Evaluation of the effects and adverse drug reactions of low-dose dexamethasone premedication with weekly docetaxel

Comparative study of dexamethasone premedication regimens with docetaxel chemotherapy in early HER-2 positive breast cancer: A safety net hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

Docetaxel can cause fluid retention reactions (FRRs) and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The manufacturer recommends a multi-day oral dexamethasone premedication to prevent these toxicities, but steroid related side effects and regimen compliance remain a concern. This study aimed to determine if modified dexamethasone premedication regimens resulted in differences in HSRs or FRRs to docetaxel. We also examined side effects of dexamethasone and delays in chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 82 early breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel. Three steroid regimens were examined: IV 20 mg single-dose dexamethasone, or IV 12 mg dexamethasone with either dexamethasone 8 mg BID for three days starting the day before chemotherapy or dexamethasone 4 mg BID for three days following chemotherapy. Adverse effects, delays in chemotherapy, and reasons for delays in chemotherapy were recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence and severity of FRRs and HSRs was low, with less than 10% incidence of HSRs or FRRs in any group. Delays were most common in the group receiving dexamethasone 8 mg BID for 3 days starting the day before chemotherapy (63.3%) (p < 0.05) and were most commonly due to patient noncompliance (26%).

CONCLUSION

A single dose of intravenous dexamethasone alone or followed by lower doses of oral dexamethasone may improve patient compliance and avoid delays in chemotherapy, without an increase in docetaxel toxicity.

Prognostic Factors for Hyperglycemia in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% to 30% of patients who receive chemotherapy experience hyperglycemia, which can affect the adverse reactions and treatment efficacy of chemotherapy. However, there is a paucity of research to explore the factors affecting hyperglycemia and include them in nursing interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to understand the prognostic factors of hyperglycemia in cancer patients on chemotherapy.

METHODS

This retrospective, descriptive study included 134 adult patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy at Keimyeng University Dongsan Hospital in Daegu between July 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, average, and standard deviation statistics and compared by t test, χ2 test, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis revealed that sex (male) (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.24-745.49; odds ratio [OR], 73.48); education (95% CI, 4.02-201.59; OR, 28.46); exercise durations of 30 to 60 minutes (95% CI, 0.00-0.06; OR, 0.01), 60 to 90 minutes (95% CI, 0.00-0.05, OR = 0.01), and ≥90 minutes (95% CI, 0.00-0.42; OR, 0.03); exercise amount ≥ 2000 kcal/wk (95% CI, 0.01-0.77; OR, 0.06); and daily fat (95% CI, 1.02-1.14; OR, 1.08), protein (95% CI, 0.82-0.95; OR, 0.88), and seaweed (95% CI, 0.85-0.99; OR, 0.92) intake were significant predictors of hyperglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic factors of hyperglycemia should be included in nursing interventions to prevent and manage hyperglycemia, which in turn may help reduce adverse reactions related to chemotherapy and improve treatment efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To prevent and manage hyperglycemia in patients on chemotherapy, prognostic factors, including exercise and protein, fat, and seaweed consumption, should be considered in nursing interventions. Particularly, in men and patients with low education levels who are at a high risk of hyperglycemia, nursing interventions for diet and exercise should be individualized.

A target map of clinical combination therapies in oncology: an analysis of clinicaltrials.gov

Combination therapies have taken center stage for cancer treatment, however, there is a lack of a comprehensive portrait to quantitatively map the current clinical combination progress. This study aims to capture clinical combination therapies of the validated FDA-approved new oncology drugs by a macro data analysis and to summarize combination mechanisms and strategies in the context of the existing literature. A total of 72 new molecular entities or new therapeutic biological products for cancer treatment approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021 were identified, and the data on their related 3334 trials were retrieved from the database of ClinicalTrials.gov. Moreover, these sampled clinical trials were refined by activity status and combination relevance and labeled with the relevant clinical arms and drug combinations, as well as drug targets and target pairs. Combination therapies are increasingly prevalent in clinical trials of new oncology drugs. From retrospective work, existing clinical combination therapies in oncology are driven by different patterns (i.e., rational design and industry trends). The former can be represented by mechanism-based or structure-based combinations, such as targeting different domains of HER2 protein or in-series co-targeting in RAF plus MEK inhibitors. The latter is an empirically driven strategy, including redundant combinations in hot targets, such as PD-1/PD-L1, PI3K, CDK4/6, and PARP. Because of an explosion in the number of clinical trials and the resultant shortage of available patients, it is essential to rationally design drug combinations.

