L. Loprinzi; John W. Kugler; Jeff A. Sloan; Thom W. Rooke; Susan K. Quella; Paul J. Novotny; Rex B. Mowat; John C. Michalak; Philip J. Stella; Ralph Levitt; Loren K. Tschetter; Harold E. Windschitl

BACKGROUND Lymphedema of the arms can be a serious consequence of local and regional therapy in women with breast cancer. Coumarin has been reported to be effective for the treatment of women with lymphedema; we undertook a study in which we attempted to replicate those findings. METHODS We studied 140 women with chronic lymphedema of the ipsilateral arm after treatment for breast cancer. The women received 200 mg of oral coumarin or placebo twice daily for six months and then the other treatment for the following six months. The end points of the study consisted of the volume of the arm (calculated from measurements of hand and arm circumference) and the answers on a questionnaire completed by the patient about symptoms potentially related to lymphedema. RESULTS The volumes of the arms at 6 and 12 months, were virtually identical, regardless of whether coumarin or placebo was given first. After six months, the average volume of the affected arm increased by 21 ml during placebo treatment and 58 ml during coumarin treatment (P=0.80). In addition, answers to patient-completed questionnaires were similar in the two treatment groups. After six months only 15 percent of the women in the coumarin group and 10 percent of those in the placebo group reported that the study medication had helped a moderate or large amount (P=0.19). Coumarin was well tolerated, except that it resulted in serologic evidence of liver toxicity in 6 percent of the women. CONCLUSIONS Coumarin is not effective therapy for women who have lymphedema of the arm after treatment for breast cancer.


Clinical Cancer Research | 2009

Immunogenicity and Antitumor Effects of Vaccination with Peptide Vaccine +/− Granulocyte-Monocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and/or IFN-α2b in Advanced Metastatic Melanoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase II Trial E1696

John M. Kirkwood; Sandra J. Lee; Stergios J. Moschos; Mark R. Albertini; John C. Michalak; Cindy Sander; Theresa L. Whiteside; Lisa H. Butterfield; Louis M. Weiner

Purpose: No therapy has ever shown prolongation of survival in stage IV metastatic melanoma. The association of cytokine-induced autoimmunity with improved prognosis led us to investigate the effect of multi-epitope melanoma vaccines alone and in combination with cytokines in this Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group multicenter phase II trial. Experimental Design: Eligible patients were required to have failed prior therapies and to be HLA-A2 positive. Three HLA class I-restricted lineage antigen epitopes were administered in a factorial 2 × 2 design. Peptide vaccine alone (arm A), or combined with granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; Immunex) 250 μg/d subcutaneously for 14 of 28 days each month (arm B), or combined with IFN-α2b (Intron A; Schering-Plough) 10 million units/m2 three times a week (arm C), or combined with both IFN-α2b and GM-CSF (arm D). The primary endpoint was immune response measured by enzyme-linked immunospot assay; secondary endpoints were clinical antitumor response, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Results: One hundred twenty patients enrolled and 115 patients were analyzed. Immune responses to at least one melanoma antigen were observed in 26 of 75 (35%) patients with serial samples. Neither IFN-α2b nor GM-CSF significantly improved immune responses. Six objective clinical responses were documented. At a median follow-up of 25.4 months, the median overall survival of patients with vaccine immune response was significantly longer than that of patients with no immune response (21.3 versus 13.4 months; P = 0.046). Conclusion: Immune response to vaccination correlates with prolonged survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and is not enhanced by immunomodulatory cytokines as tested in this trial.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2003

Nicotine Patch Therapy Based on Smoking Rate Followed by Bupropion for Prevention of Relapse to Smoking

Richard D. Hurt; James E. Krook; Ivana T. Croghan; Charles L. Loprinzi; Jeff A. Sloan; Paul J. Novotny; Carl G. Kardinal; James A. Knost; Maria Tria Tirona; Ferdinand Addo; Roscoe F. Morton; John C. Michalak; Paul L. Schaefer; Patricia A. Porter; Philip J. Stella

