Gemcitabine and liposomal doxorubicin (GemDox) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphomas.

Aggressive T-cell lymphomas (TCL) account for 10-15% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) with weaker responses and shorter durations to chemotherapy than other types of NHL. Current therapies for patients with relapsed/refractory Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) have limited efficacy, and short durations of response. Gemcitabine and liposomal doxorubicin have shown single-agent activity in TCL and combined have activity in relapsed B-cell lymphomas. We evaluated outcomes of 18 patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive TCL (13 CTCL, 5 PTCL) treated with a gemcitabine plus liposomal doxorubicin (GemDox) combination and evaluated outcomes with a specific focus on CTCL patients. Significant responses were observed in CTCL patients with an overall response rate of over 80%. In all patients, objective responses were seen in eight patients (50%), with six patients (5 CTCL) able to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Given limited treatment options for r/r CTCL, GemDox should be considered a therapeutic option in relapsed/refractory CTCL.

Outcomes of patients with diffuse large B-cell and high-grade B-cell lymphomas with synchronous CNS and systemic involvement at diagnosis treated with high-dose methotrexate and R-CHOP: a single-center retrospective study.

Background: The optimal treatment of patients with systemic diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) or high-grade B-cell (HGBL) lymphomas with synchronous central nervous system (CNS) involvement at diagnosis is not well defined. High-dose methotrexate administered concurrently with R-CHOP (RM-CHOP) is a commonly used regimen, but data on outcomes achieved with this regimen are limited. Objective: To report our experience with RM-CHOP in patients with systemic DLBCL or HGBL with synchronous CNS involvement at diagnosis. Design: A single-center retrospective analysis. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with systemic DLBCL or HGBL with synchronous CNS involvement at diagnosis who were treated with RM-CHOP from January 2012 to January 2021. Results: Fifty patients were included with a median age of 62 years; 82% had DLBCL (n = 41) and 18% had HGBL (n = 9). Treatment with RM-CHOP was followed by consolidative autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in 14 patients (28%). The complete response (CR) rate following RM-CHOP was 62%. With a median follow-up of 40 months, the median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survivals were 16 and 58 months, and the 2-year PFS and OS were 41% and 57%, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence of CNS progression/relapse was 29%. Outcomes were particularly poor in HGBL, with median PFS and OS of 6 and 7 months, compared with median PFS and OS of 22 months and not reached in DLBCL, respectively. The outcomes of patients with relapsed/progressive disease were poor, with only 63% of patients receiving subsequent treatments and only 21% achieving CR to next subsequent treatment. Most patients (58%) with disease relapse/progression had CNS involvement which was associated with very poor outcomes (median OS of 2 months). Conclusion: CNS involvement in aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at diagnosis dictates clinical outcomes and requires more effective treatment options.

Feasibility of high-dose methotrexate administered on day 1 of (R)CHOP in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

The optimal timing for administering high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) when combined with (R)CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, with/without rituximab) is unclear. Recent data showed that the administration of prophylactic HDMTX before day 10 of R- CHOP may lead to fewer treatment delays. Herein, we report our experience with HDMTX administered on day 1 of (R)CHOP in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We identified 140 patients treated with ≥1 cycle of HDMTX combined with (R)CHOP for prophylaxis against (n = 84) or treatment of (n = 56) central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Overall, (R)CHOP treatment delays ≥7 days (4% of cycles, 13% of patients), doxorubicin, and/or cyclophosphamide dose reductions (1% of cycles, 6% of patients) or (R)CHOP discontinuations due to toxicity (4% of patients) were uncommon. Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 7% of cycles and 24% of patients and was more common during HDMTX-containing cycles. Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurred in 19% of cycles but was mostly grade ≤2. Grade ≥3 hepatotoxicity and mucositis were uncommon (each 2% of cycles). In the prophylaxis cohort, the rates of NF and grade ≥2 AKI were lower in patients who initiated HDMTX with cycle 2 or later (11% vs 30%, P = .03 and 16% vs 39%, P = .03, respectively). Our data show that HDMTX administration on day 1 of (R)CHOP may improve the deliverability of (R)CHOP and the overall safety of the regimen compared with historical data of HDMTX administration on day 10 or later of R-CHOP. Delaying prophylactic HDMTX beyond cycle 1 of (R)CHOP may reduce the risk of NF and AKI.

Safety of venetoclax rapid dose escalation in CLL patients previously treated with B-cell receptor signaling antagonists.

