Extra-adrenal phaeochromocytoma-a case report of refractory hypertension.

There are at least 5% of all hypertensive patients whose blood pressure (BP) remains elevated despite adequate treatment. In these cases, the clinician is forced to search for a secondary cause of the chronic BP elevation. Certain environmental factors are known to induce resistant-hypertension. Additionally, there may be pseudo-resistance occurring or the patient may be suffering from a secondary form of hypertension such as renovascular or endocrinological hypertension (phaeochromocytoma, Cushing's syndrome, etc.). We report a case of extra-adrenal phaeochromocytoma who was on adequate antihypertensive medications but remained refractory to treatment prior to the exact diagnosis.

A cross-sectional audit of distress in patients undergoing adjuvant therapy or follow-up in central nervous system malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Unaddressed high distress leads to noncompliance with treatment, negatively affects quality of life, and may also have a negative impact on the prognosis of cancer patients. Patients with brain tumors have higher levels of distress than the general population and hence we hypothesize that even routine visits during adjuvant treatment or follow-up are likely to be stressful. This analysis was performed to identify the incidence of distress and factors affecting it. METHODS: This was an audit of 84 consecutive patients seen in an adult neuro-medical oncology outpatient department who were either receiving adjuvant chemotherapy or were on follow-up. Distress screening with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress thermometer was performed. Patients in whom distress was scored as 4 or above were considered as having high distress. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed to identify factors affecting distress. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 40 years (interquartile range, 28.3 to 50 years). Actionable distress defined as a distress score of 4 or more was seen in 52 patients (61.9%, 95% CI 51.2% to 71.5%). Presence of physical deficit (odds ratio [OR] = 3.412, P = .020) and treatment under the private category (OR = 5.273, P = .003) had higher odds of having high distress. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of brain tumor patients either on adjuvant chemotherapy or on follow-up have high distress levels that need to be addressed even during follow-up.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with temozolomide: an audit from a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: In our previous experience, a significant proportion of patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist monotherapy with adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2) had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is an audit comparing the multiple antiemetic therapies in the prevention of temozolomide-associated CINV. METHODS: This was a retrospective audit. Adult glioma patients treated with temozolomide at a dose of 150-200 mg/m2 between October 2017 and June 2018 were selected for this analysis. Three antiemetic prophylaxis were used in this time period: ondansetron (October 2017 to November 2017), ondansetron + domperidone (December 2017 to February 2018), and ondansetron + olanzapine (March 2018 to June 2018). The rates of nausea and vomiting were compared among the 3 cohorts using the chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction. A P value of less than .016 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were selected for this analysis. There were 91 patients in the ondansetron prophylaxis group (25.3%), 113 (31.4%) in the ondansetron plus domperidone group, and 156 (43.3%) in the ondansetron plus olanzapine group. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 25.0% (n = 90) and 7.2% (n = 26). Overall the rates of nausea (P = .052) and vomiting (P = .481) were similar in all 3 cohorts. However, the rates of grade 2 and above nausea (P = .012) and vomiting (P = .015) were significantly lower in the olanzapine group. CONCLUSION: The combination of ondansetron with olanzapine leads to a statistically significant decrease in the rate of moderate-to-severe emesis and nausea and needs to be explored in a prospective study.

Outcomes with second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancers: A retrospective study from a tertiary cancer center in India.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 40% of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (CT1) for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDACs) receive second-line chemotherapy (CT2). The most appropriate regimen to be used has not been identified, and data regarding CT2 in advanced PDAC from India are scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of advanced PDAC patients who were evaluated during the period of August 2013 to August 2016 in the Department of GI medical Oncology, at Tata Memorial Hospital was conducted. Patients with histologically proven PDAC and started on CT2 postprogression or recurrence after CT1 were included for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients received CT1 in the period of study, of which 76 patients (39.66%) received CT2. The median age of patients was 59.5 years (range: 38-82), majority were male (69.7%), and 14 patients (18.4%) had undergone curative pancreatic resection at baseline. The common regimens used as CT2 were modified 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (mFOLFIRI) (35.5%), gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel (18.4%), and gemcitabine-erlotinib (11.8%). Common grade 3/4 toxicities noted were fatigue (10.3%), anemia (10.3%), neutropenia (7.4%), and vomiting (7.4%). Dose reductions were required in 32.9% of patients. RR, DCR, median event free survival, and median overall survival were 21.1%, 48.7%, and 5.94 months (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.68-7.20) and 8.08 months (95% CI: 7.11-9.07) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CT2 in advanced PDAC appears feasible in the Indian setting if the patients are appropriately selected and they can be treated with acceptable toxicities and reasonable outcomes.