PURPOSE To determine whether (1) tailored nicotine patch therapy that is based on smoking rate can be carried out in a multisite oncology investigative group practice setting, (2) long-term use of bupropion reduces the rate of relapse to smoking in smokers who stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy, and (3) bupropion can initiate smoking abstinence among smokers who have failed to stop smoking after nicotine patch therapy. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS Fourteen North Central Cancer Treatment Group sites recruited generally healthy adult smokers from the general population for nicotine patch therapy and based the patch dosage on smoking rates. At completion of nicotine patch therapy, nonsmoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 6 months (for relapse prevention). and smoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS Of 578 subjects, 31% were abstinent from smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy. Of those subjects not smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy who entered the relapse prevention phase, 28% and 25% were not smoking at 6 months (the end of the medication phase) for bupropion and placebo, respectively (P =.73). For those still smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy, 3.1% and 0.0% stopped smoking with bupropion or placebo, respectively (P =.12). CONCLUSION Tailored nicotine patch therapy for the general population of smokers can be provided in a multisite oncology investigative group setting. Bupropion did not reduce relapse to smoking in smokers who stopped smoking with nicotine patch therapy. Bupropion did not initiate abstinence among smokers who failed to stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2000

Sucralfate in the Prevention of Treatment-Induced Diarrhea in Patients Receiving Pelvic Radiation Therapy: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase III Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

James A. Martenson; John W. Bollinger; Jeff A. Sloan; Paul J. Novotny; Rodolfo E. Urias; John C. Michalak; Thomas G. Shanahan; James A. Mailliard; Ralph Levitt

PURPOSE Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate. Several other measures of bowel function were also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients receiving pelvic RT to a minimum of 45 Gy at 1.7 to 2.1 Gy/d were eligible for the study. Patients were assigned randomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical looking placebo during pelvic RT. RESULTS One hundred twenty-three patients were randomly assigned and found assessable. Overall, there was no significant difference in patient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo. Moderate or worse diarrhea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence (16% v 34%, respectively; P =. 04) and need for protective clothing (8% v 23%, respectively; P =. 04). The incidence and severity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P =.03). Analysis of patient-reported symptoms 10 to 12 months after RT showed a nonsignificant trend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v 1.9 problems, respectively; P =.34). CONCLUSION Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxicity by any of the end points measured and seems to have aggravated some gastrointestinal symptoms.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 1999

Phase III Clinical Trial of the Combination of Cisplatin, Dacarbazine, and Carmustine With or Without Tamoxifen in Patients With Advanced Malignant Melanoma

Edward T. Creagan; Vera J. Suman; Robert J. Dalton; Henry C. Pitot; Harry J. Long; Michael H. Veeder; Allen M. Vukov; Kendrith M. Rowland; James E. Krook; John C. Michalak

PURPOSE A prospective randomized phase III clinical trial was conducted to assess whether the addition of tamoxifen (TAM) to the three-agent regimen of cisplatin (CDDP), dacarbazine (DTIC), and carmustine (BCNU) significantly increased the progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced malignant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced malignant melanoma were treated with CDDP + DTIC + BCNU (CDB) with or without TAM. The dose schedule was CDDP 25 mg/m(2) given intravenously (IV) for 30 to 45 minutes in 500 mL of dextrose and (1/2) normal saline (NS) on days 1 to 3 of a 3-week cycle; DTIC 220 mg/m(2) IV for 1 hour in 500 mL of dextrose and (1/2) NaCl on days 1 to 3 of a 3-week cycle; BCNU 150 mg/m(2) IV for 2 to 3 hours in 750 to 1,000 mL of dextrose and 5% water on day 1 of every odd 3-week cycle; and TAM 20 mg taken orally every morning. RESULTS There were 184 eligible patients enrolled. These patients were observed until death or for a minimum of 1.3 years. At last contact, 12 were still alive. The median time to progression was 3.4 months on the CDB arm and 3.1 months on the CDB + TAM arm. The median survival time was 6.8 months with CDB and 6.9 months with CDB + TAM. Progression-free survival (P =.429) and overall survival (P =.545) were not found to differ by treatment. CONCLUSION The addition of TAM to this three-agent regimen of CDB was not found to provide a meaningful clinical advantage in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant melanoma.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 1997

Phase III controlled evaluation of sucralfate to alleviate stomatitis in patients receiving fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.

