Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice

Mitomycin and irinotecan are widely used in the treatment of colorectal cancer, furthermore both of these drugs are active agents against nonsmall cell lung cancer and their combination has shown synergism in preclinical studies. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mitomycin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy combination in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer progressing after previous antineoplastic therapies.

Thirty-one consecutive patients suffering from nonsmall cell lung cancer, who underwent mitomycin- plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy as salvage treatment after failure of at least two previous systemic treatments, were retrospectively identified in our database. Between September 2003 and March 2011, 31 patients with histologically proven stage IIIB or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer, received mitomycin 5 mg/m² on day 1 followed by irinotecan 150 mg/m² on day 2. Cycles were repeated at 2-week interval.

A total of 164 cycles of treatment were given with a median of five per patient (range 1–10). The objective responses included partial response in 6 patients (19.3%), stable disease in 4 (13%), and progressive disease in 21 (67.7%). Median time to disease progression was 4 months, and median survival was 9+ months. Twelve patients (38%) reached 1-year survival. Grade 3–4 toxicities occurred in seven patients (22.5%), mainly myelosuppression (neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia), mucositis, and diarrhea. No treatment-related death was recorded.

The mitomycin- and irinotecan-based combination chemotherapy seems to be tolerated and active in this subset of heavily pretreated patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. However, evaluation or recruitment of a larger number of patients would be needed to provide more adequate data on safety and activity of the described combination.

(a) To measure the urinary excretion of antineoplastic drugs of three patients during 48 h after the administration of cyclophosphamide (two patients) and 5-fluorouracil (one patient). (b) To evaluate environmental contamination with antineoplastic drugs via excreta of patients in the home setting. (c) To evaluate exposure of family members to antineoplastic drugs by measuring the drugs in their urine during the 48 h after completion of the chemotherapy by the patients.

Two patients were administered cyclophosphamide by i.v. bolus injection. One patient was administered 5-fluorouracil by i.v. bolus injection and thereafter immediately administered the same drug by continuous infusion for 46 h. Urine samples from the patients administered cyclophosphamide and their family members, and wipe samples from their home environment, were analysed for the unchanged form of cyclophosphamide. For 5-fluorouracil, the urine samples from the patient and the family member were analysed for the 5-fluorouracil metabolite α-fluoro-β-alanine. Wipe samples were analysed for 5-fluorouracil. Drugs were detected and quantified with gas chromatography in tandem with mass spectroscopy-mass spectroscopy or by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet-light detection.

A total of 35 and 16 urine samples were collected from the three patients and their family members, respectively. The drugs were detected in all samples.

Cyclophosphamide was detected at levels of 0.03–7.34 ng/cm² in 8 of the 12 wipe samples obtained from the homes of the patients administered cyclophosphamide. For the patient administered 5-fluorouracil, drug levels in his home environment were below the limit of detection.

We demonstrated contamination of the home setting and exposure of family members to cyclophosphamide via the excreta of outpatient receiving chemotherapy. Exposure of the family member of the patient administered 5-fluorouracil was also demonstrated. These findings indicate the importance of strict precautions by the members of treated cancer patients as well as healthcare workers, to reduce the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs.

To determine the feasibility of dose-rounding rituximab by looking at the potential deviation from the prescribed dose to the dose rounded to the nearest vial size.

This study is a retrospective chart review of all rituximab orders prescribed for hematologic or oncologic indications over a period of 24 months. The feasibility of dose-rounding rituximab to the nearest vial size was evaluated by looking at the potential deviation of the prescribed dose to the rounded dose. Physician opinion towards dose rounding rituximab was assessed through a survey.

From October 2008 through September 2010, 2028 orders of rituximab were prescribed and processed. Ninety-nine percent of all rituximab doses fell within 10% dose deviation if rounded to the nearest 100-mg vial size and 66.1% of all rituximab orders fell within 5% dose deviation. All responding physicians were comfortable with at least a 5% dose deviation, projecting a yearly savings of approximately US$37,000 through rounding down and capturing additional cost of approximately US$43,000 through rounding up.

The projected savings of dose-rounding rituximab to the nearest vial size resulted in both substantial financial savings and reduced unnecessary wastage of unused drug.

Cetuximab is a chimeric mouse-human (30:70) IgG1 monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits the binding of epidermal growth factor. Cetuximab is generally well tolerated; however, hypersensitivity infusion reactions have been reported. The incidence at the University of Oklahoma was currently unknown, though anecdotally high. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of severe HIRs and secondarily to determine risk factors for cetuximab-induced hypersensitivity infusion reactions.

A retrospective chart review was conducted and included all patients that received cetuximab from 2005 to 2010 at the outpatient clinics of the Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center. A total of 153 patients were included in the analysis. The overall incidence proportion of severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions was 12.4%. Male patients had an increased incidence of severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions compared to female patients (20.6% vs. 5%, p = 0.0036). Current smokers had an increased incidence of severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions of 23.6% when compared to never smokers or former smokers, p = 0.0012. Cervical cancer had a significantly decreased risk of severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions when compared to other tumor types (5.3% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.0387). Multivariate analysis identified risk factors associated with severe HIRs to be: male gender, RR = 3.9, p = 0.01 and current smokers, RR = 3.98, p = 0.0048.

Patients at the University of Oklahoma had an increased incidence of severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions when compared to the national average. Male patients and current smokers were found to be at increased risk for severe hypersensitivity infusion reactions in our study. Further investigation is warranted.

A randomized trial carried out by Shepherd et al. in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer showed statistically significant benefit of erlotinib over placebo in prolonging overall survival and progression-free survival.

The primary outcome was to compare overall survival of patients treated with erlotinib for non-small-cell lung cancer at Alberta Health Services – Cancer Care to the overall survival seen in the pivotal trial. Secondary outcomes included comparing progression-free survival, overall response rate, and duration of response between the two patient populations.

A retrospective review of charts was conducted for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who received erlotinib therapy after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen between 1 August 2006 and 31 July 2009. Survival data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 5.19 months and 2.46 months, respectively, in Alberta Health Services – Cancer Care patients. The rate of response was 11% (median duration of response, 6.7 months). The likelihood of a response to erlotinib was higher among nonsmokers (p < 0.0001) and those with response to prior chemotherapy (p = 0.0896). In multivariate analysis, good performance status (p = 0.0109) and response to prior therapy (p < 0.0001) were favorable factors for survival.

In a clinical setting, erlotinib does not perform as well in terms of median overall survival as reported in the pivotal trial (5.19 vs. 6.70 months).

There is no consensus in the oncology community about the optimal model for anticoagulation management of ambulatory cancer patients. To understand oncologists’ preferences regarding anticoagulation management, we compared the characteristics of patients referred to an oncology-oriented anticoagulation management service with “usual care” patients managed by the patient’s primary oncologist.

We performed a retrospective medical record review of ambulatory oncology patients’ anticoagulation care at a comprehensive cancer center. We examined the characteristics of 33 patients anticoagulated before implementation of a dedicated oncology anticoagulation management service. We compared this group with 33 patients managed by the anticoagulation management service and with 39 usual care patients managed by the primary oncologist after the anticoagulation management service was created. We also examined differences in laboratory test utilization, time in the therapeutic range (for patients anticoagulated with warfarin), and anticoagulation-related adverse events during a 3-month assessment period.

Anticoagulation management service patients were more likely to be treated for hematologic malignancies, use erythropoietin stimulating agents, and require warfarin management for previous venous thromboembolic disease compared to usual care patients. In contrast, oncologists were more likely to manage anticoagulation care of patients with advanced solid tumors undergoing active chemotherapy. Anticoagulation management service and usual care patients on warfarin therapy had comparable time in the therapeutic range and complication rates.

Oncologists selectively referred patients to the anticoagulation management service. Anticoagulation management service patients’ warfarin control and complication rates were comparable to care provided by the primary oncologist, suggesting that an oncology-specific anticoagulation management service may be a feasible and effective option for anticoagulation management of ambulatory oncology patients.

Erlotinib approval was supported by the positive results of a large multicentric phase III trial (BR.21 study) that included 10% Asiatic patients and the remaining were North-American Caucasian. It is well-known that the efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors is strongly influenced by ethnicity and other genetic factors. It is, therefore, relevant to establish whether the same profile of efficacy is seen in an unselected population and whether the results of BR.21 can be generalized to other patient populations, such as that described here.

In this retrospective, observational, multicentric study, we assessed effectiveness and potentially response predictive factors in 222 unselected Italian patients, with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer, with performance status from 0 to 3, who had received at least one line of chemotherapy, treated with the standard dose of erlotinib (150 mg once daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The disease control rate was 60.9% (135 patients). Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 3.1 months and 7.97 months, respectively. The characteristics of non-smoker, female gender, performance status 0 or 1 were associated with a significantly better prognosis in terms of disease control rate and were also predictive of longer overall survival and progression-free survival. The 1-year survival rate was 38.79%. Even though Italian patients baseline characteristics were strongly different to those reported in pivotal BR.21 trial in terms of age, performance status, line treatment and ethnic group, our study confirms the favorable effectiveness profile in real clinical practice of erlotinib according to results from the pivotal study BR.21.

Today, we know that epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status assessment is mandatory before starting first-line therapy and that the presence of only certain clinical characteristics initially associated with sensitivity to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as reported in this study, is not sufficient in selecting patients candidates to such treatments.