The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

English version of Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines 2022 for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) issued by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines 2022 for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) have been published in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development 2014 and 2017. A specialized team independent of the working group for the revision performed a systematic review. Since GIST is a rare type of tumor, clinical evidence is not sufficient to answer several clinical and background questions. Thus, in these guidelines, we considered that consensus among the experts who manage GIST, the balance between benefits and harms, patients' wishes, medical economic perspective, etc. are important considerations in addition to the evidence. Although guidelines for the treatment of GIST have also been published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), there are some differences between the treatments proposed in those guidelines and the treatments in the present guidelines because of the differences in health insurance systems among countries.

A multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramelteon for the prevention of postoperative delirium in elderly cancer patients: a study protocol for JORTC-PON2/J-SUPPORT2103/NCCH2103.

Postoperative delirium is an important issue in cancer patients, affecting surgical outcomes and the quality of life. Ramelteon is a melatonin receptor agonist with high affinity for MT1 and MT2 receptors. Clinical trials and observational studies in Japan, including in surgical cancer patients, have shown efficacy of ramelteon in delirium prevention, with no serious safety concerns. However, clinical trials from the USA have reported conflicting results. A Japanese phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of ramelteon for delirium prevention following gastrectomy in patients aged ≥75 years, with findings suggesting the feasibility of a phase III trial. The aim of this multi-centre, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral ramelteon for postoperative delirium prevention in cancer patients aged ≥65 years as advanced medical care. The trial protocol is described here.

Evaluation of hepatic CYP3A enzyme activity using endogenous markers in lung cancer patients treated with cisplatin, dexamethasone, and aprepitant.

PURPOSE: Aprepitant is used with dexamethasone and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists as an antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy, including cisplatin. Aprepitant is a substrate of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and is known to cause its inhibition and induction. In addition, dexamethasone is a CYP3A4 substrate that induces CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 expression. In this study, we aimed to quantitatively evaluate the profile of CYP3A activity using its endogenous markers in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving a standard cisplatin regimen with antiemetics, including aprepitant. METHODS: Urinary 11ß-hydroxytestosterone (11ß-OHT)/testosterone concentration ratio and plasma 4ß-hydroxycholesterol (4ß-OHC) concentrations were measured before and after cisplatin treatment (days 1, 4, and 8). CYP3A5 was genotyped, and plasma aprepitant concentrations were measured on day 4 to examine its influence on CYP3A endogenous markers. RESULTS: The urinary 11ß-OHT/testosterone concentration ratio in the 35 patients included in this study increased by 2.65-fold and 1.21-fold on days 4 and 8 compared with day 1, respectively. Their plasma 4ß-OHC concentration increased by 1.46-fold and 1.66-fold, respectively. The mean plasma aprepitant concentration on day 4 was 1,451 ng/mL, which is far lower than its inhibitory constant. The allele frequencies of CYP3A5*1 and CYP3A5*3 were 0.229 and 0.771, respectively. In patients with the CYP3A5*1 allele, the plasma 4ß-OHC concentration was significantly lower at baseline but more potently increased with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: CYP3A activity was significantly induced from day 4 to day 8 in patients receiving cisplatin and three antiemetic drugs.

Exacerbation of atrioventricular block associated with concomitant use of amlodipine and aprepitant in a lung cancer patient: A case report.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of second-degree atrioventricular block associated with concomitant use of aprepitant and amlodipine. CASE: A 73-year-old man with lung cancer was treated with aprepitant for prophylactic use for the prevention of nausea and vomiting, concomitantly with cisplatin, gemcitabine, and an investigational drug (anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody). He was diagnosed with first-degree atrioventricular block and was taking amlodipine for hypertension. During the first cycle of chemotherapy, 5 days after the start of aprepitant, he experienced Wenckebach second-degree atrioventricular block (Mobitz type I), and amlodipine was discontinued. After day 6, the atrioventricular block was not shown. According to the Naranjo adverse drug reaction scale, a score of 7 was obtained (causality: probable). In addition, using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale, a score of 6 was obtained (causality: probable). CONCLUSION: The drug-drug interaction between aprepitant and amlodipine was considered to have deteriorated his atrioventricular block, conceivably due to the inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A-mediated metabolism of amlodipine by aprepitant.

Olanzapine 5 mg plus standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (J-FORCE): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Guidelines suggest that a dose reduction to 5 mg should be considered to prevent sedation. In several phase 2 studies, olanzapine 5 mg has shown equivalent activity to olanzapine 10 mg and a favourable safety profile in relation to somnolence. We evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg with triplet-combination antiemetic therapy done in 26 hospitals in Japan. Key inclusion criteria were patients with a malignant tumour (excluding those with a haemopoietic malignancy) who were scheduled to be treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m2) for the first time, age between 20 and 75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily on days 1-4 combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (dosage based on the standard antiemetic therapy against highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Patients were randomly assigned to interventions by use of a web entry system and the minimisation method with a random component, with sex, dose of cisplatin, and age as factors of allocation adjustment. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and individuals handling data were all masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the delayed phase (24-120 h). All randomly assigned patients who satisfied eligibility criteria received a dose of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or more, and at least one study treatment, were included in efficacy analysis. All patients who received any treatment in this study were assessed for safety. This study is registered at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000024676. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2017, and July 13, 2018, 710 patients were enrolled; 356 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 354 were assigned to receive placebo. All eligible patients were observed 120 h after cisplatin initiation. One patient in the olanzapine group and three in the placebo group did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses. One patient in the olanzapine group discontinued treatment on day 1 and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response was 280 (79% [95% CI 75-83] of 354 patients in the olanzapine group and 231 (66% [61-71] of 351 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). One patient had grade 3 constipation and one patient had grade 3 somnolence related to treatment in the olanzapine group. INTERPRETATION: Olanzapine 5 mg combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone could be a new standard antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Impact of peripheral neuropathy induced by platinum in first-line chemotherapy on second-line chemotherapy with paclitaxel for advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum, followed by paclitaxel (PTX) plus ramucirumab is a recommended treatment strategy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). We investigated how peripheral neuropathy (PN), induced by platinum in first-line chemotherapy, affected the tolerability of second-line chemotherapy with PTX (2nd-PTX). METHODS: The subjects were AGC patients who received second-line chemotherapy with PTX (2nd-PTX) after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy between March 2015 and June 2018. We retrospectively reviewed PN severity, and dose reduction and/or discontinuation due to PN during 2nd-PTX, and compared the cumulative incidence of grade 2 PN between the two groups according to first-line chemotherapy containing oxaliplatin (L-OHP) or cisplatin (CDDP). RESULTS: The L-OHP and CDDP groups consisted of 50 patients each. PN severity before 2nd-PTX was grade 1/2 in 46/12% of patients in the L-OHP group, and 100/0% in the CDDP group. The worst grades of chemotherapy-induced PN during 2nd-PTX were grades 1/2/3 in 40/34/14% of patients in the L-OHP group, and 36/18/0% in the CDDP group. Median time to grade 2 PN after starting second-PTX was 2.5 months in the L-OHP group and 8.6 months in the CDDP group (hazard ratio 3.34, p = 0.002). The frequencies of a PN-related dose reduction and/or discontinuation of PTX were 18% in the L-OHP group and 8% in the CDDP group (p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of PN and tolerability of 2nd-PTX may be affected by first-line chemotherapy with L-OHP or CDDP for AGC.

Accuracy of predicting the vancomycin concentration in Japanese cancer patients by the Sawchuk-Zaske method or Bayesian method.

