The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

Medication reconciliation by pharmacists for pre-admission patients improves patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors related to the pre-admission medication history obtained on admission are a major cause of medication error during hospitalization. Medication reconciliation (MR) improves patient safety through the detection of inadvertent medication discrepancies at transitions of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of MR by pharmacists for patients prior to hospital admission on the incidence of medication errors in the early post-admission period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients admitted to the orthopedic ward for surgery between April 2012 and March 2020 were included. Pharmacist-led MR for pre-admission patients was started on April 1, 2017. The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications that occurred during hospitalization were compared between the pre- and post-initiation of pharmacist-led MR (pre-initiation: April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, post-initiation: April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020). RESULT: In the post-initiation group, 94.2% (1245/1321) of patients who were taking medications on admission had a pharmacist-led MR before admission. The proportion of patients whose physicians ordered the prescription of their pre-admission medications at the time before hospitalization to continue from admission was significantly higher in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (47.4% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization was significantly lower in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (1.83% vs. 0.85%, p = 0.025). Pharmacist-led MR prior to admission was a significant protective factor against incidents related to pre-admission medication (odds ratio (OR), 0.3810; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.156-0.9320, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-led MR for patients prior to hospital admission led to a reduction in medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization. Patient safety during hospitalization can be improved by accurate medication histories provided early by pharmacists.

Prognostic impact of severe neutropenia in colorectal cancer patients treated with TAS-102 and bevacizumab, addressing immortal-time bias.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported an association between severe neutropenia and long-term survival in patients treated with trifluridine-tipiracil (TAS-102). Because some of these studies failed to address immortality time bias, however, their findings should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, the association between severe neutropenia and survival in patients receiving TAS-102 in combination with bevacizumab (Bmab) remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study in patients with colorectal cancer who received Bmab + TAS-102. We compared overall survival (OS) between patients who developed grade ≥ 3 neutropenia during the treatment period and those who did not. To account for immortal time bias, we used two approaches, time-varying Cox regression and landmark analysis. RESULTS: Median OS was 15.3 months [95% CI: 14.1-NA] in patients with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 10.0 months [95% CI: 8.1-NA] in those without. In time-varying Cox regression, onset grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly related to longer survival after adjustment for age and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score. Additionally, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day landmark analysis showed that grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was associated with longer survival after adjustment for age and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, with respective HRs of 0.30 [0.10-0.90], 0.65 [0.30-1.42], 0.39 [0.17-0.90], and 0.41 [0.18-0.95]. CONCLUSION: We identified an association between long-term survival and the development of severe neutropenia during the early cycle of Bmab + TAS-102 using an approach that addressed immortality time bias.

Efficacy and Safety of Oxaliplatin-based Regimens as First-line Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is mainly a disease of the elderly. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited mCRC patients aged ≥75 years who were treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy from October 2011 to November 2020. Primary outcome was median progression-free survival (PFS) and incidence of adverse events, while secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), relative dose intensity (RDI) and tumor response rate. RESULTS: The study enrolled 41 patients with mCRC aged ≥75 years. Median PFS and OS were 9.3 months and 38.9 months, respectively. Median rate of starting dose per standard dose and median RDI of L-OHP were 94.6% [interquartile range (IQR)=80.0-100] and 52.4% (IQR=30.2-71.1), respectively. The most common adverse events of grade ≥3 were neutropenia (21.4%), high blood pressure (16.7%), and anorexia (14.3%). CONCLUSION: Although the RDI of L-OHP drug was low, the PFS, OS, and incidence of adverse events were similar to previous reports of oxaliplatin-based regimens not limited to the elderly. Oxaliplatin-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy may be safely and effectively adapted to patients aged ≥75 years with mCRC by continuing chemotherapy with implementation of a reduction and discontinuation of anticancer drugs depending on adverse events.

[Reduction in Patient Waiting Times in Pharmacies by a Protocol to Minimize Inquiries to Doctors under an Agreement between a Hospital and Community Pharmacies].

Cooperative care between hospitals and community pharmacies is important to safe and effective pharmacotherapy for outpatients. We developed a protocol comprising three agreements about alternative drugs and dosing schedules with the aim of minimizing inquiries about prescriptions to doctors. The protocol was implemented under an agreement between core hospitals in Gifu City and community pharmacy members of the Gifu City Pharmaceutical Association from October 2019. Here, we examined the impact of this protocol on patient waiting time in pharmacies. Before introduction of the protocol, median patient waiting time for questionable prescriptions requiring an inquiry to a doctor was significantly longer than that for prescriptions not requiring an inquiry (23.0 min vs. 10.0 min, p<0.001). After introduction of the protocol, median time for prescriptions which were questionable but nevertheless under the protocol did not require an inquiry to a doctor was significantly reduced compared with those which were questionable and still did require an inquiry (15.0 min vs. 24.0 min, p=0.038). In conclusion, introduction of a protocol aimed at minimizing inquiries about prescriptions to doctors from a community pharmacy was useful in reducing the waiting time of patients, and also likely in decreasing the working times of medical doctors and pharmacists.

