RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has a risk of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and despite no prospective evidence, is often given with premedication including a corticosteroid, H1 antagonist, and H2 antagonist (H2RA). Backorders impacted the supply of intravenous H2RAs at our center, and it was removed as routine premedication. The authors compared the incidence of IRR in patients treated without H2RA to patients receiving standard H2RA premedication. METHODS: The authors reviewed outpatients starting paclitaxel at the Ottawa Hospital from December 2019 to October 2021. Two cohorts were created: patients treated without H2RA premedication (intervention), and those receiving standard H2RA (control). Demographics, treatment, and IRR information were collected retrospectively. Primary end point was rate of grade ≥2 IRRs during first two doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were treated without H2RA premedication, compared to 184 control patients treated during non-backorder periods. Baseline characteristics included: median age, 63 years; 86% female; and primary tumor 52% breast/24% gynecologic/10% gastric/esophageal/8% lung/6% other. There were no significant differences between cohorts in baseline characteristics. There was no difference in the rate of grade ≥2 IRR between cohorts; 12.1% (22 of 182; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7%-17.7%) for patients treated without H2RA, and 15.1% (28 of 185; 95% CI, 10.3%-21.1%) for control patients. The rate of grade ≥3 IRRs were also similar, 4.4% in intervention cohort versus 3.8% in control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of H2RAs from premedication for paclitaxel did not result in an increased incidence of IRRs. The use of H2RAs in preventing IRRs to paclitaxel should be re-evaluated.
Asunto(s)
Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Paclitaxel , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Paclitaxel/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Antagonistas de los Receptores H2 de la Histamina/uso terapéutico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/tratamiento farmacológico , PremedicaciónRESUMEN
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine tumour with metastatic propensity. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging therapeutic option for SCLC, despite limited supporting evidence. By evaluating the use of SBRT in very limited stage (VLS) SCLC at our institution, we aimed to contribute to the existing knowledge in this area while establishing a basis for further research. We performed a retrospective review of all cases of VLS-SCLC treated with SBRT between 2013 and 2020. Baseline demographics, diagnostic, and treatment information were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). We identified 46 patients with pathologically confirmed VLS-SCLC; 25 were treated with SBRT, and the remainder received either surgery, conventional radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or palliative-intent therapy. After a median follow-up of 23.7 months, 44% of the patients had died; the median OS was of 24.4 months for the SBRT cohort and 67.0 months for the curative intent non-SBRT cohort. The difference in disease recurrence and survival between cohorts was underpowered and not statistically significant. Higher baseline ECOG and comorbidity was noted in the SBRT cohort.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Radiocirugia , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/radioterapia , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/cirugía , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy prolongs overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but diagnostic tests, staging and molecular profiling take time, and this can delay therapy initiation. OS approximates first-order kinetics. METHODS: We used OS of chemo-naive NSCLC patients on a placebo/best supportive care trial arm to estimate % of patients dying while awaiting therapy. We digitized survival curves from eight studies, calculated OS half-life, then estimated the proportion surviving after different times of interest (tn ) using the formula: X=exp-tn∗0.693/t1/2 , where EXP signifies exponential, * indicates multiplication, 0.693 is the natural log of 2, and t1/2 is the survival half-life in weeks. RESULTS: Across trials, the OS half-life for placebo/best supportive care in previously untreated NSCLC was 19.5 weeks. Hence, based on calculations using the formula above, if therapy were delayed by 1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks then 4%, 7%, 10%, and 13% of all patients, respectively, would die while awaiting treatment. Others would become too sick to consider therapy even if still alive. CONCLUSIONS: This quantifies why rapid baseline testing and prompt therapy initiation are important in advanced NSCLC. It also illustrates why screening procedures for clinical trial inclusion must be faster. Otherwise, it is potentially hazardous for a patient to be considered for a trial due to risk of death or deterioration while awaiting eligibility assessment. It is also important to not delay initiation of systemic therapy for procedures that add relatively little value, such as radiotherapy for small, asymptomatic brain metastases.