BACKGROUND: In cancer patients treated with vancomycin, therapeutic drug monitoring is currently performed by the Bayesian method that involves estimating individual pharmacokinetics from population pharmacokinetic parameters and trough concentrations rather than the Sawchuk-Zaske method using peak and trough concentrations. Although the presence of malignancy influences the pharmacokinetic parameters of vancomycin, it is unclear whether cancer patients were included in the Japanese patient populations employed to estimate population pharmacokinetic parameters for this drug. The difference of predictive accuracy between the Sawchuk-Zaske and Bayesian methods in Japanese cancer patients is not completely understood. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy of predicting vancomycin concentrations between the Sawchuk-Zaske method and the Bayesian method in Japanese cancer patients. METHODS: Using data from 48 patients with various malignancies, the predictive accuracy (bias) and precision of the two methods were assessed by calculating the mean prediction error, the mean absolute prediction error, and the root mean squared prediction error. RESULTS: Prediction of the trough and peak vancomycin concentrations by the Sawchuk-Zaske method and the peak concentration by the Bayesian method showed a bias toward low values according to the mean prediction error. However, there were no significant differences between the two methods with regard to the changes of the mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error, and root mean squared prediction error. CONCLUSION: The Sawchuk-Zaske method and Bayesian method showed similar accuracy for predicting vancomycin concentrations in Japanese cancer patients.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase â ¡ Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin K1 Ointment for Cetuximab or Panitumumab-Induced Acneiform Eruptions-VIKTORIA Study.

PURPOSE: Skin toxicities associated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor(EGFR)antibodies, have a profound effect on the continuation of treatment. We assessed the efficacy and safety of vitamin K1(VK1)ointment for acneiform eruptions induced by anti-EGFR antibody treatment. METHODS: The VK1 ointment was applied to one-half of an affected area and placebo ointment was applied to the other half twice a day for 8 weeks, with photography and clinical evaluation being performed every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change of the VK1/placebo ratio for the number of acneiform eruptions counted by an independent dermatologist between the onset and end of the treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled. The mean VK1/placebo ratio for the number of acneiform eruptions between the onset and end of the treatment period was -0.158±0.680 and 0.146±0.575, respectively, which was not statistically significant(p=0.069). The mean number of acneiform eruptions at each treatment period at the VK1 and placebo application sites was gradually decreased according to the treatment period. CONCLUSION: VK1 ointment was not effective against acneiform eruptions induced by treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab. Reassessment of the VK1 concentration in the ointment and the endpoint of skin lesions is required before designing further studies.

Risk factors associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the triplet antiemetic regimen including palonosetron or granisetron for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: analysis of a randomized, double-blind controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The triplet antiemetic regimen is recommended for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy, in the current guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis. Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified by several prior studies, there are only few studies evaluating risk factors associated with the prophylactic triplet antiemetic therapy, particularly in palonosetron use. The present study aimed to reveal the risk factors related to CINV development in patients receiving cisplatin and to compare CINV risk factors between palonosetron and granisetron use. METHODS: In total, 825 patients in a phase III trial receiving palonosetron with graniestron were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV development. Additionally, risk factors associated with CINV development were separately evaluated in each treatment group. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that sex, age, cisplatin dose, and granisetron use were significant and independent factors affecting CINV development in the overall phase. Similarly, sex and age were risk factors for CINV in both treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves classified by each treatment group showed no significant difference between the groups among patients without any risk factors for CINV (P = 0.353). Conversely, complete response rates for patients with at least one risk factor were higher in patients receiving palonosetron (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis revealed the importance of previously reported CINV risk factors when using triplet antiemetics. Palonosetron might be preferred for patients with at least one risk factor.

Evaluation of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose i.v. fosaprepitant has been approved as an alternative to 3 day oral aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Because fosaprepitant has shown similar efficacy to aprepitant in adult patients only, this study compared the efficacy and safety of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. METHODS: Children younger than 18 years who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant to manage CINV between January 2015 and March 2018 at the National Cancer Center Hospital (Tokyo) were recruited to this study. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/rescue medication) between 0 and 120 h after the start of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were safety based on the frequency of severe adverse events, and evaluation of patient characteristics as risk factors (effect of age and sex). RESULTS: A total of 125 chemotherapy cycles were evaluated. In the aprepitant group, CR was observed in 36 of 80 treatment cycles (45.0%), whereas in the fosaprepitant group, it was observed in 19 of 45 cycles (42.2%; P = 0.852). No treatment-related severe adverse events were observed in either group. The number of non-CR was greater than that of CR in patients aged 6-14 years. The difference in CR rate between male and female patients was not statistically significant (47.1% vs 40.0%, respectively; P = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant and fosaprepitant were safely used and may be equally useful for pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. CR rate may be associated with patient age.

