Anticancer agents and phytotherapy: Interactions that are often unrecognized.

Phytotherapy is the main complementary medicine for which patients afflicted with cancer have recourse but the associated consumption of phytotherapy products gives rise to a risk of interaction with anticancer agents. The aim of this prospective study was to measure the prevalence of the consumption of phytotherapy products as well as their interactions with anticancer agents in a cohort of patients from January 2018 to August 2019. Patients hospitalized in the conventional hematology unit and outpatients who had their prescriptions for oral anticancer agents filled at the hospital pharmacy were questioned about consumption of phytotherapy products by pharmacy externs trained in pharmaceutical interviews. Among the 110 hospitalized patients who answered the questionnaire, 40% (n = 44) used phytotherapy and 5 of them continued to consume it during the cycles of injectable chemotherapy. As a result, 10 interactions were found between the plants and the anticancer agents (prevalence of 27%). Among the 59 outpatients, 17% (n = 10) consumed phytotherapy. Eight interactions were identified (prevalence of 80%). The potential consequences were an increase or a decrease in the concentration of the anticancer agents and an increase in the risk of bleeding, hepatoxicity, and hypokalemia. The consumption of phytotherapy was unknown by a health professional for 44% of hospitalized patients and 60% of the outpatients. The risk of interactions between plants and anticancer agents is not negligible and professionals should be cognizant of this in their daily practice. The availability of tools for training and detection of interactions is indispensable for managing patients undergoing onco-hematology treatments.

Autologous stem-cell collection following VTD or VRD induction therapy in multiple myeloma: a single-center experience.

Triplet-drug regimen bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) are considered as standard of care induction prior autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in myeloma. In addition to improve response rate, induction therapy should preserve an adequate stem-cell collection. In the present retrospective study, we analyzed stem-cell collection in 325 newly diagnosed myeloma patients who received either VTD or VRD induction before ASCT. Stem-cell mobilization consisted of intravenous cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF. Plerixafor was administered preemptively to rescue mobilization. In comparison with VTD, VRD induction was associated with a more frequent use of plerixafor (19.3% versus 5.4%, p = 0.004) and with an increased number of apheresis to reach adequate collection (>2 apheresis required in 42.3% versus 30.2%, p = 0.05). Moreover, more patients experienced collection failure in the VRD group (6% versus 1.8%, p = 0.004). The median number of CD34-positive cells (×106/kg) was lower in the VRD group: 8.5 versus 9.3 (p = 0.05) in the VTD group. The vast majority of patients underwent ASCT (93% versus 98%, in VRD and VTD group, respectively). These data highlight the need of optimal stem-cell collection strategy, especially in the context of tandem transplantation and incorporation of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody into induction.