Effectiveness of countermeasure for polypharmacy by multidisciplinary team review in patients with diabetes mellitus.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy in diabetes patients is related to worse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of our countermeasure for polypharmacy, which combines a pharmacist check followed by a multidisciplinary team review in diabetic patients with polypharmacy. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective observational study was conducted at Gifu University Hospital. Study participants included diabetic patients taking six or more drugs on admission to the diabetes ward between July 2021 and June 2022. Drugs which were discontinued by the present countermeasure were examined, and the number of drugs being taken by each patient was compared between admission and discharge. RESULTS: 102 of 308 patients were taking six or more drugs on admission. The drugs being taken by these patients were evaluated by pharmacists using a checklist for polypharmacy. Eighty-four drugs which were evaluated as inappropriate or potentially inappropriate medications by pharmacists were discontinued following the multidisciplinary team review. The median and mean number of drugs taken by the 102 patients significantly decreased from 9.0 (IQR: 8-12) and 9.26 ± 2.64 on admission to 9.0 (IQR: 6-10) and 8.42 ± 2.95 on discharge (P = 0.0002). We followed up with these patients after discontinuation of the drugs and confirmed that their clinical status had not deteriorated. CONCLUSION: The present countermeasure for polypharmacy, which combines a pharmacist check based on a checklist for evaluating polypharmacy followed by a multidisciplinary team review, was useful for reducing the number of inappropriate or potentially inappropriate medications taken by diabetes patients with polypharmacy.

Emetogenicity and Risk Factors of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Trifluridine/Tipiracil and Bevacizumab Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Although combination chemotherapy with trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and bevacizumab (BEV) is highly effective for metastatic unresectable colorectal cancer (mCRC), this combination chemotherapy often induces nausea and vomiting. To identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting, we investigated the occurrence of nausea and vomiting in mCRC patients treated with TAS-102 and BEV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study patients with mCRC received TAS-102 and BEV between March 2016 and December 2021. The status of nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic measures in each course were investigated, and factors involved in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting were analysed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Data from 57 patients were analysed. The incidence rates of nausea and vomiting during the overall period were 57.9% and 17.5%, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were frequent not only in the early courses but also after the sixth course. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the experience of nausea and vomiting in previous treatment with other agents was significantly associated with nausea and vomiting with TAS-102 and BEV. CONCLUSION: The experience of nausea and vomiting in previous treatment was associated with increased risk for nausea and vomiting in mCRC patients treated with TAS-102 and BEV.

Effect of Mirtazapine for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Thoracic Cancer Receiving Platinum-based Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Mirtazapine, which exerts an antagonistic effect on 5-hydroxytryptamine type 5-HT2A, 5-HT2C, 5-HT3 and H1 receptors, is considered useful for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study investigated the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine for the prevention of CINV in patients with thoracic cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with thoracic cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy with 15 mg mirtazapine once daily as a prophylactic antiemetic drug between January 2014 and December 2021. The effects of mirtazapine added to the standard antiemetic regimen for the prevention of CINV were evaluated in patients who had poor control of CINV in a preceding cycle and in patients who received the standard antiemetic therapy plus mirtazapine from their first cycle. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were evaluated. Of these, 14 had poor control of CINV in a preceding cycle and received the standard antiemetic therapy plus mirtazapine in the next cycle. The rate of complete response in the delayed period in these patients was significantly improved from the preceding cycle to the next cycle (35.7% vs. 85.7%, p=0.018). In contrast, the other 21 patients had received the standard antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine from the first cycle. The rate of complete response in the delayed period in these patients receiving the triplet antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine as part of a cisplatin-based or carboplatin-based regimen and in patients receiving a doublet antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine in a carboplatin-based regimen was 100%, 85.7% and 100%, respectively. No severe adverse events, including somnolence, were observed with the addition of mirtazapine. CONCLUSION: The addition of mirtazapine to the standard antiemetic regimen for CINV may be beneficial with acceptable safety when administered in association with platinum-based regimens to patients with thoracic cancer.

The role of pharmacists in multimodal cancer cachexia care.

Cancer cachexia is a complex syndrome, and multidisciplinary management has the potential to improve patient outcomes and efficiency of care. Multidisciplinary management consists primarily of exercise, nutrition, and pharmacotherapy. The pharmacist's role in cancer cachexia is to contribute to appropriate pharmacotherapy practices. For example, anamorelin is an oral drug with ghrelin-like effects that may improve the pathogenesis of cancer cachexia by stimulating appetite and increasing food intake and body weight. Many patients with cancer cachexia are under treatment with anticancer agents, and pharmacists need to determine whether symptoms such as anorexia and nausea are due to cancer cachexia or anticancer agents. Based on that determination, they are then expected to suggest supportive care to the physician. Provision of multidisciplinary care for cancer cachexia requires communication with not only physicians but also with nurses, dietitians, and other professionals so that nutritional therapy can be provided at the time cachexia is detected. However, the role of pharmacists in the management of cancer cachexia is not well established, and there is no evidence that pharmacist interventions are of benefit to patients. In this article, to contribute to the treatment of cancer cachexia by multidisciplinary care, we describe the role of pharmacists in cancer cachexia as currently practiced at our hospital. We also consider future challenges to this type of multidisciplinary care. Evidence concerning multidisciplinary treatment of cancer cachexia is scarce, including therapeutic agents, and there is a current lack of collaboration among medical professionals and education in cancer cachexia. Solving these problems will require efforts in the practice and evaluation of treatment for cancer cachexia.

Impact of First-Line FOLFIRINOX-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy on the Efficacy of Second-Line GnP in Patients with Unresectable Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) are effective first-line chemotherapies for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer (APC); however, both lead to peripheral neuropathy (PN). AIMS: To evaluate the impact of first-line mFFX-induced PN on the efficacy of second-line GnP in patients with APC. METHODS: A database containing patients with APC was retrospectively analyzed to evaluate patients who received second-line GnP after first-line mFFX failure between September 2014 and January 2021. The efficacy and safety of GnP were compared between patients with PN ≥ Grade 2 (PN group) and PN ≤ Grade 1 (non-PN group) at the start of second-line GnP. Cox proportional hazards analysis was also performed to examine the effect on overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (PN group, 18 patients; non-PN group, 41 patients) were included. Median OS and TTF in the PN versus non-PN group were 7.7 versus 5.7 months (p = 0.19) and 3.8 versus 2.7 months (p = 0.18), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that PN (≥Grade 2) was not a significant factor affecting either OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.31, p = 0.24) or TTF (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38-1.33, p = 0.28). No significant difference was observed in the relative dose intensity of GEM or nab-PTX, and incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: mFFX-induced PN has little impact on the efficacy and safety of second-line GnP in patients with APC. Second-line GnP could be a possible treatment option regardless of the presence of PN.

Association between the Co-administration of Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists and the Effectiveness of Capecitabine in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score Analysis.

Background: The association between the effectiveness of capecitabine and the concomitant administration of gastric acid suppressants remains controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the effectiveness of capecitabine is affected by the co-administration of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients using real-world data. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III CRC who received either capecitabine monotherapy or the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as adjuvant therapy between January 2009 and December 2014 in Japan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in this study, of which 30 were co-administered H2RAs. RFS at five years was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2-88.1%) and 79.8% (95% CI: 76.0-83.0%) in the H2RA and non-H2RA groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score-adjusted analyses showed that the co-administration of H2RAs was associated with a poor RFS among those receiving capecitabine monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI: 0.86-4.70 and HR, 1.81; 95% CI: 0.77-4.22, respectively). In contrast, these results were inconsistent with the group receiving the CapeOX regimen. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that the co-administration of H2RAs may not reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine therapy in patients with early-stage CRC. To confirm this relationship, a prospective study with a pharmacokinetic approach is needed.

