Metastatic squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): disrupting the drug treatment paradigm with immunotherapies.

Lung cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Unlike non-squamous NSCLC, squamous NSCLC rarely harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations for which there are directed therapies, and until the recent approval of immunotherapies for squamous NSCLC, a limited number of traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs have been FDA-approved for use in the treatment of advanced and metastatic squamous NSCLC. Immunotherapies directed at the programmed cell death-1 receptor (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have demonstrated efficacy in both nonsquamous and squamous cell NSCLC. Because of their similar mechanism of action against the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway, both drugs have similar toxicity profiles related to immune-mediated adverse reactions that can generally be monitored and managed with oral corticosteroids. This paper provides an overview of drug therapy options for squamous cell NSCLC with a focus on the evidence and clinical application of the anti-PD1 therapies. A comparison of the dosing, administration, indications, and differences in the measurement of PD-L1 expression in the clinical trials of nivolumab and pembrolizumab is also provided.

Eribulin mesylate (E7389): review of efficacy and tolerability in breast, pancreatic, head and neck, and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a halichondrin B analogue that acts as a nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor. Eribulin was approved in the United States in 2010 for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer for patients who have received at least 2 metastatic breast cancer chemotherapeutic regimens, including an anthracycline and a taxane. Eribulin is administered as a single agent at 1.4 mg/m(2) IV for 2 to 5 minutes on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this article are to review eribulin's medication profile, including pharmacology, pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, and tolerability. Recommendations are provided at the end of the article based on the published information. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from the beginning of each database through January 3, 2012, for relevant articles on human studies published in English. Search terms included eribulin, eribulin mesylate, and Halaven. Clinical trials, case reports, comparative studies, meta-analyses, evaluation studies, controlled clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials were included as search limits. The references from selected articles were also reviewed to identify additional publications. Eisai, the manufacturer of eribulin mesylate, was also contacted for information regarding trials listed in Clinicaltrials.gov but not yet published. RESULTS: One Phase III trial was identified that evaluated eribulin for use in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Four Phase II trials were identified that studied eribulin in patients with head and neck, pancreatic, and non-small cell lung cancers. The median overall survival among previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients treated with eribulin was 13.1 months compared with 10.6 months (P = 0.041) with other active chemotherapy for this setting. In non-small cell lung cancer, median overall survival in eribulin-treated patients has been reported as 9.4 months in an unselected population and varies according to taxane sensitivity: 12.6 months in taxane-sensitive disease versus 8.9 months in taxane-resistant disease. Patients with head and neck or pancreatic cancers did not experience improvements in response rates or survival outcomes when treated with eribulin in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer and has demonstrated a survival benefit compared with standard treatment options in this setting. Non-small cell lung cancer patients had improved response rates when treated with eribulin in open-label, nonrandomized, Phase II trials reported in abstract form. Eribulin was not effective in the treatment of head and neck or pancreatic cancer in Phase II trials.

Denosumab in osteoporosis and oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, efficacy, and use of denosumab in osteoporosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma. DATA SOURCES: Studies and abstracts were identified through MEDLINE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1966-July 2009). Key search terms include denosumab, AMG-162, and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand system. Information available in abstract form was retrieved from major oncology and bone metabolism meetings. Additional data were obtained from the manufacturer. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All available studies in humans were included except for studies in rheumatoid arthritis and giant cell tumor of the bone. DATA SYNTHESIS: In patients with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly reduces bone resorption and fractures. Studies of denosumab in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have demonstrated significantly increased bone mineral density and reduced bone turnover markers. Studies of denosumab versus placebo in the treatment of osteoporosis have demonstrated reductions in vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fractures. In oncology, positive results from clinical trials in patients receiving endocrine therapy for breast and prostate cancer demonstrated decreases in bone loss and skeletal-related events. Denosumab seems to be at least as effective in reducing bone turnover markers as intravenous bisphosphonates in the oncology setting. The most common adverse effects in patients with osteoporosis were arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, back pain, and headache. The most common adverse effects in patients with cancer were infection, pain in the extremities, arthralgia, bone pain, fatigue, and pain. Serious adverse effects include infections requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab has documented efficacy and safety in patients with osteoporosis, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. Additional clinical trial data are needed to more completely establish the effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis and neoplastic disease as well as its cost-effectiveness and long-term safety.

Treatment of head and neck cancers: issues for clinical pharmacists.