[Recent Findings in Antiemetic Therapy and the Role of Pharmacists].

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)have been improved by several clinical trials. However, it is necessary to select antiemetic therapy for each patient, as there are cases where nausea and vomiting have not improved or are experiencing unpleasant adverse events. In this report, we would like to introduce the latest findings in antiemetic therapy for highly emetic chemotherapy by categorized NK1 receptor antagonist, steroids, and olanzapine. Especially for olanzapine, we are going to introduce the J-FORCE as one of the latest findings. This study was confirmed the usefulness of 5 mg olanzapine to improve side effects such as sleepiness caused by olanzapine 10 mg used in the United States. We hope that these findings will be fully utilized to help provide the best antiemetic therapy for many patients.

Study protocol for J-SUPPORT 1604 (J-FORCE): a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study evaluating olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

The Guidelines of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology recommend standard triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Recently, a Phase III study demonstrated the significance of adding of olanzapine (10 mg) to standard triple antiemetic therapy. Olanzapine is associated with somnolence, and we have previously conducted a randomized Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 10 mg and 5 mg olanzapine. Lower dose of olanzapine reduced the incidence of somnolence. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5 mg) combined with standard triple antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This study initiated in Feb 2017. A total of 690 patients are planned to be enrolled over a period of 2 years. This study has been registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000024676.

A double-blind randomized phase II dose-finding study of olanzapine 10 mg or 5 mg for the prophylaxis of emesis induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two doses (10 and 5 mg) of olanzapine in combination with standard antiemetic treatment (aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: A multi-institutional, double-blind, randomized phase II, dose-finding study of olanzapine was performed in patients with a malignant solid tumor who were receiving HEC with cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m2). Patients were randomly assigned either olanzapine 10 or 5 mg orally on days 1-4, combined with standard antiemetic treatment. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medications) in the delayed phase (24-120 h after the start of cisplatin treatment). RESULTS: 153 patients were randomized to the 10 mg group (n = 76) or the 5 mg group (n = 77). The CR rate in the delayed phase was 77.6% (80% CI: 70.3-83.8, P = 0.01) in the 10 mg group and 85.7% (80% CI: 79.2-90.7, P < 0.001) in the 5 mg group (P value for H 0: complete response rate ≤ 65%). The most common adverse event was somnolence, which had an incidence of 53.3 and 45.5% in the 10 and 5 mg olanzapine groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine provided a significant improvement in delayed emesis. A dose of 5 mg olanzapine was determined as the recommended dose for a further phase III study based on higher CR and lower somnolence rates. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: UMIN000014214.

Amrubicin in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the gastrointestinal tract.

Although the same treatment strategy as used for small cell lung cancer, including second-line chemotherapy, is generally applied to metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT; GIT-NEC/MANEC), the efficacy of amrubicin (AMR) for GIT-NEC/MANEC is not well known. We retrospectively analyzed platinum-refractory GIT-NEC/MANEC patients who received AMR between February 2004 and July 2012 at the National Cancer Center Hospital. The AMR dose administered was 30-45 mg/m on days 1-3 every 3-4 weeks. The overall response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines, version 1.0, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse events by National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events guidelines, version 4.0 were evaluated. Nineteen patients received AMR. The response rate for 16 assessable patients was 18.8% (95% confidence interval, 4.1-45.7), the median progression-free survival was 3.8 months (2.3-5.3), and the median overall survival was 7.7 months (7.1-8.2). Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 52.6% of patients and febrile neutropenia occurred in 10.5%. Other nonhematological toxicities were mild and treatment-related deaths were not observed. AMR may have a modest effect, with tolerable toxicities, on patients with platinum-refractory GIT-NEC/MANEC. Further prospective evaluations are warranted.