Association Between Peripheral Neuropathy Induced by Oxaliplatin at First-line Chemotherapy and Efficacy of Paclitaxel at Second-line Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Although peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a common adverse event in patients treated with oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy (1st-OX) for advanced gastric cancer, the effect of PN on the efficacy of paclitaxel at second-line chemotherapy (2nd-PTX) remains unclear. We investigated the association between PN induced by 1st-OX and efficacy of 2nd-PTX in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study subjects were patients with AGC who received 1st-OX followed by 2nd-PTX at Gifu University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2019. Primary outcome was time to treatment failure (TTF) of 2nd-PTX. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), response rate and adverse events during the period of 2nd-PTX. The association between incidence of grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (G2PN) and TTF or OS was also evaluated using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients with AGC who received 1st-OX followed by 2nd-PTX were eligible. Incidence rates of G2PN at the start of 2nd-PTX was 20.3% (11/54). Median duration of TTF and OS were not significantly longer in patients with G2PN than in those without it (TTF: 4.7 months vs. 3.7 months, p=0.264, OS: 10.6 months vs. 8.5 months, p=0.706). Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between the incidence of G2PN and TTF, or between the incidence of G2PN and OS. However, development of grade ≥3 PN was significantly higher in patients with G2PN than in those without it (45.5% vs. 2.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: G2PN induced by 1st-OX may not affect efficacy of 2nd-PTX in patients with AGC but could be a risk for grade ≥3 PN of 2nd-PTX.

Control and Risk Factors of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Cervical Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Nausea and vomiting are two of the most distressing adverse events of cancer radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine the control rate and risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined patients with cervical cancer who received radiotherapy alone or with concomitant cisplatin. Patients who received radiotherapy alone were not administered antiemetic premedication, while patients who received radiotherapy with concomitant weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) were administered antiemetic therapy comprising granisetron and dexamethasone. Risk factors for non-complete response (CR) were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis indicated that younger age and concomitant weekly cisplatin were significant factors associated with non-CR across 5 weeks of treatment in patients who received radiotherapy. The proportion achieving CR among younger patients (<65 years) who received radiotherapy alone or with concomitant cisplatin was significantly lower than that among older patients (≥65 years) (Concomitant cisplatin: 27% vs. 67%, p=0.049; Radiotherapy alone: 62% vs. 91%, p=0.166). However, the proportion of patients achieving CR across 5 weeks of treatment was insufficient in all groups except for those aged ≥ 65 years who received radiotherapy alone. CONCLUSION: Antiemetic prophylaxis should be considered for younger patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy alone. Further, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist should be added to 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylactic therapy for patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy with concomitant weekly doses of 40 mg/m2 cisplatin.

Proton pump inhibitors affect capecitabine efficacy in patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.

The association between capecitabine efficacy and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is controversial. Here, we determined whether co-administration of PPIs affects the real-world effectiveness of capecitabine. This retrospective observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who received adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy or CapeOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) between January 2009 and December 2014 at nine participating institutions. The primary endpoint was the difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between patients who received PPIs and those who did not and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint. Multivariable analysis of RFS and OS was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. Data from 606 patients were evaluated, 54 of whom had received a PPI. PPI-treated patients tended to have poorer RFS and OS than patients treated without PPIs. The hazard ratio for RFS with capecitabine monotherapy was 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.22-5.07). These results were consistent with sensitivity analyses performed using propensity score adjustment and IPTW methods. Co-administration of PPIs may reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine and negatively impact patients with stage II-III CRC.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP). RESULTS: Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7). CONCLUSIONS: Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Cancer cachexia as a determinant of efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Pembrolizumab, either as a type of monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic anticancer agents, is effective in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the development of cancer cachexia may adversely affect anticancer drug therapy. The present study investigated the effect of cancer cachexia on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab. The data of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line monotherapy or combination therapy with pembrolizumab were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Clinical outcome was compared between patients with and without cancer cachexia. A total of 53 patients were analyzed. Among all patients, median TTF and OS were significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without [TTF: 5.8 vs. 10 months; hazard ratio (HR): 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-4.24; P=0.016; OS: 12.1 months vs. not reached; HR: 5.85; 95% CI: 2.0-17.1; P=0.001]. In addition, TTF in the pembrolizumab monotherapy group was significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without, but no significant difference was detected in patients receiving pembrolizumab combination therapy. The incidence of AEs did not significantly differ between patients with and without cancer cachexia, except with regard to hypothyroidism. In conclusion, although cancer cachexia is prognostic of a poor outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who receive first-line pembrolizumab, cancer cachexia might not affect therapeutic efficacy in combination therapy with pembrolizumab and cytotoxic anticancer agents.

