Association between baseline blood pressure and the incidence of lenvatinib-induced hypertension in patients with thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most frequently occurring adverse event of lenvatinib, recognized relatively early in its course. However, the trend in blood pressure after the initiation of lenvatinib and the outcomes with antihypertensive treatment are unclear. This study aimed to clarify the association between baseline blood pressure and the incidence of lenvatinib-induced hypertension in patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included 65 patients without hypertension at the time of lenvatinib initiation. Patients were divided into two groups: those who developed hypertension grade ≥3 (HTN group) and those who did not develop hypertension grade ≥3 (non-HTN group). RESULTS: Of the 65 patients, 46 (71%) developed hypertension grade ≥3. In both HTN and non-HTN groups, blood pressure significantly increased the day after lenvatinib initiation. There was no significant difference in the elevated values of both the changes in systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (ΔDBP) between the two groups, with an average increase of 20 mmHg in SBP and 13 mmHg in DBP from baseline. The median (range) time to the onset of hypertension grade ≥3 was 2 days (1-12 days). In the multivariable analysis, patients with normal (SBP 120-129 mmHg and/or DBP 80-84 mmHg) or high-normal baseline blood pressure (SBP 130-139 mmHg and/or DBP 85-89 mmHg) were at higher risk of developing hypertension grade ≥3 than those with optimal baseline blood pressure (SBP <120 mmHg and DBP <80 mmHg) (odds ratio [OR], 5.07; 95% confidential interval [CI] 1.09-23.54 and OR, 7.48; 95% CI, 1.67-33.51, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib-induced hypertension appears the day after administration, and higher baseline blood pressure is a significant risk factor for developing hypertension grade ≥3. In cases of increased blood pressure with lenvatinib, early initiation of antihypertensives may prevent treatment interruption due to hypertension and maintain the therapeutic intensity of lenvatinib.

Impact of lenvatinib-induced proteinuria and renal dysfunction in patients with thyroid cancer.

Background: Proteinuria is the most frequent adverse event of lenvatinib use. However, the association between lenvatinib-induced proteinuria and renal dysfunction remains unclear. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients with thyroid cancer without proteinuria treated with lenvatinib as a first-line systemic therapy at the initiation of treatment to assess the association between lenvatinib-induced proteinuria and renal function and the risk factors for the development of ≥3+ proteinuria on a dipstick test. Proteinuria was assessed by the dipstick test throughout the treatment in all cases. Results: Of the 76 patients, 39 developed ≤2+ proteinuria (low proteinuria group) and 37 developed ≥3+ proteinuria (high proteinuria group). There was no significant difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between high and low proteinuria groups at each time point, but there was a trend toward a significant decrease in eGFR of -9.3 ml/min/1.73 m2 in all patients after 2 years of treatment. The percentage of change in eGFR (ΔeGFR) significantly decreased in the high proteinuria group compared to that in the low proteinuria group (ΔeGFR: -6.8% vs. -17.2%, p=0.04). However, there was no significant difference in development of severe renal dysfunction with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 between the two groups. Moreover, no patients permanently discontinued treatment because of renal dysfunction in both groups. Furthermore, renal function after completion of lenvatinib was reversible. Conclusions: There was no association between the degree of lenvatinib-induced proteinuria and renal function. Therefore, treatment should be continued with attention to renal function, regardless of the degree of proteinuria.

A Case Series on Pain Accompanying Photoimmunotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer.

One of the most severe side effects of photoimmunotherapy (PIT) for head and neck cancer is pain. As there are presently no detailed reports on pain and pain management in PIT, we conducted a retrospective case series study. We conducted a retrospective study of five patients who had received PIT at the National Cancer Center Hospital East between January 2021 and June 2022 using medical chart data. All patients experienced pain, evidenced by an increased numerical rating scale (NRS) after PIT, regardless of the illumination method. The daily change in mean NRS rating shows that the pain was highest on the day of PIT, with ratings of 6.8 and 7.8 for the frontal and cylindrical diffuser methods, respectively; it dropped the following day quickly. Four of the five patients received fentanyl injections for postoperative pain management beginning on postoperative day (POD) 0. All patients who underwent therapy using a cylindrical diffuser required postoperative pain management with opioid drugs. Pain after PIT tended to be most intense immediately after or one hour after illumination and declined the following day, suggesting the need to have a pain relief plan in place in advance.