Response assessment by positron emission tomography-computed tomography as compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in childhood Hodgkin lymphoma can reduce the need for radiotherapy in low- and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: The InPOG-HL-15-01, a multicentric prospective study, used a risk-stratified and response-based approach with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) backbone to treat children and adolescents with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and reduce the use of radiation therapy (RT). Children/adolescents with bulky disease or inadequate response at early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of chemotherapy were assigned to receive RT. For ERA, positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT) was recommended but not mandatory in view of limited access. This study aimed to compare the impact of using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and PET-CT on treatment decisions and outcomes. METHODOLOGY: 396 patients were enrolled and 382 had an ERA at the assigned time point. Satisfactory response was defined as Deauville score 3 or less for patients undergoing PET-CT and complete response (CR)/very good partial response (VGPR) for patients undergoing CECT. Outcomes of interest incorporate 5 year event-free survival (EFS), EFS including abandonment (EFSa), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At ERA, satisfactory response was documented in 277 out of 382 (72.5%) participants and this was significantly higher in PET-CT (151 out of 186, 81.2%) as compared with CECT-based assessments (126 out of 196, 64.3%) respectively (p value < .001). Amongst the 203 patients with nonbulky disease (wherein the indication for RT was entirely dependent on ERA), 96 out of 114 (84.2%) and 61 out of 89 (68.5%) patients achieved a satisfactory response according to the PET-CT and CECT (p value = .008) respectively and hence a lesser proportion of patients in the PET-CT arm received RT. Despite a lower usage of RT the 5 year OS of both groups, ERA based on CECT (91.8%) versus PET-CT (94.1%) was comparable (p value = .391) and so was the 5 year EFS (86.7 vs. 85.5%, p value = .724). CONCLUSION: Use of PET-CT as the modality for ERA is more likely to indicate a satisfactory response as compared with CECT and thereby decreases the need for RT in response-based treatment algorithm for HL-afflicted children. The reduction in the application of RT did not impact the overall outcome and plausibly would lower the risk of delayed toxic effects.

IAP Chemotherapy Regimen Is a Viable and Cost-effective Option in Children and Adolescents With Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Analysis With MAP Regimen on Toxicity and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and doxorubicin are integral components of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Choice of third agent high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) or an alkylating agent such as ifosfamide is debatable. The present study compared the impact of MAP (HDMTX-doxorubicin-cisplatin) and IAP (ifosfamide-doxorubicin-cisplatin) chemotherapy regimens on toxicity and survival in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients 18 years and younger with osteosarcoma during the study period. Clinical, demographic, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical details and treatment-related toxicity were retrieved from hospital medical records. Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 102 patients included in the study, 59 (57.8%) and 43 (42.2%) patients were treated with MAP and IAP regimens, respectively. Two groups were comparable in terms of pretreatment characteristics and surgical treatment. Overall, 95.9% patients underwent limb salvage surgery. There was a statistically increased incidence in supportive care admissions and delay in starting the next cycle of chemotherapy in the MAP group. Among the MAP cohort, the 5-year OS and EFS were 62% and 55% compared with 47% and 44%, respectively, in the IAP cohort (P=0.143 and 0.316, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analyses, statistically significant factors affecting EFS of the whole group included tumor size, stage, site of metastasis, histologic necrosis, and type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OS and EFS with both regimens were similar. However, the MAP regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in incidence of supportive care admissions, delay in next cycle of chemotherapy, and predicted higher cost of treatment.

Assessment of oral health status of children with Leukemia: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: The present study was conducted with an aim to assess the oral hygiene status, gingival health status, and prevalence of dental caries, oral mucositis and xerostomia among children with leukemia and compare it with healthy children. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total sample size of 220 children with 110 children with Leukemia of subtype acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing treatment and 110 healthy children in the age group of 3-14 years was selected. Evaluation of caries status using dmft/DMFT indices, oral hygiene status using OHI-S and plaque index by Sillness and Loe, gingival health status using modified gingival index, oral mucositis as per WHO oral toxicity scale, xerostomia as per common terminology criteria for adverse events for dry mouth, and salivary pH using pH paper strips was done. Results revealed a lower prevalence of dental caries, good oral hygiene and mild gingivitis in children with ALL when compared to healthy children. Oral mucositis was found to occur only in children with ALL and a reduced salivary flow rate and reduced salivary pH were seen in these children when compared to healthy children. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that children with ALL undergoing treatment and following an oral care protocol presented with a good Oral Health Status when compared with healthy children.

Experience with generic pegylated L-asparaginase in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and monitoring of serum asparaginase activity.

BACKGROUND: Pegylated asparaginase (P-Asp) though integral to acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) therapy is often not accessible to patients in developing countries. We share our clinical experience with generic P-Asp along with monitoring of asparaginase activity. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients ≤18 years of age with ALL were assigned to receive either generic P-Asp or native asparaginase (N-Asp) in a non-randomized manner. Treatment protocol was based on ALL BFM-95 backbone. The dose of P-Asp was 1500 IU/m2 by intravenous route during induction (Ia) and re-induction (IIa) phase of therapy. RESULTS: N-Asp or P-Asp was administered to 52 and 54 of the 106 eligible patients respectively. Demographic and disease characteristics were comparable in both arms. The mean trough levels for N-Asp and P-Asp were 156.87 ± 22.35 IU/L and 216.03 ± 73.40 IU/L, respectively (p value <0.001) and all patients achieved therapeutic levels during Ia. Incidence of asparaginase-attributable toxicity was similar in the two arms in both phases of treatment, although hospitalization due to noninfectious causes was more common in P-Asp arm during Ia (13% versus 0%, p value, 0.01). Clinical hypersensitivity and silent inactivation were not observed during Ia while these occurred in 13% and 5% of patients in the N-Asp arm and P-Asp arms of IIa, respectively. The 2-year event free survival for P-Asp and N-Asp groups was 84% and 80.7%, respectively (p value 0.85). CONCLUSION: Generic P-Asp was observed to be efficacious and well tolerated in our patients and adequate therapeutic levels were sustained for 2 weeks.

Infusional chemotherapy and medication errors in a tertiary care pediatric cancer unit in a resource-limited setting.

BACKGROUND: Drug administration is a multiprofessional process. The high toxicity and low therapeutic index of chemotherapy drugs make medication errors a significant problem, resulting in excessive patient morbidity and cost. OBJECTIVE: An audit of the delivery of infusional chemotherapy among pediatric inpatients was planned, with the objective of improving practice and minimizing errors. METHOD: An observational study was conducted between January and August 2012. Patients were followed up from their premedication until the completion of postchemotherapy hydration and/or rescue drugs. Errors were recorded and classified by error type, cause, severity, unit location, medication involved, and harm caused. RESULTS: A total of 205 observations were made and 23(13.6%) errors recorded, of which 6 were intercepted. No life-threatening adverse drug event was recorded. The most important risk factor predisposing to errors was admission to nonpediatric ward (P=0.004). Documentation errors and incorrect infusion time were the 2 most common errors, whereas the most frequent error node was administration error. Appropriate steps were taken to prevent their reoccurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study helped provide important information about the rate and epidemiology of medication errors, emphasizing on the role of audit in enabling development of appropriate error-reducing strategies, particularly in the context of quality assurance in hospitals.