ABSTRACT
Background: Chemotherapy with Adriamycin, Bleomycin, Vinblastine, and Dacarbazine (ABVD regimen) cannot cure all patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and adverse effect of a new regimen consist Irinotecan, Cisplatin, and Dexamethasone (ICD) in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma as the second to fifth line of treatment. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective study in 26 relapsed or refractory patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving at least the first-line chemotherapy regimen (ABVD) and (ICD) as salvage therapy in Thaleghany Hospital from 2012 to 2018. This regimen consisted of Irinotecan 65mg/m2 D1, D8, Cisplatin 30mg/m2 D1, D8, and dexamethasone 40mg D1, 2, 8, and 9 was administered every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. Treatment was discontinued in cases of disease progression or severe toxicity. Response to treatment was evaluated after two cycles. Patients with complete and partial remission were candidates for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of 22 patients was 31.5 (19-67) years. Seven patients (29.1%) were in the first recurrence, and 17 (70.8%) were in the second or subsequent recurrence. Results: According to this study, three patients (12.5%) had complete response, 13 (45%) had partial response, four (16.6%) had stable disease, and four (16.6%) had progressive disease. Nine patients (37.5%) received high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell support after ICD regimen. None of the cycles of chemotherapy were delayed due to treatment-related adverse event. Overall survival after six months in all patients was 91%, and mortality rate was 8.3% at the end of the study. Conclusion: The goal of salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma is achieving CR or PR preparation patients for stabilization with BMT. Thus, we recommend ICD as one of the most effective protocols with overall response rate of 66% in this population.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is one of the most frequent and challenging side effects of chemotherapy. At present, none of the guidelines recommend the use of various mouthwashes available for the treatment of oral mucositis. METHODS: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of curcumin, mucosamin, and chlorhexidine in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. In this randomized and double-blind study, 71 patients over 18 years, who received chemotherapy and suffered from chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, were randomized into curcumin, mucosamin, and chlorhexidine groups. The World Health Organization (WHO) Oral Toxicity Scale, the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS), and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) were used to evaluate oral mucositis. The main endpoint included the onset of complete recovery after starting the treatment. FINDINGS: Based on the WHO, OMAS for erythema, and NRS criteria, complete recovery was achieved from the third day in the curcumin group, which was significantly earlier compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). The OMAS score for ulceration represented an improvement from day 5 in the curcumin group, which was significantly faster compared to the other two groups (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that all three approaches were effective in improving oral mucositis; however, curcumin could result in faster recovery in comparison with mucosamin and chlorhexidine. The use of curcumin in the treatment of oral mucositis appears to be a viable intervention for reducing potential compromise to treatment and improving the quality of life.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Curcumin , Stomatitis , Humans , Chlorhexidine/therapeutic use , Curcumin/therapeutic use , Quality of Life , Stomatitis/chemically induced , Stomatitis/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Uric acid (UA) level is of the valuable signs of inflammation. However, the role of UA in the outcomes of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) such as GVHD and patients' overall survival is still a matter of debate. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between UA levels and GVHD incidence and overall survival in allogeneic HSCT patients. METHODS: A total of 201 patients who were admitted for allogeneic transplantation at Taleghani hospital, Tehran, Iran, were considered for retrospective analysis. Serum UA levels from 1 week before transplantation until 2 weeks after transplantation were used to determine thresholds and find out the association of serum UA levels with GVHD and overall survival. RESULTS: We showed that the determined thresholds using receiver operating characteristic curves have poor predictive value for GVHD and overall survival. The patients with serum UA higher than 3.4 mg/dL had 37% lower odds of GVHD incidence and 35% lower hazard of death than patients with UA lower than 3.4 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that serum UA levels lower than 3.4 mg/dL could significantly increase the incidence of GVHD and hazard of death. The antioxidant functions of UA could explain the lower incidence of GVHD in hyperuricemic patients. However, the inconsistencies of the previous studies require further investigation to elucidate the role of UA in the prediction of GVHD.
