Olanzapine treatment effectively relieves breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a real-world experience.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine treatment prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, its role in the secondary prevention of breakthrough CINV in real-world cancer care should be further evaluated. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study on patients receiving olanzapine to prevent breakthrough CINV refractory to standard antiemetic therapy. The major outcome was improvement in CINV, defined as any downgrade in CINV symptoms, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Comprete response was defined as no symptoms in CINV, i.e., Grade 0. These outcomes were compared in the HEC versus non-HEC groups and the standard- (5 or 10 mg/day) versus low- (2.5 mg/day) dose groups. The other outcome measurement was adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: We analyzed 127 patients, including 92 women, with a median age of 50 years (range: 19-89 years). Baseline CINV severity was grade 1, 2, and 3 in 18%, 69%, and 13% of the patients, respectively. After prophylaxis with olanzapine at doses of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/day, improvement was observed in 105 (83%) patients, with a complete response in 42 patients (33%). The improvement and complete remission rates for the HEC (n = 96) and non-HEC (n = 31) groups were 86% and 71% (p = 0.048) versus 38% and 19% (p = 0.062), respectively. The rates for the standard- (n = 98) and low- (n = 29) dose groups were 86% and 82% (p = 0.568) versus 28% and 52% (p = 0.015), respectively. Thirty-four patients (27%) experienced olanzapine-related AEs, mainly somnolence (n = 28). Grade 3 or higher AEs were not observed. CONCLUSION: Our study results support the clinical application of olanzapine for the secondary prevention of breakthrough CINV.

Higher incidence of pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain in younger patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: a real-world experience.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for various types of cancer. However, pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain (PIBP) is a relevant adverse event occurring during cancer treatment. Thus, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PIBP in real-world clinical practice. MAIN BODY: We retrospectively collected the clinical records of patients who received pegfilgrastim to support myelosuppressive chemotherapy with at least a 10% risk of FN between 2015 and 2018 at our center. Patients received pegfilgrastim 3.6 mg between days 2 and 7 after chemotherapy administration (day 1) for primary or secondary prophylaxis against FN. All adverse events were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patients who experienced intermittent bone pain in the back, femur, or other anatomic sites after the pegfilgrastim administration were considered to have PIBP. To evaluate the relationship between PIBP incidence and patient characteristics, we performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) of possible risk factors for PIBP. We analyzed the data of 305 patients (median age: 63 years), who underwent 1220 chemotherapy cycles with pegfilgrastim per cycle. Univariate analysis revealed that female sex (vs. male sex), younger age (< 55 years vs. ≥ 55 years), and solid cancers (vs. hematologic cancers) had significantly higher ORs (p < 0.05). However, only younger age (< 55 years) was an independent risk factor for PIBP on multivariate analysis (OR 3.62, 95% confidence interval 1.51-8.69, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age (< 55 years) was significantly associated with a higher risk of PIBP among patients receiving chemotherapy with a ≥ 10% risk of FN. Therefore, oncologists should meticulously formulate management plan for PIBP in younger patients after administering pegfilgrastim.

A novel rituximab administration protocol to minimize infusion-related adverse reactions in patients with B-cell lymphoma.

Background Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) during rituximab administration are occasionally severe and remain problematic in oncology practice. Aim To establish a safer, risk-stratified rituximab protocol for patients with B-cell lymphoma. Method We stratified patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups according to the number of risk factors for IRRs, specifically, low-grade histology and bulky tumors (> 10 cm): Then, the administrating schedule of rituximab (375 mg/m2, diluted in 1 mg/mL concentration) was individualized. For the first rituximab cycle, the low- and moderate-risk groups underwent conventional infusion #1 (25-200 mg/h, ~4.3 h), and the high-risk group underwent long infusion (25-100 mg/h, 6.8 h). Patients in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups without IRRs in the first cycle underwent short infusion (100-400 mg/h, 2.3 h), conventional infusion #2 (100-200 mg/h, 3.5 h), and conventional infusion #1, respectively. Patients with IRRs in the first cycle received a second rituximab cycle with the same schedule as the first cycle. The procedure for the third cycle was at the attending physician's discretion. Results Among 81 patients, the overall incidence of IRRs was 28%. IRR incidences in the low- (n = 39), moderate- (n = 35), and high-risk groups (n = 7) were 31%, 20%, and 57%, respectively. All IRRs were grade ≤ 2. The overall conversion rate to short infusion in the third cycle was 54%, without any IRRs. Conclusions Our step-by-step rituximab protocol demonstrated a fewer incidence of severe IRRs among B-cell lymphoma patients receiving rituximab.

Optimal timing for pegfilgrastim administration in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies.

Background Pegfilgrastim is widely used for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapies. However, the optimal timing of pegfilgrastim administration has not been established. Objective We investigated the effect of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the prevention of FN in patients with breast cancer undergoing intermediate-risk chemotherapies. Method We retrospectively analysed the incidence of FN in patients with breast cancer treated at our institution with intermediate-risk chemotherapies and primary or secondary prophylactic pegfilgrastim between 2015 and 2017. The impact of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the incidence of FN was evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall, 87 patients received a total of 318 chemotherapy cycles with pegfilgrastim, and 14 patients (16%) experienced FN. In univariate analyses, day 2 pegfilgrastim administration, age of > 65 years, baseline haemoglobin < 12 g/dL, prior history of FN, and presence of recurrent/metastatic disease trended toward an association with FN. Adjustment for these confounding risk factors revealed that day 2 pegfilgrastim administration was associated with a significantly increased risk of FN (odds ratio 11.0, p = 0.009). Conclusion Administrating pegfilgrastim on day 3 or later may prevent FN more effectively among Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies.