Conventional treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy.

Treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) is briefly reviewed, available treatments are compared, and treatment guidelines are presented. The most effective strategy is treatment of the underlying malignancy. For patients who have a poor prognosis and no viable treatment options, the most humane course may be no treatment at all since encephalopathy will cloud their consciousness. Patients with mild hypercalcemia (corrected serum calcium concentration < 12 mg/dL) may respond to oral hydration, salt restriction, and ambulation, which encourage the normal bone remodeling process. Patients with moderate (corrected serum calcium concentration 12.0-13.5 mg/dL) to severe (> 13.5 mg/dL) hypercalcemia may require rehydration with 0.9% sodium chloride injection. Furosemide may be indicated to counteract fluid overload from rehydration measures or in patients at risk of developing congestive heart failure. For patients with renal failure not caused by dehydration, dialysis with a calcium-free or low-calcium solution is the treatment of choice. The calciuric effect of rehydration lasts only two to three days, and antiresorptive therapy is indicated for patients who require a longer duration of effect. Calcitonin is useful if a rapid decrease in serum calcium is necessary, but tachyphylaxis limits its use. Corticosteroids should be used only in patients with tumors that produce 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. The use of plicamycin is limited because of adverse effects. Before the availability of zolendronic acid, pamidronate disodium was the treatment of choice, because of its longer duration of action than etidronate disodium and potential safety advantages. Zolendronic acid (discussed elsewhere in this supplement) is likely to supercede pamidronate disodium as the drug of choice for HCM, but the presence of symptoms, the rate of rise in serum calcium concentration, and the overall status of the patient are important considerations in selecting therapy.

Efficacy of low-dose dopamine in preventing amphotericin B nephrotoxicity in bone marrow transplant patients and leukemia patients.

This study evaluated the efficacy of low-dose dopamine for prevention of amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity in autologous bone marrow transplant and leukemia patients. Seventy-one patients undergoing cytoreductive therapy who required amphotericin B were randomly assigned in an unblinded fashion to a group receiving continuous-infusion low-dose dopamine (3 microgram/kg/min) or a group receiving no dopamine. Amphotericin B was dosed at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg/day based on computerized tomography scan results or presence of positive blood cultures. No patient received saline boluses. The rate of nephrotoxicity, severity as graded by Southwest Oncology Group toxicity criteria, and time to each grade of nephrotoxicity were compared between the two groups. Eighty percent of the no-dopamine group and 66.7% of the dopamine group developed nephrotoxicity, defined as a 1.5-fold or greater increase in baseline serum creatinine level (P = 0.20). No statistical difference was noted at any grade of nephrotoxicity between the two groups. Thirty-four percent of patients in the no-dopamine group versus 17.6% in the dopamine group had a 2.5-fold or greater increase in serum creatinine level, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.0888). Ten patients developed grade IV nephrotoxicity and were withdrawn from the study, 7 in the no-dopamine group and 3 in the dopamine group (P = 0.19). The time to each grade of nephrotoxicity was also not significantly different for the two groups. Eleven adverse drug reactions were reported in the dopamine group in comparison to one in the no-dopamine group. Thus, dopamine offers little in the way of prevention of nephrotoxicity associated with amphotericin B therapy. Although the significance of drug reactions in the dopamine group is not clearly established due to lack of cardiac monitoring in the no-dopamine group, dopamine therapy is not without complications.

Association of busulfan area under the curve with veno-occlusive disease following BMT.

Busulfan pharmacokinetics, specifically area under the concentration curve (AUC), have been correlated with the occurrence of veno-occlusive disease (VOD) following BMT. To evaluate the risk of VOD, we studied 66 patients who received pharmacotherapeutically monitored busulfan regimens in combination with CY, etoposide (VP16) and/or Ara-C in preparation for BMT. These patients received a total of 16 doses of busulfan dosed as 1 mg/kg/dose q 6 h beginning at 09.00 (n = 39), 18.00 (n = 2), 21.00 (n = 1) or 24.00 (n = 24) h. With the first dose, blood samples were obtained at baseline, every 15-30 min for 2 h, then every 1-2 h for 4 h. Blood was analyzed for busulfan concentration by high performance liquid chromatography and AUC calculated by the trapezoidal rule. Seventeen patients (25.8%) were not evaluable for AUC calculation due to slow absorption and/or elimination: 13 of 27 (48.1%) received the first dose between 18.00-24.00 vs four of 39 (10.2%) patients who received the first dose at 09.00 (P < 0.001). Eighteen of 51 (35.3%) evaluable patients had an AUC > 1500 mumol x min/l; 10 of whom received doses reduced proportionally to achieve an AUC = 1200 mumol x min/l starting with the 10th to 15th dose. Six of 18 (33.3%) patients with an initial AUC > 1500 mumol x min/l developed VOD vs one of 33 (3.0%) patients with an initial AUC < 1500 mumol x min/l (relative risk = 11.1; P = 0.0056). Other pharmacokinetic parameters, age, gender, type of BMT, previous therapy or pre-transplant liver function tests were not predictive of VOD. A higher incidence of VOD occurred in patients receiving BUCY (4 of 10) compared to those receiving BUCYAra-C (1 of 18) or BUCYVP16 (7 of 38), which could not be attributed to increased busulfan exposure in the BUCY patients. Routine pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of busulfan is recommended with further study to evaluate the impact of earlier and greater overall dose reduction in patients with high initial busulfan exposures.

Randomized trial of loperamide versus dose escalation of octreotide acetate for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea in bone marrow transplant and leukemia patients.

This study compares maximal daily doses of loperamide to escalating doses of continuous intravenous (CI) octreotide acetate in bone marrow transplant (BMT) and leukemia patients. Following chemotherapy, BMT and leukemia patients who developed > or = 600 ml of stool volume in a 24-hr period were randomized to receive loperamide 4 mg po q6h or octreotide 150 micrograms mixed in hyperalimentation solution or normal saline and administered CI. Patients were assessed at 48 hr intervals for decrease in stool volume from baseline. Complete response (CR) was defined as > or = 50% from baseline stool volume (BSV). Patients receiving octreotide who did not achieve a CR at 48 hr were dose escalated by doubling the dose to a maximum of 2,400 micrograms with evaluations at 48 hr intervals. Patients receiving loperamide who did not achieve a CR at 48 hr had treatment discontinued. A total of 36 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, all were evaluable for intention to treat, and 31 were evaluable for initial response. Based on intent to treat at the initial 48 hr, patients receiving loperamide had a higher complete response rate (86% vs. 45%, P = 0.033) than did those who received octreotide. By treatment analysis (patients who actually received the drug), patients receiving loperamide had a higher complete response rate (92% vs. 56%, P = 0.0448) than did those who received octreotide at the 150 micrograms dosage level. Additional octreotide patients eventually achieved a CR at a higher dosage level (78%). Loperamide at maximal doses of 4 mg po q6h is more effective than octreotide 150 micrograms CI in treating diarrhea following chemotherapy in BMT and leukemia patients. Higher doses of octreotide may be required in a significant number of patients not responding to lower doses.