Appendiceal Carcinoid Tumors: Is There a Survival Advantage to Colectomy over Appendectomy?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend colectomy for appendiceal carcinoid tumors larger than 2 cm, but physicians debate whether colectomy would be beneficial in treating smaller tumors. We sought to determine when colectomy confers a survival advantage over appendectomy. METHODS: Appendiceal carcinoid patients in the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (1988-2011) were stratified by age group, gender, TNM stage, tumor grade, and race. Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses relating grade, stage, and receipt of colectomy to overall and cancer-specific survival were performed. RESULTS: Of 817 patients who underwent surgical extirpation of an appendiceal carcinoid, 338 (41%) had appendectomy alone and 479 (59%) had additional colectomy. Surprisingly, patients who underwent colectomy had worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.32-2.98, p = 0.001) than those who underwent appendectomy, and colectomy did not confer a survival advantage over appendectomy in any subset analysis including low-grade or high-grade tumors, smaller or larger than 2 cm, or node-positive, non-metastatic tumors. Even when accounting for stage and grade, colectomy was not associated with significantly better survival rates. Furthermore, as colectomy frequency has increased over the last decade, the 5-year survival rate has trended down. The main predictors of cancer-specific mortality in carcinoid patients were high-grade (grades 3-4) and high-stage (node positive or metastatic) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Survival in patients with carcinoid tumor of the appendix is primarily determined by tumor grade and stage. Our study found no survival advantage to colectomy over appendectomy in a large cohort of patients with the disease. Further investigation is necessary prior to recommending change of practice for patients with appendiceal carcinoid tumors.

Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Exercise Interventions Using Digital Activity Trackers in Patients With Cancer.

Background: Exercise can ameliorate cancer- and treatment-related toxicities, but poor adherence to exercise regimens is a barrier. Exercise interventions using digital activity trackers (E-DATs) may improve exercise adherence, but data are limited for patients with cancer. We conducted a systematic review examining the feasibility of E-DATs in cancer survivors and effects on activity level, body composition, objective fitness outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-reported symptoms, and biomarkers. Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of E-DATs in adult cancer survivors published in English between January 1, 2008, and July 27, 2017. Two authors independently reviewed article titles (n=160), removed duplicates (n=50), and reviewed the remaining 110 articles for eligibility. Results: A total of 12 RCTs met eligibility criteria, including 1,450 patients (mean age, 50-70 years) with the following cancers: breast (n=5), colon or breast (n=2), prostate (n=1), acute leukemia (n=1), or others (n=3). Duration of E-DATs ranged from 4 to 24 weeks, and the follow-up period ranged from 4 to 52 weeks, with retention rates of 54% to 95%. The technology component of E-DATs included pedometers (n=8); pedometers with smartphone application (n=1), Wii Fit (n=1), heart rate monitor (n=1); and a wireless sensor with accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer (n=1). Adherence by at least one measure to E-DATs was >70% in 8 of 8 RCTs. Compared with controls, E-DATs significantly improved patients' step count in 3 of 5 RCTs, activity level in 6 of 9 RCTs, and HRQoL in 7 of 9 RCTs (all P≤05), with no significant changes in biomarkers (eg, interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor α, C-reactive protein, c-peptide, lipid panel) in 3 RCTs. Duration of E-DAT was not significantly correlated with adherence or study retention. Conclusions: This systematic review shows that E-DATs are feasible to implement in cancer survivors. Future research should examine the optimal type, dose, and schedule of E-DATs for cancer survivors.

Rash associated with rivaroxaban use.

PURPOSE: A case of a patient who developed a hypersensitivity reaction to rivaroxaban in the form of a diffuse, exanthematous rash is reported. SUMMARY: After starting rivaroxaban for treatment of cancer-associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with pulmonary embolism (PE), a 69-year-old Caucasian woman arrived at an oncology clinic with a diffuse, exanthematous (morbilliform) rash on her neck and torso, spreading to her upper and lower extremities. She reported that the symptoms started to develop about 48 hours after transitioning from subcutaneous enoxaparin to oral rivaroxaban. The patient's symptoms did not subside with diphenhydramine 25-50 mg orally every 6-8 hours. The patient was switched back to enoxaparin therapy for continued anticoagulation therapy. On day 5, rivaroxaban and diphenhydramine were discontinued. Oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily was initiated, and the patient transitioned from rivaroxaban to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg every 12 hours subcutaneously. On day 8, the rash had diminished considerably and was present only on her thighs. Analysis of the case using the adverse drug reaction probability scale of Naranjo et al. indicated that rivaroxaban was the probable cause of the hypersensitivity reaction. Four prior case reports of rivaroxaban hypersensitivity manifesting as a rash have been previously reported, with this being the first in a female and the first in a patient undergoing treatment of DVT and PE in the setting of active cancer. CONCLUSION: A 69-year-old Caucasian woman developed a diffuse, exanthematous rash on day 3 of rivaroxaban treatment. Symptoms abated after rivaroxaban discontinuation and treatment with dexamethasone.

Possible Rivaroxaban Failure during the Postpartum Period.

Rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, is a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) indicated for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and for reducing the risk of DVT and PE recurrence. To our knowledge, no data are presently available to guide DOAC dosing in the postpartum period when pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes induced by pregnancy have an impact on drug clearance and increase hypercoagulability for a period of 6-8 weeks after delivery. We describe the case of a 35-year-old postpartum woman who presented to the emergency department with a diagnosis of a new multiple segmental PE 5 days after starting rivaroxaban therapy for a diagnosis of DVT. No precipitating cause, including noncompliance, was identified as a source of thrombosis embolization or extension. The patient was admitted, a heparin infusion was started for the management of PE, and rivaroxaban was discontinued. She was transitioned to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg (90 mg) subcutaneously every 12 hours the next day, bridged to warfarin, and discharged home on the overlapping regimen with close follow-up by the pharmacist-managed outpatient Anticoagulation Management Service. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of potential failure associated with rivaroxaban therapy in the postpartum period, possibly due to pharmacokinetic alterations seen in the postpartum period contributing to decreased drug exposure, yielding reduced anticoagulant efficacy. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of DOAC therapy in postpartum patients or other special populations requiring anticoagulation therapy. This report also highlights the need for further research identifying the impact of pharmacokinetic changes induced by special populations and the need to develop monitoring assays for such clinical situations.