Pharmaceutical intervention for adverse events improves quality of life in patients with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The effect of pharmaceutical intervention to treat adverse events on quality of life (QOL) in outpatients receiving cancer chemotherapy is unclear. We investigated whether pharmaceutical intervention provided by pharmacists in collaboration with physicians improves QOL with outpatient cancer chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective descriptive study of pharmaceutical intervention for patients receiving outpatient cancer chemotherapy at Gifu University Hospital between September 2017 and July 2020. We assessed patient QOL using the Japanese version of the EuroQol 5 Dimension5 Level (EQ-5D-5L). Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. We compared the EQ-5D-5L utility value and incidence of grade 2 or higher adverse events before and after pharmaceutical intervention. RESULTS: Our analysis included 151 patients who underwent 210 chemotherapy cycles. Pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved patients' EQ-5D-5L utility values from 0.8197 to 0.8603 (P < 0.01). EQ-5D-5L utility values were significantly improved after pharmaceutical intervention for nausea and vomiting (pre-intervention 0.8145, post-intervention 0.8603, P = 0.016), peripheral neuropathy (pre-intervention 0.7798, post-intervention 0.7988, P = 0.032) and pain (pre-intervention 0.7625, post-intervention 0.8197, P = 0.035). Although not statistically significant, the incidence of grade 2 or higher adverse events, including nausea and vomiting, dermopathy, pain, oral mucositis, diarrhea and dysgeusia, tended to be lower post-intervention than pre-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical intervention by pharmacists in collaboration with physicians may improve QOL in patients undergoing outpatient cancer chemotherapy.

[Effect of Biweekly-DCF Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Skeletal Muscle Mass of Esophageal Cancer Patients].

INTRODUCTION: Several studies reported that skeletal muscle mass affects the clinical response and quality of life of cancer patients during chemotherapy. Here we examined the adverse events and effects of anticancer drugs on the skeletal muscle mass of patients with esophageal cancer who received biweekly docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil(DCF)neoadjuvant chemotherapy in our department. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 105 patients with esophageal cancer who received biweekly-DCF neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 2009-2019. The cross-sectional area of the psoas muscle at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on computed tomography was assessed to calculate the psoas muscle index(PMI). Patients were divided into the high PMI group(high-group)and low PMI group(low-group)by cut-off value(male: 6.36 cm2/m2; female: 3.92 cm2/m2). Hematological toxicity, non-hematological toxicity, and therapeutic effect were retrospectively examined. RESULTS: Male in the high-group had significantly less ≥Grade 3 hematological toxicity than those in the low-group. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that PMI(odds ratio: 1, p<0.05)was significantly related to decreased hematological toxicity. CONCLUSION: In preoperative chemotherapy for esophageal cancer, the incidence of hematological toxicity was significantly higher in patients with low skeletal muscle mass. Thus, skeletal muscle mass may be a marker for determining optimal anticancer drug dosage.

Anorexia, pain and peripheral neuropathy are associated with a decrease in quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy - a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer chemotherapy usually improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), but can also cause moderate-to-severe adverse events (AEs). We investigated the relationship between moderate-to-severe AEs and quality of life (QOL) in patients with APC who received outpatient chemotherapy. METHODS: We recruited APC patients who received outpatient chemotherapy in Gifu University Hospital between September 2017 and December 2018. Adverse events related to chemotherapy were assessed by a pharmacist collaborating with a physician using common terminology criteria for AEs (CTCAE) ver 4.0, and QOL of patients was self-assessed by patients using the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L Japanese edition 2). Associations between the EQ-5D-5L utility value and serious AEs were assessed using proportional odds logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients who received 475 chemotherapy cycles were included. The proportional odds logistic regression indicated that grade ≥ 2 anorexia, pain and peripheral neuropathy were significantly correlated with a decreased EQ-5D-5L utility value. Pharmaceutical intervention for these AEs significantly improved the patients' EQ-5D-5L utility value. CONCLUSIONS: Anorexia, pain and peripheral neuropathy were significantly associated with a decrease in QOL. It is assumed that appropriate pharmaceutical intervention with particular emphasis on these AEs can improve the QOL of pancreatic cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy.

Comparison of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting Between Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel Combination Chemotherapy and Gemcitabine Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To clarify the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with GnP therapy, gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX), we compared CINV between GEM and GnP therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received an initial course of GEM and GnP therapy were enrolled. Primary endpoint was the incidence of nausea, and secondary endpoints were the incidence of vomiting and rescue. In addition, the association between nausea and combination therapy with GEM and nab-PTX was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for covariates. All patients received anti-cancer drugs under guideline-consistent, low-risk antiemetic measures. RESULTS: Data from 105 patients were analyzed (GEM group, 44 patients; GnP group, 61 patients). The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and rescue did not significantly differ between the two groups during the acute, delayed or overall periods. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that combination therapy with GEM and nab-PTX was not significantly associated with nausea compared to GEM alone. CONCLUSION: Under guideline-consistent, low-risk antiemetic measures, GnP therapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be controlled similarly to when induced by GEM.