Charles L. Loprinzi; Chirantan Ghosh; John Camoriano; Jeff A. Sloan; P. Steen; John C. Michalak; Paul L. Schaefer; PaulJ. Novotny; James B. Gerstner; D. F. White; Alan K. Hatfield; Susan K. Quella

PURPOSE Stomatitis is a major dose-limiting toxicity of bolus fluorouracil (5FU)-based chemotherapy regimens, despite the use of oral cryotherapy. Pursuant to preliminary data that suggested a sucralfate oral solution could alleviate chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, we developed a prospective trial to test this contention. PATIENTS AND METHODS A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was designed. Patients were entered onto the study at the time of the first cycle of 5FU-based chemotherapy. All patients received oral cryotherapy for 30 minutes with each dose of 5FU. In addition, each patient was randomized to receive either a sucralfate solution or a placebo solution to be used if they developed mouth tenderness or mouth sores. The study solution was to be used four times daily for 7 days starting on the first day of mouth tenderness or mouth sores. Stomatitis scores were determined by health care providers and by patients themselves. RESULTS There was a total of 131 assessable patients entered onto this trial, 50 of whom developed mucositis and used the study medication (27 sucralfate and 23 placebo). There was no suggestion of any difference in stomatitis severity or duration on either protocol arm. CONCLUSION The resultant data from this clinical trial did not support the prestudy hypothesis that sucralfate would be beneficial for the treatment of 5FU-induced stomatitis.


American Journal of Clinical Oncology | 1999

Paclitaxel and G-CSF in previously untreated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

Ron J. Kirschling; Joseph P. Grill; Randolph S. Marks; John W. Kugler; James B. Gerstner; Steven A. Kuross; John C. Michalak; Harold E. Windschitl; Keith D. Krewer; James R. Jett

Paclitaxel is an antimicrotubule agent that interferes with cell division. It has demonstrated promising single-agent activity against non-small-cell lung cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of paclitaxel in previously untreated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The study was designed as a two-stage phase II trial. All patients who entered received paclitaxel by intravenous infusion at a dose of 250 mg/m2 during 24 hours. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor was also provided to ameliorate neutropenia. Cycles were repeated at 21-day intervals. Patients who achieved a complete response received a maximum of 10 cycles of treatment, whereas those who achieved a partial response/regression continued treatment until progression or undue toxicity developed. Patients who progressed or maintained stable disease for six cycles were crossed over to cisplatin and etoposide. Forty-three patients entered the study and all were evaluable for analysis. Responses were observed in 23 (53%) of the patients. There was no significant difference in the response rates in patients with measurable or evaluable disease (13/23 versus 10/20, p = 0.76). At the time of analysis, 39 patients had progressed with a median time to progression of 95 days, and 39 patients had died with a median survival of 278 days. The 1-year achieved survival rate was 24%. Significant neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <1,000/microl) occurred in 24 (56%) of the patients, but only 2 patients experienced severe infection (grade > or = 3), and there were no septic deaths. The results indicate that paclitaxel is active against SCLC. Myelosuppression was the main side effect in this patient population. Response duration was short (median = 3.4 months), which suggests that paclitaxel is not sufficient as a single agent. Further studies of paclitaxel in combination with other agents against SCLC are currently in progress within the North Central Cancer Treatment Group and other cancer treatment groups. Key Words: Paclitaxel-G-CSF-Small-cell lung cancer-North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

Collaboration


Dive into the John C. Michalak's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jeff A. Sloan

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge