Prevention of tissue necrosis due to accidental extravasation of cytostatic drugs by a conservative approach.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate comparatively the effectiveness of a conservative approach to treatment, using two therapeutic schedules (with and without sodium thiosulfate (ST), so as to minimize necrosis due to drug extravasation and to avoid the need for reconstructive surgery. The 63 patients entered into this study were separated into two groups; these in group A were treated with hydrocortisone and dexamethasone, and these in group B received the combination plus ST. In both groups, the drugs that had extravasated included doxorubicin, epirubicin, vinblastine, mitomycin C. The healing time varied with the different drugs used and was proportional to the extent of extravasation and to the time at which therapy was begun. The mean healing time for group B, which received ST was about half that for group A, which did not. We conclude that the application of conservative measures during chemotherapy may prevent tissue necrosis due to drug extravasation and the subsequent need for reconstructive surgery. The administration of ST can help in the achievement of this goal.

Conservative approach to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced extravasation.

One of the local complications of certain chemotherapeutic agents is tissue necrosis resulting from extravasation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a conservative approach to treatment in order to minimize necrosis and the need for reconstructive surgery. Fifty-three patients entered this study. Twenty-one had old lesions while 32 had recent extravasations. Drugs responsible for the extravasations were doxorubicin, epirubicin, vinblastine, mitoxantrone, and mitomycin C. The basis of treatment was betamethasone ointment, which was applied to the lesion with a tight elastic bandage and was replaced every 12 hours for the first 2 days and then every 24 hours until complete healing. For old lesions a keratolytic ointment was initially applied, whereas in the new lesions multiple subcutaneous injections with hydrocortisone solution preceded the application of betamethasone ointment. None of our patients developed tissue necrosis and sloughing that necessitated surgery. All lesions healed in patients. Healing time varied with the different drugs used and was proportional to the extension of extravasation and to the time when therapy was begun. We conclude that the application of conservative measures in extravasated areas from chemotherapy may avoid tissue necrosis and reconstructive surgery.

Concomitant administration of 4-hydroxypyrazolopyrimidine (allopurinol) and high-dose continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil.

We tried to study the protection of allopurinol (HPP) from the toxicity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). A total of 29 patients received 74 cycles of chemotherapy (16 colon adenocarcinomas, 7 head and neck, 3 breast cancers and 3 cancers of pancreas). HPP was given 900 mg/day p.o. 4 days prior to treatment, and continued with same dose throughout the course of 5-FU and for 12 days after completion of the treatment. 5-FU was administered in 24 hour intravenous infusions on days 1-5 (dose range 900-1,200 mg/m2/day). 5-FU was given alone or in combination with mitomycin-C 10 mg/m2/day (1st day), epirubicin 40 mg/m2/day (1st, 2nd day), cis-platinum 120 mg/m2/day (1st day). In comparison with other studies the toxicity was limited. We conclude that HPP can diminish the side effects, especially myelosuppression, allowing an increase in the maximum tolerated dose of 5-FU; even if combined with other cytostatic drugs. Control studies must be done to confirm our observations.

Comparison of antiemetic activity of chloropromazine and high doses of metoclopramide in cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

High dose metoclopramide and different phenothiazines are widely used antiemetics in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In a prospective randomized study we compared the antiemetic efficacy of high dose metoclopramide (M) and chloropromazine (C). We also tested the role of dexamethasone (D) when combined with either of these drugs. A total of 165 patients were randomly allocated to 5 groups with 33 patients in each group. Group A received only M, group B: M + D, group C: C + D, group D: M + D + C and group E: M + C. All patients received combination chemotherapy with cisplatin for the first time and were evaluated only once in order to exclude anticipatory nausea and vomiting. Patients in group C had less antiemetic protection than the other groups (p less than 0.001). Groups A, B, D, E, had more or less equal antiemetic efficacy, although the efficacy in group B was somewhat better; this difference was not statistically significant. Side-effects were minimal. Chloropromazine seemed to protect patients who received metoclopramide from extrapyramidal manifestations. In conclusion the results suggest that high dose metoclopramide has a better antiemetic effect than chloropromazine, dexamethasone is a helpful adjuvant drug when used in combination with an effective antiemetic agent, and chloropromazine and dexamethasone may prevent the extrapyramidal side-effects that can occur when metoclopramide is used as single antiemetic drug.