RESUMO
Apalutamide is a novel nonsteroidal androgen receptor inhibitor that has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer when combined with androgen deprivation therapy. Apalutamide-induced skin rash occurred commonly in clinical trials, with 23.8-27.1% of patients experiencing a rash of any grade, and 5.2-6.3% experiencing a rash of grade three or higher. There were no cases of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported in clinical trials; however, there are rare cases reported in the literature with the majority occurring in Asian patients. An 83-year-old Caucasian male was commenced on apalutamide, combined with degarelix, for the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. During week five of apalutamide treatment, the patient developed a widespread erythematous maculopapular rash. On presentation, the rash affected 80% of his body surface area (BSA) and a diagnosis of a severe cutaneous drug eruption was made. He was commenced on methylprednisolone (MP) therapy. Despite 5 days of MP, the rash continued to deteriorate involving 95% of his BSA. Nikolsky's sign was positive. A diagnosis of overlap SJS/TEN was made, supported by skin biopsy. His SCORTEN score was three. He was then commenced on intravenous immunoglobulin and transferred to the intensive care unit. Over the coming days, the rash began to stabilise, and his steroid dose was weaned. He was discharged from hospital 38 days after rash onset. We report the first suggested case of apalutamide-induced SJS/TEN in a Caucasian patient. We discuss other cases of apalutamide-induced SCARs reported in the literature. Risk factors seem to include low body weight and Japanese race, as well as short time to onset of rash.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Virtual clinics were introduced to our practice in March 2020. We aimed to assess outcomes from virtual clinics and to assess staff views on them and their barriers to implementation nationally. METHODS: We prospectively assessed outcomes from 53 planned virtual consultations in a cancer centre oncology outpatient department (April-July 2020). Thirty-two oncologists completed an online survey. RESULTS: Visit durations ranged from < 5 min (n = 2, 4%) to 30 + min/patient (n = 9, 20%) (median: 18 min (range 4-141, IQR 10-30 min)). Median time spent preparing for patients who did not attend (n = 6, 11%) was 15 min (range 9-15 min). Most patients were scheduled for routine follow-up (n = 41, 87%), with some planned for an early in-person visit (n = 3) or investigation (n = 3). Where bloods had been requested (n = 25), samples had often not been taken (n = 20, 80%) or results were unavailable (n = 3, 12%). Different plans may have been agreed with two patients (4%) had they attended in-person. Virtual visits were perceived as faster by most doctors in the online survey (n = 26, 84%), with some (n = 5, 16%) reporting a difference of 10 min per patient. Many (n = 13, 42%) arranged earlier follow-up appointments. Low satisfaction was associated with difficulty with patient assessment (81%) or communication (63%), resource limitation (48%), or poor access to results of investigations (40%). The majority (n = 21, 67%) do not feel their virtual clinic quality is as good as in-person. CONCLUSIONS: If virtual clinics are to play a long-term role in oncology, it is essential to monitor clinic quality and plan visits proactively.
