Yosuke Ando

BACKGROUND/AIM: The frequency rate of injection site reactions (ISR) due to fosaprepitant meglumine (Fos APR) has been shown to vary depending on the types of combined anticancer drug. This study aimed to elucidate the impact of Fos APR on ISR in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin, with and without bevacizumab therapy (TC±Bev). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study focused on patients with gynecologic cancer (n=93) who received TC±Bev administration at Fujita Health University Hospital from March 2016 to February 2020, and monitored up to six cycles. The patients were randomly assigned to the Fos APR group (n=47) and the Aprepitant (APR) group (n=46). Using Visual Infusion Phlebitis (VIP) scores, ISR was evaluated by comparing the VIP scores of all cycles using a linear mixed model. The risk factors that contribute to the occurrence of vascular pain throughout all cycles were also examined. RESULTS: The VIP scores of all cycles showed a near significant intergroup difference (p=0.071). Factors that affected the development of vascular pain included Fos APR and age (p=0.027 and 0.049, respectively). Regarding age, patients aged <65 years had a higher risk. Four patients underwent a switch from the originally assigned neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; in all of these cases, Fos APR was changed to APR for vascular pain. CONCLUSION: Fos APR may increase the risk for ISR associated with TC±Bev therapy for gynecological cancer.

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.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia is often a use-limiting adverse reaction to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) combination chemotherapy, reducing therapeutic intensity, and, in some cases, requiring platelet transfusion. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with urothelial cancer at the initiation of GC combination therapy and the objective was to develop a prediction model for the incidence of severe thrombocytopenia using machine learning. METHODS: We performed receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the cut-off values of the associated factors. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe thrombocytopenia. The prediction model was constructed from an ensemble model and gradient-boosted decision trees to estimate the risk of an outcome using the risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: Of 186 patients included in this study, 46 (25%) experienced severe thrombocytopenia induced by GC therapy. Multivariate analyses revealed that platelet count ≤ 21.4 (×104/µL) [odds ratio 7.19, p < 0.01], hemoglobin ≤ 12.1 (g/dL) [odds ratio 2.41, p = 0.03], lymphocyte count ≤ 1.458 (×103/µL) [odds ratio 2.47, p = 0.02], and dose of gemcitabine ≥ 775.245 (mg/m2) [odds ratio 4.00, p < 0.01] were risk factors of severe thrombocytopenia. The performance of the prediction model using these associated factors was high (area under the curve 0.76, accuracy 0.82, precision 0.68, recall 0.50, and F-measure 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Platelet count, hemoglobin level, lymphocyte count, and gemcitabine dose contributed to the development of a novel prediction model to identify the incidence of GC-induced severe thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Renal dysfunction necessitates S-1 dose reduction. However, decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity may lead to adverse events due to 5-FU. The guidelines provided by pharmaceutical companies state that total bilirubin (T-Bil) should be ≤upper limit of normal (ULN)×1.5 as a reference value for safely taking S-1. Nevertheless, the relationship between the degree of liver dysfunction and S-1 dose reduction has not been clearly established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study focused on patients who received S-1 monotherapy for various types of cancer. The primary outcome was defined as the variation between blood sampling results on the test day and the subsequent test. The variation data were categorized based on the difference in T-Bil: Low T-Bil group (≤2.25) and High T-Bil group (>2.25). RESULTS: The number of patients that underwent S-1 monotherapy was 883 and the running number was 7,511; Low T-Bil group included 7,245 and High T-Bil group included 266. Examination of the effect of the T-Bil Group on clinical outcomes revealed a correlation with red blood cell (RBC) count, platelet (PLT) count, and T-Bil level. When the impact of the interaction between the T-Bil Group and any of the clinical outcomes, such as the RBC count, PLT count, and T-Bil level, was determined, each outcome showed a significant decrease in the High T-Bil group compared with the Low T-Bil group. CONCLUSION: S-1 administration in patients with liver dysfunction accompanied by elevated T-Bil levels may cause thrombocytopenia.

Pharmaceutical consultation targeting outpatients at the Fujita Health University Hospital (Japan) provides support to patients undergoing anticancer drug treatment. This study aimed to explore factors that affect the comprehension of cancer chemotherapy among outpatients who received cancer treatment at our hospital. A questionnaire survey was conducted, and comprehension was scored on a scale of 1-5 (1, no comprehension; 5, full comprehension). When factors other than age and sex [the influence of which on comprehension has been reported in previous reports] were noted, differences in comprehension between the questionnaire items were comparatively analyzed according to the presence/absence of the relevant factors. Overall, 536 patients were included. Age (<70 years) and pharmacist interventions were identified as factors contributing to a comprehension score. The levels of comprehension regarding the name of the cancer chemotherapy, content/schedule of the treatment, purposes of the prescribed drugs, and objectives of blood tests were significantly higher in the group that received the pharmaceutical interventions; conversely, the level of comprehension for the self-management of adverse events was significantly lower in this group than in the group that did not receive any pharmaceutical interventions. Age and interventions by the pharmacist affected the comprehension of cancer chemotherapy by patients.