Impact of body surface area on efficacy and safety in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer treated with osimertinib as a first-line treatment.

BACKGROUND: The most recommended treatment for stage IV EGFR-positive lung cancer is osimertinib monotherapy. The dosage of osimertinib is fixed at 80 mg/day regardless of body surface area (BSA), however some patients withdraw or reduce the dosage due to adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 98 patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received 80 mg osimertinib as the initial treatment. We investigated the impact of BSA on efficacy and safety of osimertinib. RESULTS: The cut-off value of BSA was estimated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, and was determined to be 1.5 m2. There were 44 patients in the BSA < 1.5 group and 54 patients in the BSA ≥ 1.5 group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs (hematologic toxicity of ≥grade 3 or higher, and non-hematologic toxicity of ≥grade 3) between the two groups. However, the incidence of dose reduction due to AEs was significantly higher in the BSA < 1.5 group compared with the BSA ≥ 1.5 group (16 patients vs 5 patients, p = 0.003). The main reasons were fatigue, anorexia, diarrhea, and liver disfunction. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not significantly different (16.9 months in the BSA < 1.5 group vs 18.1 months in the BSA ≥ 1.5 group, p = 0.869). CONCLUSION: Differences in BSA affected the optimal dose of osimertinib. However, the PFS with osimertinib treatment was not affected by BSA. Therefore, when using osimertinib as an initial treatment for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, dose reduction to control AEs should be considered, especially in the BSA<1.5 group.

Parallel administration of nanoliposomal irinotecan and levo-leucovorin for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/levo-leucovorin (Levo-LV) was approved for unresectable pancreatic cancer (UR-PC) in March 2020 in Japan. Levo-LV is administered by intravenous infusion over 120 min following 90 min intravenous infusion of nal-IRI (conventional method), causing a significant burden on both patients and the outpatient chemotherapy room owing to the prolonged administration time. Thus, from July 2021, we introduced the simultaneous intravenous administration of nal-IRI and Levo-LV (parallel method) with the approval of the institutional regimen committee. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 69 patients with UR-PC who received nal-IRI plus 5-FU/Levo-LV at our hospital between June 2020 and October 2021. We examined the safety of the parallel method and compared the treatment outcomes and administration times between the two methods. RESULTS: The median age was 66 years (54%, male). Disease statuses were locally advanced, metastatic, and postoperative recurrence after pancreatectomy in 7, 50, and 12 patients, respectively. Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/Levo-LV treatment was second and third-line or later in 35 and 34 patients, respectively. No intravenous line problems were observed during the parallel administration of nal-IRI and Levo-LV. Although there were no significant differences in response rates and adverse events between the two methods, the administration time was significantly shorter in the parallel method than in the conventional method. CONCLUSION: The parallel administration of nal-IRI and Levo-LV is clinically safe and not inferior in efficacy. Moreover, parallel administration may offer convenience to patients and healthcare workers by reducing administration time.