A Retrospective Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Cancer.

Background and Objectives: Opioid analgesics, which are used for cancer-related pain management, cause opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Naldemedine, a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist, is an OIC-modifying agent, but no focused efficacy and safety analysis has been conducted for its use in hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers. We performed a multi-institutional study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer using opioids in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer (including liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers) treated with opioids and naldemedine during hospitalization at ten institutions in Japan from June 2017 to August 2019. We assessed the frequency of bowel movements before and after the initiation of naldemedine therapy. Responders were defined as patients who defecated ≥3 times/week, with an increase from a baseline of ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after the initiation of naldemedine administration. Results: Thirty-four patients were observed for one week before and one week after starting naldemedine. The frequency of bowel movements increased by one over the baseline frequency or to at least thrice per week in 21 patients. The response rate was 61.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.4-78.0%). The median number of weekly bowel movements before and after naldemedine treatment was 2 (range: 0-9) and 6 (range: 1-17), respectively, in the overall population (n = 34); the increase in the number of bowel movements following naldemedine administration was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the predominant gastrointestinal symptom, and 10 (29.4%) patients experienced grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3 adverse events. The only other adverse event included fatigue in one patient; grade 2-4 adverse events were absent. Conclusions: Naldemedine is effective, and its use may be safe in clinical practice for patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer receiving opioid analgesics.

Real-World Patient Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Chart Review Study.

Background and Objectives: Naldemedine is a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist that improves opioid-induced constipation. Although clinical trials have excluded patients with poor performance status (PS) and those started on naldemedine early after opioid initiation, clinical practice has used naldemedine for the same patients. Therefore, we investigated the treatment patterns of naldemedine in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review study of opioid-treated patients with cancer receiving naldemedine. Adverse events that occurred within 7 days of naldemedine initiation were evaluated in those who received one or more doses of the same. Effectiveness was assessed in patients who used naldemedine for more than 7 days. Results: A total of 296 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria, among whom 129 (43.6%) had a PS of ≥3 and 176 (59.5%) started naldemedine within 2 weeks of opioid initiation. Moreover, 203 (79.6%) patients had ≥3 bowel movements per week. Incidences of all grades of diarrhea and abdominal pain were 87 (29.4%) and 12 (4.1%), respectively. No patient had grade 4 or higher adverse events. Conclusions: Although nearly half of the patients receiving naldemedine in clinical practice belonged to populations that were not included in the clinical trials, our results suggested that naldemedine in clinical practice had the same efficacy and safety as that in clinical trials.

[Adenocarcinoma in the Lung Detected Due to the Development of Perforative Peritonitis Caused by Small Intestinal Metastasis-A Case Report].

Previous studies have reported that perforations of the small intestine caused by metastatic tumors prior to the diagnosis of primary lung cancer are very rare. A 79-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with acute lower abdominal pain. Abdominal computed tomography revealed intraperitoneal free air around the bowel wall thickening in the small intestine. The patient was diagnosed with acute peritonitis caused by perforation of the small intestine, and an emergency operation was performed. Laparotomy revealed perforation in the jejunum without any palpable tumor in the abdomen. Partial resection of the jejunum revealed an ulcerating lesion at the perforation site. Histological examination indicated small intestinal metastasis secondary to lung adenocarcinoma. Positron emission tomography performed after discharge showed a small reticular opacity with intense accumulation of FDG in the left lung. The patient was diagnosed with perforation of the small intestine metastasis secondary to lung adenocarcinoma. The postoperative course was uneventful; the patient received chemotherapy, and is alive 6months after the operation.

[A Case of Orange-Induced Small Bowel Diverticular Obstruction Treated with Laparoscopically-Assisted Surgery].

We report a case of orange-induced small bowel diverticular obstruction treated with laparoscopically-assisted surgery. A 64-year-old man was seen at the hospitalbecause of abdominalpain and vomiting after dinner. Abdominalcomputed tomography( CT)showed a small intestinal ileus. We performed laparoscopically-assisted surgery on the same day for definitive diagnosis and treatment. The postoperative course was uneventful. The pathological diagnosis was orange-induced small boweldiverticul ar obstruction. Food-induced smallbowelobstruction is rare disease, but often requires surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is an effective option for surgery of food-induced smallbowel obstruction.

[A Giant Malignant Lymphoma of the Ileocecum Treated with Laparoscopic Surgery].

We experienced a case ofa giant malignant lymphoma ofthe ileocecum treated with laparoscopic surgery. A 78-year-old man presented with right flank pain. Lower endoscopy and abdominal computed tomography revealed a giant tumor in ileocecum. Biopsy results suggested malignant lymphoma or adenocarcinoma. We performed a laparoscopic ileocecal resection for definite diagnosis and treatment. The postoperative course was uneventful. The pathological diagnosis was malignant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The patient underwent chemotherapy and is being followed. Laparoscopic surgery can be considered useful to resect gastrointestinal malignant lymphoma.

[A Giant Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm Treated with Laparoscopic Surgery].

We encountered a case of giant appendiceal mucinous neoplasm that was treated with laparoscopic surgery. The patient was a 77-year-old man with constipation. Lower endoscopy demonstrated a giant SMT-like tumor in the cecum, and abdominal computed tomography revealed a giant appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and nearby lymph nodes swelling. Hematological examination showed an elevated serum CEA level. We performed laparoscopic ileocecal resection for a definite diagnosis and treatment. The postoperative course was uneventful. The pathological diagnosis was low-grade appendicealmucinous neoplasm(LAMN). Laparoscopic surgery can be considered safe for the resection of appendicealmucinous neoplasm when it is performed with a carefulsurgicalapproach.

Efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in older patients with cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are pain relievers that are often associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that worsens with age. We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine, an opioid receptor antagonist, in treating OIC in patients with cancer (age >75 years). METHODS: The electronic medical records of cancer patients who received naldemedine at 10 Japanese institutions between 7 June 2017 and August 31, 2019, were retrieved. Patients aged ≥75 years who were treated with naldemedine for the first time and hospitalized for at least 7 days before and after initiating naldemedine therapy were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients were observed for at least 7 days before and after starting naldemedine. The response rate was 68.3%, and the frequency of bowel movements increased significantly after naldemedine administration in the overall population ( P  < 0.0001) and among those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine administration ( P  < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event in all grades, observed in 45% of patients, of which 92.6% were Grade 1 or 2. Grade 4 or higher adverse events, including death, were not observed. CONCLUSION: Naldemedine exhibits significant efficacy and safety in OIC treatment in older patients with cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine Administration for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Cancer Patients with Poor Performance Status.

Background: Constipation is a concern among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 3 and 4. Objectives: To assess naldemedine's efficacy and safety in cancer patients on opioids with poor PS. Design: Multicenter, retrospective study. Setting/Subjects: Japanese cancer patients with ECOG performance status 3 or 4 who received naldemedine. Measurements: Frequency of defecations before/after naldemedine use. Responders were patients whose defecation frequency increased to ≥3 times/week, from baseline ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after naldemedine administration. Results: Seventy-one patients were analyzed; 66.1% were responders (95% confidence interval: 54.5%-76.1%). Defecation frequency increased significantly after naldemedine in the overall population (6 vs. 2, p < 0.0001) and among those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine (4.5 vs. 1, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea (38.0%) of all grades was the most common adverse event; 23 (85.2%) events were classified as Grade 1 or 2. Conclusion: Naldemedine is effective and safe among cancer patients with poor PS.

Efficacy and safety of naldemedine treatment for opioid-induced constipation in gastrointestinal cancer: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal cancers are one of the most common cancer cases worldwide. Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary, which includes opioid pain management. Opioid analgesics cause opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with the onset of effect. Naldemedine, a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist, is an OIC-modifying agent, but no focused efficacy and safety analysis has been conducted for its use in gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with gastrointestinal cancer treated with naldemedine at ten institutions in Japan from June 2017 to August 2019. Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who initiated treatment with opioids during hospitalization and were treated with naldemedine for the first time were included in the study. The gastrointestinal cancer types included were esophageal, gastric, small bowel, and colorectal cancers. We assessed the defecation frequency before and after the initiation of naldemedine use. Responders were defined as patients who defecated three or more times/week, with an increase from the baseline of one or more bowel movements/week over seven days after starting naldemedine. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were observed for one week before and after starting naldemedine. Twenty-one patients had an increase in defecation frequency of at least three times per week or at least once per week above the baseline. The response rate was 63.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 46.6-77.9%]. The median number of bowel movements for a week before and after the initiation of naldemedine treatment was 3 (range, 0-13) and 7 (range, 1-39), respectively, in the overall population (n=33), with a significant increase in defecation frequency following naldemedine administration (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P<0.005). Diarrhea was the predominant gastrointestinal symptom, with 13 (39.4%) patients experiencing grade 1 and none experiencing grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events. The frequency of other grade 1 adverse events was low abdominal pain in two patients, nausea in two patients, and anorexia in one patient, without any grade 2-4 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that naldemedine is effective and safe in clinical practice for gastrointestinal cancer treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for Patients with Cancer with Opioid-Induced Constipation in Clinical Practice: A Real-World Retrospective Study.

The efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer has not been investigated in clinical practice. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study to assess the effects of naldemedine among 10 Japanese institutions between June 2017 and August 2019. We evaluated the number of defecations 7 days before and after naldemedine administration. A total of 149 patients (89 male) with a median age of 72 years (range, 38−96) were included. The performance status was 0−1, 2, and ≥3 in 40, 38, and 71 patients, respectively. The median opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg/day (range: 7.5−800 mg). We observed 98 responders and 51 non-responders. The median number of defecations increased significantly in the 7 days following naldemedine administration from three to six (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that an opioid dose <30 mg/day [odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01−4.32; p = 0.042] was significantly correlated with the effect of naldemedine. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event (38.2%) among all grades. The efficacy and safety of naldemedine in clinical practice are comparable to those of prospective studies, suggesting that it is effective in most patients.

A retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in thoracic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in thoracic cancer patients using opioids in clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated thoracic cancer patients treated with naldemedine at 10 institutions in Japan. Clinical data of patients administered naldemedine between June 2017 and August 2019 were extracted from electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) patients hospitalized for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration, and (ii) those whose frequency of defecation was entered in the medical records. RESULTS: Forty patients were analyzed, and defecation frequency was observed for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration. The response rate was 65.0% (95% CI: 50.2%-79.7%). The number of defecations increased significantly after naldemedine administration in the overall population, as well as among only those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine administration, and those that were administered ≥30 mg/day of morphine equivalent. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event in all grades, occurring in 11 patients (27.5%), of which 9 (81.8%) were grade 1 or 2. None of the patients experienced grade 4 or higher adverse events. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of naldemedine for thoracic cancer patients in clinical practice were comparable with those of prospective studies, which suggest that naldemedine may be effective and feasible for most thoracic cancer patients.

BRAF V600 mutations in Langerhans cell histiocytosis with a simple and unique assay.

BACKGROUND: BRAF (V-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1) is a serine-threonine protein kinase involved in cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation. The most common missense mutation of BRAF (mainly V600E) contributes to the incidence of various cancers, including Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). BRAF inhibitors molecularly targeting the V600E mutation have been developed to counteract the effect of the mutation. To ensure the administration of effective pharmacotherapy, it is therefore imperative to develop an effective assay to screen LCH patients for the V600E mutation. However, tumor tissues of LCH typically contain many inflammatory cells which make a correct judgement of the mutation status difficult in the DNA sequence analysis. RESULTS: In this study, we present a new, highly sensitive analyzing method combining PCR, restriction enzyme digestion, and a sequencing assay using DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens. TspRI is a restriction enzyme that cleaves the sequence encompassing the wild-type BRAF codon 600 into two fragments, which cannot be used as a template for subsequent BRAF PCR amplification. We therefore evaluated the sensitivity of BRAF V600 mutation detection by amplifying the primary PCR product digested with TspRI and sequencing the secondary PCR products. The V600E mutation was detected in FFPE tissue samples from 32 LCH patients; our assay was able to identify mutations in four samples that gave inconclusive results, and ten that were negative, according to standard PCR and sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a new and highly sensitive method to detect BRAF V600 mutations. This screening method is expected to play an important role to select the most effective therapies.

Cytopathologic factors can predict invasion in small-sized peripheral lung adenocarcinoma with a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma component.

BACKGROUND: Patients with noninvasive, small-sized primary adenocarcinomas of the lung have excellent prognosis after lobectomy. Several researchers have suggested that limited resection could be an acceptable alternative for these patients. Therefore, a preoperative or intraoperative judgment of invasiveness would be one of the critical determinants of the surgical procedure in each case. Cytopathologic findings that can distinguish invasive from noninvasive adenocarcinomas remain to be elucidated. METHODS: Imprint smears were obtained from 60 resected adenocarcinomas with nonmucinous bronchioloalveolar features. Thirteen cytologic factors were evaluated: the presence of necrosis, fibrovascular tissue, proportion of macrophages, the presence of large tumor cell clusters, nuclear grooves, nuclear overlapping, variation in nuclear size, chromatin pattern, presence of a nucleolus, intranuclear inclusions, multinucleated cells, spindle cells, and mitosis. Each factor was examined by univariate analysis for correlation with the presence of histopathologic invasion. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis, 5 cytologic factors--presence of tumor cell clusters consisting of more than 50 tumor cells (P < .001), nuclear overlapping in more than 3 layers (P < .001), presence of nuclear grooves (P = .007), more than 3-fold variation in nuclear size (P < .001), and 1 mitotic cell per 1000 tumor cells (P = .035)--were associated significantly with invasion. Among these, nuclear overlapping in more than 3 layers (P = .003) and more than 3-fold variation in nuclear size (P = .005) were found to be independent predictive factors for invasion by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Using imprint smears, the presence of invasion in small-sized primary adenocarcinomas of the lung is predictable by the 2 above-mentioned cytologic findings. Imprint smear cytology may effectively aid intraoperative judgement of invasion in cases where frozen section histology is difficult to interpret.