High dose of dexamethasone attenuates docetaxel-induced fluid retention in breast cancer treatment

Docetaxel-induced fluid retention (DIFR) cumulatively occurs and is one of the most troublesome adverse effects. This study aimed to determine whether high dose dexamethasone (DEX) could prevent DIFR during breast cancer treatment. Breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel (75 mg/m²)-containing regimens were divided into 4 and 8 mg/day DEX groups, with each DEX dose administered on days 2-4 and retrospectively assessed. Incidence of greater than or equal to grade 2 DIFR was significantly lower in the 8 mg group (13.0%) compared to the 4 mg group (39.6%, P = 0.001). All-grade DIFR was also less in the 8 mg group (P = 0.01). Furthermore, the maximum variation of body weight was significantly lower in the 8 mg group (P = 0.0003). These results were also confirmed in the propensity score-matched population. Additionally, time-related DIFR incidence was also significantly delayed in the 8 mg group (P = 0.0005). Our study revealed that high dose DEX prevents DIFR. Therefore, further studies on its management are required for less onerous chemotherapy provision with better DIFR control.

The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP)-based induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP)-based induction chemotherapy (IC) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC).

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant failure-free survival (DMFS), locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. When GP-based IC was compared with double-drug-based or triple-drug-based IC, there were no significant differences in OS (HR 0.64, P = 0.08), PFS (HR 0.71, P = 0.09), DMFS (HR 0.87, P = 0.49) or LRFFS (HR 0.88, P = 0.66). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that GP IC led to an improvement in OS compared with triple-drug-based IC (P < 0.0001). Regarding safety, compared to triple-drug-based IC, GP-based IC was related to a decreased risk of leucopenia (P = 0.007) and neutropenia (P = 0.02) but was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (P = 0.01). Compared to double-drug-based IC, the prevalence of grade 3 or above thrombocytopenia was higher in the GP group (P = 0.007). No significant difference in the incidence of other AEs was observed.

CONCLUSION

Based on efficacy and safety, our meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared to double-drug-based or triple-drug-based IC, IC with a GP regimen does not appear to improve OS, PFS, DMFS or LRFFS and mainly led to an increased risk of grade3/4 thrombocytopenia. Notably, our subgroup analysis data show that GP-based IC may bring improved trends in OS as compared to triple-drug-based IC. For the optimal IC regimen has not been established, which IC regimen will benefit most LA-NPC patients should be further explored.

Comparative study of oral and IV dexamethasone premedication in the prevention of docetaxel induced allergic reactions

BACKGROUND

The hypersensitivity reactions after docetaxel administration is a main concern in this study. The aim of this study is to check the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) after receiving a single dose of intravenous dexamethasone before docetaxel administration.

METHOD

In this retrospective study, 1 year data from Jan 1st 2018 to Dec 31st 2018 was retrieved from hospital information system (HIS). We examined 210 patients who visited hospital during the last 12 months during their cancer treatment and took dexamethasone orally 3 days prior to docetaxel administration or 20 mg intravenously before 15 minutes of docetaxel.

RESULTS

Out of 210 patients, only 50 patients were taking IV dexamethasone injection prior to docetaxel constitutes only 23.5% while patients who were taking oral dexamethasone were found to be 160 which constitutes 75%. There was no hypersensitivity reaction with oral and IV dexamethasone before docetaxel administration. Majority of the patients were without taking oral dexamethasone before docetaxel administration which not only saved time but also improve patient compliance.

CONCLUSION

No hypersensitivity reaction had been found either in oral or intravenous dexamethasone prior to docetaxel administration by using patient data from Hospital Information System (HIS). However, intravenous dexamethasone not only improve patient compliance but also reduce the risk of hypersensitivity reactions but the cost of intravenous dexamethasone is higher than the cost of oral dexamethasone. In conclusion, single dose of intravenous IV dexamethasone is preferred treatment option.

Microtubule Inhibitors and Cardiotoxicity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer and heart disease are the leading causes of mortality in the USA. Advances in cancer therapies, namely, the development and use of chemotherapeutic agents alone or in combination, are becoming increasingly prevalent.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many chemotherapeutic agents have been associated with adverse cardiovascular manifestations. The mechanisms of these sequelae remain incompletely understood. In particular, microtubule inhibitor (MTI) agents have been related to the development of heart failure, myocardial ischemia, and conduction abnormalities. At present, there are no guidelines for patients undergoing MTI therapy as it pertains to both preventative and mitigatory strategies for cardiovascular complications. We conducted a literature review focusing on content related to the use of MTIs and their effect on the cardiovascular system. MTIs have been associated with various forms of cardiotoxicity, and fatal cardiotoxicities are rare. The most well-described cardiotoxicities are brady- and tachyarrhythmias. The co-administration of anthracycline-based agents with MTIs can increase the risk of cardiotoxicity.