Head and neck cancers are a heterogeneous group of diseases involving the oral cavity, pharyngeal tube, and larynx. Given the drug therapy options available, clinical pharmacists can play an important role in the care of this patient population. They can recommend a regimen based on efficacy, toxicity, and patient-specific factors; ensure that the prescribed regimen has been studied and reported in the literature; verify dosages; and monitor and counsel patients about adverse effects. Chemotherapy plus radiation (chemoradiation) is often the standard treatment for patients with stage III or nonmetastatic stage IV head and neck cancer. Cisplatin-based regimens are preferred, although carboplatin may be appropriate in some circumstances. Induction therapy with a docetaxel-based regimen is recommended for some patients; however, this therapy has been associated with a high frequency of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, is the newest agent approved for treatment of head and neck cancer. Although evidence supports cetuximab combined with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone for patients with metastatic disease, the role of combination therapy is less clear in patients undergoing chemoradiation. Patients with head and neck cancer may experience swallowing difficulties or mouth pain, possibly interfering with drug administration and adherence; thus, pharmacists in all practice settings should be knowledgeable about different regimens and alternative routes of administration. Xerostomia and mucositis are common adverse effects of radiation therapy, and it is critical that good oral hygiene practices are maintained. Patients may achieve symptomatic relief from xerostomia with saliva substitutes, and clinical experience suggests that use of pilocarpine is worthwhile. Until more evidence becomes available, prevention of xerostomia and mucositis with amifostine is still controversial. Salt-water rinses, bioadherent oral gel, and honey are relatively inexpensive and nontoxic agents for managing mucositis. Because of the expense of palifermin, it is best reserved for refractory cases. Skin toxicities are common with radiation. Rash is also a common adverse effect of cetuximab. When used together, they may produce complicated skin toxicities. It is important to become familiar with the grading of these rashes so that appropriate therapy can be recommended. As pharmacotherapy for head and neck cancers continues to evolve, clinical pharmacists will continue to have an important role in optimizing treatment for patients by balancing efficacy and toxicity.

Variation in the cost of medications for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment on the healthcare system as treatment costs have risen 340-fold during the past 5 years. STUDY DESIGN: Nationwide registry. METHODS: Patients with CRC (N = 421) were selected from an observational prospective patient registry of US oncology clinics. The 8 most commonly prescribed regimens were identified. Standard dosing schedules were set for these regimens based on a literature review and expert CRC oncologist input. Each chemotherapeutic regimen was broken down into its component agents, and regimen costs were calculated by summing the costs of each agent per regimen. Price-per-milligram costs were calculated from Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedural Coding System codes for specific drugs. Patient population, temporal, and regional trends were studied among standard regimens. RESULTS: The most common regimens were 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin calcium (5-FU/LV) (147 patients [34.9%]), fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) (111 patients [26.4%]), and fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (103 patients [24.5%]). The remaining 60 patients (14.3%) received irinotecan, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin; oxaliplatin; irinotecan in combination with oxaliplatin; or a miscellaneous regimen. The largest cost differential for 6 cycles of planned treatment was $35,971 between FOLFIRI ($36,999) and 5-FU/LV ($1028). On a per-week basis, treatment costs may differ by more than 91 times. Patient utilization of growth factors, ancillary medications, and monoclonal antibodies added significant costs. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of CRC regimens varied considerably. Trends in treatment regimens have changed notably over time, with newer agents and supportive drugs adding substantially to treatment costs.

Acute drug induced hepatitis due to erlotinib.

CONTEXT: Acute drug induced hepatitis has not been commonly associated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Hepatotoxicity seen with erlotinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor to EGFR, is usually transient with mild elevation of transaminases. CASE REPORT: We report a case of acute severe hepatitis resulting from erlotinib monotherapy in a patient with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Hepatotoxicity resolved once erlotinib was discontinued and serum transaminases returned to baseline normal values. CONCLUSIONS: Acute severe hepatitis though rare is occasionally observed with EGFR inhibitors gefitinib or erlotinib. As EGFR inhibitors are now incorporated with chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancers, clinicians should be aware of this potential complication.

Arterial thrombosis in four patients treated with thalidomide.

Thalidomide has been associated with venous thrombotic events, as reported in the post-marketing surveillance reports by Celgene Corporation; as well as case reports in the literature. Seven arterial thrombotic events have been reported in patients receiving thalidomide with 3 cases occurring in patients with other predisposing conditions. We report 4 additional cases of arterial thromboses in 1 lymphoma and 3 myeloma patients treated with thalidomide. The mechanism for these events is unclear; however, it is significant that 2 patients were receiving concomitant anticoagulation with aspirin and warfarin.