Hepatitis B reactivation and rituximab in the oncology practice.

Rituximab use in hematology and oncology practice has significantly and positively improved the clinical outcomes in patients with a wide variety of B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders. However, emerging data reveal that there is a risk of viral hepatitis B reactivation in some patients treated with rituximab. Many of these cases result in treatment delays, inferior oncologic outcomes, increased morbidity, and more rarely fulminant hepatic decompensation and death. Indeed, the rituximab package insert and many clinical practice guidelines have been modified to reflect these concerns. The true incidence and mechanism of reactivation are still being elucidated. This article focuses on the current evidence that supports these recently revised clinical recommendations along with a review of the risk factors for reactivation, suggested monitoring, and preventative interventions.

Pazopanib: an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor for use in renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the currently available clinical data on pazopanib, as well as review the merits and adverse effects of pazopanib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts from January 1995 to February 2010, using the primary search terms pazopanib, GW786034, Votrient, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All available English-language articles and trials that described the pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, clinical activity, or adverse effects of pazopanib were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pazopanib is a second-generation multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has exhibited antiangiogenic and antitumor activity. Phase 1 clinical trials have established the safety and tolerability of pazopanib 800 mg orally daily. Phase 2 and 3 studies have shown promising activity in RCC, including treatment naïve or cytokine-pretreated patients, demonstrating a greater rate of total disease control with pazopanib compared to placebo. Activity has also been shown in a variety of other cancers, including ovarian cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. The most common adverse effects of pazopanib include nausea, diarrhea, hypertension, hair depigmentation, and elevated transaminase levels. Adverse effects are most commonly Grades 1-2. Other Phase 3 trials are ongoing in RCC, including a comparison to sunitinib, another TKI used in RCC, as well as trials in other tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: Current data suggest pazopanib to be a viable treatment option as first-line therapy for advanced RCC. Data are awaited comparing pazopanib to other TKIs. Until results of head-to-head trials conducted of the various agents are available, it cannot be said whether pazopanib is more tolerable or efficacious than currently available therapies.

Managing cetuximab hypersensitivity-infusion reactions: incidence, risk factors, prevention, and retreatment.

Cetuximab is an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of colorectal (CRC) and head and neck (H&N) cancers. Hypersensitivity-infusion reactions (HIRs) confer moderate morbidity and potential mortality. HIRs have a wide geographic incidence with few identifiable risk factors. Limited data regarding risk-reduction interventions for HIR or post-HIR retreatment are available. All patients treated with cetuximab at a single Veterans Affairs facility were monitored for development of HIRs, with baseline clinical, demographic, and supportive care data recorded. All received standard premedication based on cohort assignment. A total of 51 consecutive patients (30 CRC; 21 H&N) received at least one dose of cetuximab. Grades II-IV HIRs occurred in 14 patients (27%; 6 grade II, 6 grade Ill, 2 grade IV). There was no grade V HIR. All HIRs occurred during the first infusion. There were no differences between age, race, diagnosis, stage, concurrent chemotherapy, or radiotherapy with cetuximab, allergy history, or military service era of patients developing HIRs versus those who did not.There were no identifiable risk factors that predicted the severity of HIR. Neither premedication modifications (P = 0.34) nor bronchodilator use (P= 0.12) impacted the incidence or severity of HIR. A cetuximab test dose successfully elicited an HIR and resulted in an 87% cost savings. None of five patients receiving subsequent retreatment with anti-EGFR MoAb had recurrence of an HIR. An HIR during cetuximab infusion can be a serious and underestimated toxicity. The relatively high incidence reported here is consistent with that previously identified in the Southeastern United States. No clinical, demographic, or historic variables reliably predicted HIR in our population. Use of a test dose to elicit a HIR appears to be feasible and cost-effective. Use of panitumumab after a cetuximab HIR in select patients with CRC appears to be feasible and safe.

Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) improve clinical care through evidence-based results. Guidelines exist for RCT result reporting, but specific details of therapeutic administration promote clinical application and reproduction of the trial design. We assess the reporting methodology in RCTs published in major oncology journals. METHODS: Ten essential elements of RCT reporting were identified and included drug name, dose, route, cycle length, maximum number of cycles, premedication, growth factor support, patient monitoring parameters, and dosing adjustments for hematologic and organ-specific toxicity. All therapy-based oncology RCTs published between 2005 and 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), Blood, and Cancer were analyzed for inclusion of these 10 elements. RESULTS: Of 339 identified articles, 262 were included in the final analysis (165 from JCO, 31 from NEJM, 27 from Cancer, 20 from JNCI, and 19 from Blood). Premedication, growth factor support, and dose adjustments for toxicities were each reported less than half of the time. Only 30 articles (11%) met the main objective of complete data reporting (ie, all 10 essential elements) and was highest in JNCI (5/20; 25%), followed by Cancer (5/27; 18%), JCO (18/165; 11%), Blood (1/19; 5%), and NEJM (1/31; 3%). The presence of an online appendix did not substantially improve complete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs published in major oncology journals do not consistently report essential therapeutic details necessary for translation of the trial findings to clinical practice. Potential solutions to improve reporting include modification of submission guidelines, use of online appendices, and providing open access to trial protocols.