-
Health Science Reports May 2022Bendamustine, a bifunctional mechlorethamine alkylating agent, is used in the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies. Myelosuppression and cytotoxic effect... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bendamustine, a bifunctional mechlorethamine alkylating agent, is used in the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies. Myelosuppression and cytotoxic effect arises quite often after bendamustine treatment. To date, there have been no recommendations for routine chemoprophylaxis for pneumonia (PCP) in patients under treatment with this agent. The present systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing data on bendamustine effects on pneumocystis pneumonia.
METHOD
English papers were systematically reviewed using Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane library. There was no time constraint for the paper search. The used keywords included "Pneumonia, Pneumocystis"or "Pneumocystis Pneumonia"or "Pneumocystis jirovecii" and "Bendamustine hydrochloride or Bendamustine. "Through our search, 113 papers were found, 26 of which were chosen following a review of the titles and abstracts; ultimately, 10 were included in the research.
RESULT
A total of 10 studies (out of 113 studies) were retrieved. The papers were classified into seven case reports, two clinical trials, and one retrospective analysis study. The case reports included 14 patients diagnosed with PCP after bendamustine administration between 2003 and 2019. The patients' mean age was with a range of 66.8. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma) ( = 9, 60%), chronic lymphocytic leukemia ( = 4, 26.6%), and breast cancer ( = 2, 13.4%) were the most prevalent types of malignancy. Bendamustine, along with rituximab, were the most commonly prescribed chemotherapy regimens during the treatments. Finally, the mortality rate among the patients whose results were reported ( = 9) was 44.44% ( = 4).
CONCLUSION
The present review described PCP infection in patients with malignancies after the treatment with bendamustine, a chemotherapeutic agent associated with lymphopenia. Further research is required to determine the PCP risk in patients with bendamustine treatment and identify individuals who may benefit from prophylaxis.
PubMed: 35509412
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.610 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available, which may induce clinical remission for a time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012: we wanted to assess new trials, some of which investigated new interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for MF in all stages of the disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched 2 trials registries for additional references. For adverse event outcomes, we undertook separate searches in MEDLINE in April, July and November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of local or systemic interventions for MF in adults with any stage of the disease compared with either another local or systemic intervention or with placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were improvement in health-related quality of life as defined by participants, and common adverse effects of the treatments. Key secondary outcomes were complete response (CR), defined as complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease, and objective response rate (ORR), defined as proportion of patients with a partial or complete response. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence and considered comparisons of psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) light treatment as most important because this is first-line treatment for MF in most guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 20 RCTs (1369 participants) covering a wide range of interventions. The following were assessed as either treatments or comparators: imiquimod, peldesine, hypericin, mechlorethamine, nitrogen mustard and intralesional injections of interferon-α (IFN-α) (topical applications); PUVA, extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP: photochemotherapy), and visible light (light applications); acitretin, bexarotene, lenalidomide, methotrexate and vorinostat (oral agents); brentuximab vedotin; denileukin diftitox; mogamulizumab; chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, and vincristine; a combination of chemotherapy with electron beam radiation; subcutaneous injection of IFN-α; and intramuscular injections of active transfer factor (parenteral systemics). Thirteen trials used an active comparator, five were placebo-controlled, and two compared an active operator to observation only. In 14 trials, participants had MF in clinical stages IA to IIB. All participants were treated in secondary and tertiary care settings, mainly in Europe, North America or Australia. Trials recruited both men and women, with more male participants overall. Trial duration varied from four weeks to 12 months, with one longer-term study lasting more than six years. We judged 16 trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly performance bias (blinding of participants and investigators), attrition bias and reporting bias. None of our key comparisons measured quality of life, and the two studies that did presented no usable data. Eighteen studies reported common adverse effects of the treatments. Adverse effects ranged from mild symptoms to lethal complications depending upon the treatment type. More aggressive treatments like systemic chemotherapy generally resulted in more severe adverse effects. In the included studies, CR rates ranged from 0% to 83% (median 31%), and ORR ranged from 0% to 88% (median 47%). Five trials assessed PUVA treatment, alone or combined, summarised below. There may be little to no difference between intralesional IFN-α and PUVA compared with PUVA alone for 24 to 52 weeks in CR (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.31; 2 trials; 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Common adverse events and ORR were not measured. One small cross-over trial found once-monthly ECP for six months may be less effective than twice-weekly PUVA for three months, reporting CR in two of eight participants and ORR in six of eight participants after PUVA, compared with no CR or ORR after ECP (very low-certainty evidence). Some participants reported mild nausea after PUVA but no numerical data were given. One participant in the ECP group withdrew due to hypotension. However, we are unsure of the results due to very low-certainty evidence. One trial comparing bexarotene plus PUVA versus PUVA alone for up to 16 weeks reported one case of photosensitivity in the bexarotene plus PUVA group compared to none in the PUVA-alone group (87 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between bexarotene plus PUVA and PUVA alone in CR (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.80) and ORR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44) (93 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial comparing subcutaneous IFN-α injections combined with either acitretin or PUVA for up to 48 weeks or until CR indicated there may be little to no difference in the common IFN-α adverse effect of flu-like symptoms (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.88; 82 participants). There may be lower CR with IFN-α and acitretin compared with IFN-α and PUVA (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84; 82 participants) (both outcomes: low-certainty evidence). This trial did not measure ORR. One trial comparing PUVA maintenance treatment to no maintenance treatment, in participants who had already had CR, did report common adverse effects. However, the distribution was not evaluable. CR and OR were not assessable. The range of treatment options meant that rare adverse effects consequently occurred in a variety of organs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support decision making in the treatment of MF. Because of substantial heterogeneity in design, missing data, small sample sizes, and low methodological quality, the comparative safety and efficacy of these interventions cannot be reliably established on the basis of the included RCTs. PUVA is commonly recommended as first-line treatment for MF, and we did not find evidence to challenge this recommendation. There was an absence of evidence to support the use of intralesional IFN-α or bexarotene in people receiving PUVA and an absence of evidence to support the use of acitretin or ECP for treating MF. Future trials should compare the safety and efficacy of treatments to PUVA, as the current standard of care, and should measure quality of life and common adverse effects.
Topics: Acitretin; Antineoplastic Agents; Bexarotene; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Interferon-alpha; Mycosis Fungoides; Neoplasm Staging; PUVA Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Photopheresis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 32632956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub3