Carfilzomib: A Tale of a Heartbreaking Moment: Case Report and Concise Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor, known as a therapeutical option for people who have already received one or more previous treatments for multiple myeloma, has well known cardiac and systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: There is evidence supporting that adverse effects are dose dependent, yet there is no known patient phenotype characterized by worse associated consequences, nor are there widely accepted monitoring protocols. RESULTS: In this article we describe two patients with cardiovascular adverse events related to carfilzomib treatment and their clinical course. Our goal was to present two cases of daily practice, which highlighted the complexity of their management and led to underline how baseline evaluation and close follow-up with echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, remain an important tool for the cardiotoxicity surveillance. CONCLUSION: These reflections should lead to further studies in order to identify high risk patients for cardiovascular adverse event and clarify the real incidence of cardiotoxicity of this drug and adequate follow-up timing. Finally further research is needed to evaluate strategies for prevention and attenuation of cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy.

Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab).

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient preference and satisfaction for the subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of rituximab given with chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and methods: Patients received eight cycles of rituximab according to 2 schedules: Arm A received 1 cycle rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) and 3 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg) then 4 cycles rituximab i.v.; Arm B received 4 cycles rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) then 4 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg). Alongside rituximab, both arms received 6-8 cycles of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP), or bendamustine as per standard local practice). Preference for s.c. or i.v. administration was evaluated using the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) at cycles 6 and 8. Patient satisfaction and convenience were assessed using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) at cycles 4 and 8. Results: At the primary data cut-off (19 January 2015), the intent-to-treat population comprised 743 patients. The majority had DLBCL (63%) and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At cycle 8, 81% of patients completing the PPQ preferred rituximab s.c. Preference was not impacted by treatment sequence or disease type. Patient satisfaction as measured by RASQ was higher for s.c. versus i.v. CTSQ scores were similar between arms. Adverse events were generally balanced between administration routes and no new safety signals were detected. Conclusion: Most previously untreated patients with CD20+ DLBCL or FL preferred s.c. to i.v. rituximab administration. Patient satisfaction with rituximab treatment was generally greater with s.c. administration. Registered clinical trial number: NCT01724021 (ClinicalTrials.gov).