Amifostine and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support of escalating-dose melphalan: a phase I study.

This study was conducted to define a new maximum tolerated dose and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) when used with the cytoprotective agent amifostine. Fifty-eight patients with various types of malignancy who were ineligible for higher-priority AHSCT protocols were entered on a phase I study of escalating doses of melphalan beginning at 220 mg/m(2) and advancing by 20 mg/m(2) increments in planned cohorts of 4 to 8 patients until severe regimen-related toxicity (RRT) was encountered. In all patients, amifostine 740 mg/m(2) was given on 2 occasions before the first melphalan dose (ie, 24 hours before and again 15 minutes before). AHSCT was given 24 hours after the first melphalan dose. Melphalan was given in doses up to and including 300 mg/m(2). Hematologic depression was profound, although it was rapidly and equally reversible at all melphalan doses. Although mucosal RRT was substantial, it was not the DLT, and some patients given the highest melphalan doses (ie, 300 mg/m(2)) did not develop mucosal RRT. The DLT was not clearly defined. Cardiac toxicity in the form of atrial fibrillation occurred in 3 of 36 patients treated with melphalan doses >/=280 mg/m(2) and was deemed fatal in 1 patient given melphalan 300 mg/m(2). (Another patient with a known cardiomyopathy was given melphalan 220 mg/m(2) and died as a result of heart failure but did not have atrial fibrillation.) Another patient given melphalan 300 mg/m(2) died of hepatic necrosis. The maximum tolerated dose of melphalan in this setting was thus considered to be 280 mg/m(2), and 27 patients were given this dose without severe RRT. Moreover, 38 patients were evaluable for delayed toxicity related to RRT; none was noted. Tumor responses have been noted at all melphalan doses and in all diagnostic groups, and 21 patients are alive at median day +1121 (range, day +136 to day +1923), including 16 without evidence of disease progression at median day +1075 (range, day +509 to day +1638). Amifostine and AHSCT permit the safe use of melphalan 280 mg/m(2), an apparent increase over the dose of melphalan that can be safely administered with AHSCT but without amifostine. Further studies are needed not only to confirm these findings, but also to define the antitumor efficacy of this regimen. Finally, it may be possible to evaluate additional methods of further dose escalation of melphalan in this setting.

Activity of single-agent melphalan 220-300 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma.

High-dose chemotherapy using melphalan (HDMEL) is an important component of many conditioning regimens that are given before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). In contrast to the situation in myeloma, and to a lesser degree acute leukemia, only a very limited published experience exists with the use of HDMEL conditioning as a single agent in doses requiring AHSCT for lymphoma, both Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Thus, we report results of treating 26 lymphoma patients (22 with NHL and four with HL) with HDMEL 220-300 mg/m(2) plus amifostine (AF) cytoprotection and AHSCT as part of a phase I-II trial. Median age was 51 years (range 24-62 years); NHL histology was varied, but was aggressive (including transformed from indolent) in 19 patients, indolent in two patients and mantle cell in one. All 26 patients had been extensively treated; 11 were refractory to the immediate prior therapy on protocol entry and two had undergone prior AHSCT. All were deemed ineligible for other, 'first-line' AHSCT regimens. Of these 26 patients, 22 survived to initial tumor evaluation on D +100. At this time, 13 were in complete remission, including four patients who were in second CR before HDMEL+AF+AHSCT. Responses occurred at all HDMEL doses. Currently, seven patients are alive, including five without progression, with a median follow-up in these latter patients of D +1163 (range D +824 to D +1630); one of these patients had a nonmyeloablative allograft as consolidation on D +106. Conversely, 14 patients relapsed or progressed, including five who had previously achieved CR with the AHSCT procedure. Two patients, both with HL, remain alive after progression; one is in CR following salvage radiotherapy. Six patients died due to nonrelapse causes, including two NHL patients who died while in CR. We conclude that HDMEL+AF+AHSCT has significant single-agent activity in relapsed or refractory NHL and HL. This experience may be used as a starting point for subsequent dose escalation of HDMEL (probably with AF) in established combination regimens.

Computerized system for outcomes-based antiemetic therapy in children.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a computerized data collection system used for an outcomes-based approach to antiemetic therapy in children, and to present data collected with this system in support of a new antiemetic dosing regimen. METHODS: A validated nausea/vomiting survey was used to collect data on nausea severity (NSEV), vomiting severity (VSEV), daily activity interference (DAI), and the number of vomiting episodes. NSEV, VSEV, and DAI were rated as 0 = none to 3 = severe. All children and/or their parents were surveyed following the completion of each highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This survey was computerized and transferred to a handheld data entry unit. Time and motion studies were performed to compare the time required to collect nausea/vomiting data and transfer the data to a computerized database with the hand-held system versus traditional paper (manual) surveys. The hand-held technology was used to collect survey data for children receiving a new antiemetic regimen (daily ondansetron and dexamethasone [OD]), which was then compared with data obtained with a previously employed regimen (thrice-daily ondansetron and daily methylprednisolone [OM]). Statistical analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) were performed to compare the two antiemetic regimens. RESULTS: The mean time required for total data entry with the manual system was 5.2 minutes per survey versus 2.4 minutes with the hand-held technology (p = 0.0026). A total of 376 nausea/vomiting surveys in 78 children receiving the OM antiemetic regimen were compared with 153 surveys in 38 children treated with the OD regimen. The mean survey scores were as follows: NSEV (1.2 vs. 0.8), VSEV (1.0 vs. 0.7), DAI (1.0 vs. 0.7), and number of vomiting episodes (4.3 vs. 2.1) for OM and OD, respectively; all were significantly lower with the OD regimen (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with complete control of nausea and vomiting (19.2% vs. 39.2%) and good control (55.6% vs. 65.4%) were significantly greater with the OD regimen (p < 0.05). The CEA revealed that the OD resulted in a reduction of approximately $31 per patient for good protection and a $258 reduction for complete protection from nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: A computerized outcomes-based system aided by handheld technology allowed for more prompt and efficient collection of nausea/vomiting data. The OD antiemetic regimen was shown to be a more cost-effective alternative for children receiving severely emetogenic chemotherapy.

Adverse events associated with chemotherapy for common cancers.

Neutropenia is a common and often dose-limiting toxicity associated with chemotherapy One way to decrease the severity of this adverse event is to use colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) after chemotherapy. Colony-stimulating factors are relatively expensive agents, and most institutions limit their use. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict which patients are likely to develop neutropenia. An improved ability to predict this situation might help institutions and clinicians determine which patients need CSFs as adjunctive therapy. The efficacy of CSFs and how they may affect patient outcomes are discussed. In addition, a primary literature review on the toxicity associated with chemotherapy regimens used for common cancers is summarized. Knowing the toxicity of individual regimens may help clinicians identify patients needing adjunctive therapy or less toxic regimens. Any action that helps reduce the occurrence, or severity, of neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy would be beneficial and enhance the patient's quality of life.

Oprelvekin (Neumega), first platelet growth factor for thrombocytopenia.

Oprelvekin decreases the need for platelet transfusion in nontransplant patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Until pharmacoeconomics studies determine the most cost-effective strategy for use of oprelvekin, it is likely to be used primarily in patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy to maintain the high-dose regimen that may provide a survival advantage for the patient with cancer. Additional product information is available at www.ahp.com/products/neumega.htm.

Delayed graft function after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong association between delayed graft function (DGF) and reduced graft survival (GS) of cadaveric renal transplants. This study was performed to identify donor characteristics that might predict adverse outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed the folders of 509 consecutive organ donors for 586 renal transplant recipients receiving grafts between 1990 and 1995. A uniform immunosuppression protocol was employed. RESULTS: The factors that did not alter the rate of DGF were procurement year, local versus shared organs, donor gender, race, hypotension, serum creatinine level and trend, blood transfusions, and vasopressor use and dose. The factors that did alter the frequency of DGF were cause of death (P=0.0053), donor age (P=0.0017), cold ischemic time (P=0.0009), anastomotic time (P=0.0012), combined cold ischemic time and anastomotic time (P=0.00018), and body mass index (P=0.009). All of the factors with the exception of body mass index were of comparable import when analyzed by multiple logistic regression. One-year GS of patients without DGF was 93.2%, and the GS of those with DGF was 76.6% (P < 0.0001). However, none of the donor factors correlated with 1-year GS. Seventy-seven donors were the source of paired transplants performed by our program. Sixty percent were concordant for immediate function, 32% were discordant for DGF with equal numbers affecting the first or second graft, and in only 8% did DGF affect both grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Donor factors associated with DGF were increased ischemia, donor age, and cause of death. Although there is a close association between DGF and reduced GS, there is no association between these donor factors and GS. This seeming paradox suggests that unknown variables contribute heavily to early graft outcome.

Cancer vaccines (1).

Several cancer vaccines are in various phases of clinical research. As vaccine therapy evolves, this method of treating and/or preventing cancer will become more common. Part 2 of this column will describe some of the current vaccine studies and where vaccine therapy may be headed in the future.

Cancer vaccines. Part 2.

Cancer vaccines are being widely studied for the purpose of immune modulation and subsequent antitumor effects. This article cites only a few examples of the many studies underway. Many vaccines have shown efficacy in eliciting systemic responses with minimal toxicities. The use of vaccines as a modality of cancer therapy in combination with chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy is also being investigated. Although the routine use of approved vaccines is still a goal for the future, instituting this fourth modality of cancer therapy is not too distant. Phase III trials with both melanoma and colon cancer vaccines have been completed. Synthetic carbohydrate antigen vaccines have shown efficacy in several tumor types during Phase II trials and are also generating enthusiasm. The potential impact of vaccine therapy on the profession of pharmacy may involve patient counseling regarding management of side effects and possibly also dispensing of vaccine therapy products to patients directly for home administration. As ambulatory sites open in conjunction with pharmacy services and pharmacists obtain prescribing authority, pharmacists' active involvement in vaccine counseling and administration seems likely.

Granisetron: the second serotonin-receptor antagonist.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and adverse effects of granisetron, focusing on critical analysis of published clinical trials and comparison with other antiemetic agents, including ondansetron. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-1995) and CANCERLIT (1991-1995) searches of English-language literature using the terms "granisetron" and "granisetron (rn)" were performed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles were considered for possible inclusion in this review. Abstracts of clinical trials were included only when they were judged to add critical information not otherwise available in the medical literature. For studies published more than once, the most recent publication was cited. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nausea and vomiting are rated by patients as the most distressing chemotherapy-related adverse effects and may produce potentially life-threatening complications. The discovery of the role of serotonin in nausea and vomiting and the development of selective serotonin3-receptor (5-HT3) antagonists has significantly diminished the incidence and consequences of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. Granisetron is the second 5-HT3-receptor antagonist to be marketed in the US. Granisetron has been compared with other antiemetic agents, including ondansetron, against highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The results of these trials have shown granisetron to be superior to conventional antiemetics and as effective as ondansetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The optimal dose of granisetron has yet to be determined. Formulary decisions should be based on a cost comparison among the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists at individual institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron is a safe, effective antiemetic agent for the management of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy.

Continuous midazolam infusion for the management of morphine-induced myoclonus.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a patient with morphine-induced myoclonus treated with a continuous infusion of midazolam and continued morphine dose escalation. DESIGN: Single case report. SETTING: Delivery, monitoring, and titration of morphine and midazolam in the patient's home by a homecare agency. RESULTS: The use of high dosages of morphine (i.e., 500 mg/h) produced myoclonic spasms in this patient, which in turn resulted in increasing pain. To allow for continuation of effective analgesia and to control the myoclonic spasms, an infusion of midazolam was initiated and titrated. The midazolam infusion allowed for continuation of the morphine dosage and also permitted further dosage escalation. As morphine dosages were further escalated, it was also necessary to increase the midazolam infusion to control additional myoclonic spasms. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a concomitant midazolam infusion with high doses of morphine appears to be safe and is an effective means of controlling morphine-induced myoclonus. If further dosage increase of morphine are necessary in this setting, increases in the midazolam infusion also may be required.