Neutropenic sepsis rates in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy using olanzapine and reduced doses of dexamethasone compared to a standard antiemetic regimen

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the use of a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol (substituting dexamethasone with olanzapine) affects the incidence of neutropenia and associated hospital admissions in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records from 108 patients who received BEP at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London were divided into two groups according to antiemetic regimen. Group 1 (treated 2008-2013) were treated with a steroid-containing antiemetic protocol and group 2 (treated 2014-2017) were treated according to a steroid-sparing protocol, i.e. using olanzapine. Outcomes included incidence of neutropenia at nadir blood count, severity of neutropenia, hospital admissions attributable to febrile neutropenia (FN) and baseline risk factors associated with FN. Statistical analyses were performed using two-sided chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, histology, and proportion of patients with International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group poor-risk disease. The incidence of neutropenia of any grade (group 1, 96.2%; group 2, 98.1%) was similar, although group 2 had more patients with severe neutropenia than group 2 (77.7% vs 88.8%). There was a significant difference in FN incidence (group 1, 22%; group 2 7.5%; P = 0.030). Most cases of FN occurred in cycle 1. Two baseline characteristics were over-represented in patients who developed FN: female sex and age ≥50 years.

CONCLUSION

By comparing two cohorts who received prophylactic antibiotics, our audit suggests that rates of FN-related admissions were lower in the cohort of patients in whom we employed a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol.

Management of Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Stage- and Subtype-Specific Approach

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly changed delivery of cancer care. Many nonurgent surgeries are delayed to preserve hospital resources, and patient visits to health care settings are limited to reduce exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Providers must carefully weigh risks and benefits of delivering immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic. For breast cancer, a key difference is increased use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy due to deferral of many breast surgeries during the pandemic. In some cases, this necessitates increased use of genomic tumor profiling on core biopsy specimens to guide neoadjuvant therapy decisions. Breast cancer treatment during the pandemic requires multidisciplinary input and varies according to stage, tumor biology, comorbidities, age, patient preferences, and available hospital resources. We present here the Johns Hopkins Women's Malignancies Program approach to breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include algorithms based on tumor biology and extent of disease that guide management decisions during the pandemic. These algorithms emphasize medical oncology treatment decisions and demonstrate how we have operationalized the general treatment recommendations during the pandemic proposed by national groups, such as the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. Our recommendations can be adapted by other institutions and medical oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources. Guidelines such as these will be important as we continue to balance treatment of breast cancer against risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection until approval of a vaccine.

Effects of Diluent Volume and Administration Time on the Incidence of Anaphylaxis Following Docetaxel Therapy in Breast Cancer

Hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, are common side effects associated with docetaxel treatment in breast cancer patients. However, preventive measures have not yet been established. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for developing anaphylaxis in 182 female breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel. We found that 6.6% of all patients (n = 12) experienced anaphylaxis. Multivariate analyses indicated that concentration of docetaxel higher than 0.275 mg/m²/mL, docetaxel dose rate higher than 1.15 mg/m²/min, and white blood cell count less than 4290 cells/mL are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. In particular, concentrations of docetaxel or doses per administration time were associated with a high odds ratio (11.88 or 11.60) for docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. Moreover, patients receiving doses in 250 mL volume experienced anaphylaxis more frequently than those receiving doses in 500 mL (7.0 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.0236). Additionally, patients receiving treatments over 60 min tended to experience anaphylaxis more frequently than those who were treated over 90 min (6.7 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.0637). The present results indicate that high docetaxel concentrations, high dose rates, and low white blood cell counts are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis, and administering docetaxel diluted in 500 mL over 90 min may limit docetaxel-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Pegylated poly(anhydride) nanoparticles for oral delivery of docetaxel

The aim of this work was to investigate the potential of pegylated poly(anhydride) nanoparticles to enhance the oral bioavailability of docetaxel (DTX). Nanoparticles were prepared after the incubation between the copolymer of methyl vinyl ether and maleic anhydride (Gantrez® AN), poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG2000 or PEG6000) and docetaxel (DTX). The oral administration of a single dose of pegylated nanoparticles to mice provided sustained and prolonged therapeutic plasma levels of docetaxel for up 48-72 h. In addition, the relative oral bioavailability of docetaxel was around 32%. The organ distribution studies revealed that docetaxel underwent a similar distribution when orally administered encapsulated in nanoparticles as when intravenously as Taxotere®. This observation, with the fact that the clearance of docetaxel when loaded into the oral pegylated nanoparticles was found to be similar to that of intravenous formulation, suggests that docetaxel would be released at the epithelium surface and then absorbed to the circulation.