A double-blind randomized Phase II study of olanzapine 10 mg versus 5 mg for emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

A randomized Phase II dose-finding trial comparing olanzapine 10 mg with olanzapine 5 mg for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy with cisplatin was started in June 2014. The purpose of the trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two olanzapine doses and to determine which is more promising as a test arm for comparison with the current standard antiemetic care (a combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone) in a subsequent Phase III trial. Patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens will be randomized to the olanzapine 10 or 5 mg arm. A total of 150 patients will be accumulated from nine institutions over 2 years. The primary endpoint is complete response defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medications in the delayed (24-120 h) phase. This trial has been registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000014214.

[Influence of the Use of a Closed System Drug Transfer Device on the Preparation Time of Anticancer Drugs].

A closed system drug transfer device (CSTD) helps to minimize unnecessary exposure of healthcare workers such as pharmacists to hazardous drugs. One of the concerns in using CSTDs to prepare anticancer drugs is their influence on preparation time. Therefore, we compared the time needed to prepare anticancer drugs with the CSTDs NEOSHIELD® and BD PhaSeal® system and with an injection needle. In the comparison of NEOSHIELD® and an injection needle, the preparation time of the liquid formulations of the cytotoxic drugs irinotecan, eribulin, cisplatin, docetaxel, and paclitaxel was significantly shorter with the injection needle and that of gemcitabine was significantly shorter with NEOSHIELD®, but that of oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and doxorubicin was not significantly different between the two methods; the preparation time of the liquid formulations of the molecular-targeted drugs atezolizumab, obinutuzumab, cetuximab, daratumumab and vorhyaluronidase alfa, nivolumab, ramucirumab, and rituximab was significantly shorter with NEOSHIELD® and that of bevacizumab and pembrolizumab was significantly shorter with the injection needle; and the preparation time of the lyophilized formulation of cytotoxic and molecular-targeted drugs was not significantly different between the two methods. In the comparison of NEOSHIELD® and BD PhaSeal® system, the preparation time of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide was significantly shorter with NEOSHIELD®, but that of bendamustine was not significantly different between the two CSTDs. In conclusion, these results suggest that the preparation time with CSTDs may be similar to or shorter than that with an injection needle, depending on the type of CSTD and the drug formulation and type.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of vitamin K1 ointment for the treatment of patients with cetuximab-induced acneiform eruption.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of vitamin K1 ointment for the treatment of patients with cetuximab-induced acneiform eruption has started. Vitamin K1 ointment and placebo are applied twice daily for 8 consecutive weeks after the development of acneiform eruptions. Vitamin K1 ointment is applied in the middle of one side (face, neck or chest) and placebo is applied to the other side. The primary endpoint is the regression rate of acneiform eruptions on right- and left-side lesions in the same patient, compared with baseline at the final evaluation in the 10-week trial. The secondary endpoints include adverse events of acneiform eruption and other adverse events.

Reasons for avoidance of bevacizumab with first-line FOLFOX for advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy has significant clinical benefits in metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its use is often avoided due to patient condition or disease status. METHODS: Of 228 consecutive patients receiving first-line FOLFOX-based regimens from June 2007 to June 2009, 96 patients (42 %) received FOLFOX alone without bevacizumab. We retrospectively examined the reasons why bevacizumab was not combined with FOLFOX. RESULTS: Among 96 patients for whom the addition of bevacizumab was avoided, 73 patients (76 %) had bevacizumab-related contraindications including hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, thromboembolic events, wound-healing complications and gastrointestinal perforation. Other avoidance reasons were conditions precluding the use of bevacizumab in 15 patients (16 %), economic problems and anxiety about adverse events in 8 patients (8 %), and unknown reasons in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab-related contraindications were the main reason for drug avoidance, though economic problems and anxiety about rare but serious adverse events were also factors for avoidance of bevacizumab.