RESUMEN
Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is a rapidly developing treatment modality. These treatments are indicated for patients who are either heavily pretreated and/or may have neurohormonal active disease, increasing risk of acute adverse effects and the need for unplanned acute care. The goals of this report were to characterize the frequency of unplanned acute care utilization after PRRT infusion and to detail a comprehensive standard operating procedure (SOP) for radioprotection during unplanned post-PRRT acute care. The records of patients treated with PRRT were reviewed. The event of interest was emergency department (ED) utilization and/or inpatient admission within 7 days of PRRT infusion. A multidisciplinary group developed a radioprotection SOP for all phases of unplanned acute care including the clinical infusion space, emergency medical services (EMS) transport to the ED, within the ED, and on the inpatient floor. A total of 232 patients received 814 infusions of PRRT, with 134 (58%) receiving Lutathera and 98 (42%) receiving Pluvicto. Nineteen patients received unplanned acute care at an ED within 7 days of PRRT infusion (8% of patients, 2% of infusions), of which 10 received Lutathera (8% of patients, 2% of infusions). Two patients (2% of patients, 0.5% of infusions) experienced carcinoid crises within 24 hours of Lutathera infusion. The median and average interval between infusion and ED visit was 0.5 days and 1.3 days, respectively. Nine patients received Pluvicto (9% of patients, 3% of infusions). The median and average interval between infusion and ED visit was 4 days and 4.7 days, respectively. Emergency room utilization and/or inpatient admission after PRRT administration are relatively infrequent events, but not unexpected. Centers that administer PRRT should have a comprehensive SOP in place to effectively care for radioactive patient emergencies while maximizing medical staff protection.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The schedule of cisplatin concurrent with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial. Most institutions deliver either a high-dose "bolus" schedule once every 3 weeks or a low-dose weekly schedule. We compared these 2 schedules via a simplified network meta-analysis with a common comparator. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a PRISMA-concordant systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials comparing cisplatin with cetuximab for nonmetastatic, locoregionally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with definitive radiation. Trials incorporating primary surgery or induction therapy were excluded. Patient survival times were extracted on a per-event basis from the published curves using a digitizer and validated against published point estimates and hazard ratios (HRs). Survival was compared using random effects Cox regression under a frequentist framework. Toxicity and secondary endpoints were analyzed qualitatively. The Cochrane method assessed the risk of bias. The analysis plan was preregistered with the Open Science Foundation. RESULTS: Five randomized trials were identified, including 1678 patients. There was no statistical difference in overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.53-1.52, P = .345). This Cox model suggested that for the average patient in the cohort, the absolute difference in 5-year overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens was +1.2% (95% CI, -6.1%-+5.9%, P = .345). Secondary endpoints and toxicity were not obviously different by regimen, qualitatively. CONCLUSIONS: The cetuximab trials provide indirect data suggesting that the differences between cisplatin schedules are subtle.