Venetoclax has efficacy in patients relapsing after B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors (BCRis); however, because of the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), a 5-week dose ramp-up is required to attain the target dose. Patients relapsing after BCRis frequently have proliferative disease, requiring a faster time to target dose than this scheme allows. This limitation can potentially be overcome with rapid dose escalation (RDE). We analyzed 33 chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients who underwent venetoclax RDE after prior BTKi treatment. Median time to target dose was 9 days. Seventeen patients (52%) developed laboratory TLS, and 5 (15%) developed clinical TLS, all as a result of renal injury. TLS was seen in more patients with a higher initial tumor burden. TLS occurred at all dose levels, with most episodes occurring at the 50- and 100-mg doses. Most interestingly, a decrease in absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) from pre-venetoclax dose to 24 hours post-venetoclax dose of 10 × 103/µL was associated with an increased risk of TLS (hazard ratio, 1.32; P = .02), after controlling for venetoclax dose level. Venetoclax RDE with close in-hospital monitoring at experienced centers and in select patients is feasible. The rapidity with which ALC drops helps predict TLS and could help guide dose-escalation decisions.

Retrospective analysis of bendamustine and rituximab use in indolent and mantle cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma based on initial starting dose.

The initial dose of bendamustine, an alkylating agent used in treating indolent lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma, is variable in clinical practice. 134 patients treated with bendamustine and rituximab were evaluated for starting dosage, patient characteristics, toxicities, and clinical outcome. The starting dosage ranged from 50 to 90 mg/m2. Lower starting dosage (<90 mg/m2) was associated with relapsed disease, increased age and worse performance status (PS), histologic subtype other than follicular lymphoma, baseline renal impairment, and cytopenias. No significant difference was observed in toxicities between patients treated with 90 mg/m2 compared with lower doses. The starting dose of 90 mg/m2 was associated with a higher complete response rate (56% vs. 29%) and longer progression free survival (PFS) (39.5 months vs. 19.7 months). However, in a multivariable model, the higher starting dose was not associated with longer PFS in those with similar age, histology, PS, and number of prior therapies.

Specialty pharmacy for hematologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: The oral oncology medications used in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are reviewed, and the specialty pharmacy services at three large academic medical centers are described. SUMMARY: More than one dozen oral oncology medications are being used for hematologic malignancies and afford patients increased convenience and the potential to improve their quality of life. These agents include ibrutinib, idelalisib, imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, panobinostat, ixazomib, and vorinostat. Despite the benefits of an autonomous-driven patient care plan, these high-risk, high-cost treatments are not without their challenges. Oral oncology medications are associated with significant barriers to adherence, including low health literacy, patient forgetfulness, complex administration instructions, troublesome adverse effects, and high copayments. Many outpatient cancer center pharmacies associated with large academic medical centers are now applying for specialty pharmacy designation. This affords the onsite dispensing pharmacy access to once-limited oral oncology medications that can be dispensed to clinic patients. In addition, the specialty pharmacy services offered within these cancer centers bridge an important gap in patient care and improve the care provided to oncology patients. CONCLUSION: As oral oncology agents continue to be approved by FDA, oncology treatment teams must establish a comprehensive plan for their management. Because of their pharmacologic expertise, access to patients' medical records, and unique position within ambulatory care oncology teams, pharmacists can play an important role in patient education, laboratory monitoring, medication adherence, and cost saving.

Sixty-minute infusion rituximab protocol allows for safe and efficient workflow.

PURPOSE: Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody approved to treat B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Infusion reactions among NHL patients are common during the first exposure but decrease with subsequent infusions. We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of a rituximab rapid infusion protocol in the outpatient treatment area of a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with indolent and intermediate B cell NHL were invited to enroll in this prospective, single-institution study if they had received the first dose of rituximab according to the manufacturer-labeled standard titration schedule without grade >2 infusion reaction. The subsequent infusion proceeded without the use of steroid premedication at 100 mg/h administered over 15 min, with the remaining dose given over 45 min. Time savings between rapid infusion and standard titration were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty patients received 60-min rituximab infusions during the second drug administration. No infusion-related reactions of any grade were observed with the rapid infusion protocol (0%, one-sided 97.5% CI 0-7.1%). The mean time for the rapid rituximab infusion was 62.4 min (95% CI 61.2-63.6). When compared to the standard second dose infusion recommendation, a mean time of 94.2 min (95% 90-98.4) was saved with rapid infusion. Nursing surveys demonstrated 100% satisfaction with the rapid infusion protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent rituximab infusions can be safely administered over 60 min and without steroid premedication in an experienced outpatient infusion center when patients are appropriately screened. The faster infusions can reduce resource utilization and increase nursing satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01206777.

Evaluation of incidence and risk factors for high-dose methotrexate-induced nephrotoxicity.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose methotrexate (doses ≥1 g/m(2)) is a key component of several chemotherapy regimens used to treat patients with leukemia or lymphoma. Despite appropriate precautions with hydration, urine alkalinization, and leucovorin, nephrotoxicity remains a risk which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Current reports of risk factors for nephrotoxicity focus on patients with nephrotoxicity with a lack of comparison to those without toxicity. This study aimed to describe the incidence of high-dose methotrexate-induced nephrotoxicity at our institution and determined risk factors for high-dose methotrexate-induced nephrotoxicity by examining characteristics of patients with and without nephrotoxicity. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, chart review. Adult patients with a diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma who received high-dose methotrexate were included. Serum creatinine values were used to evaluate nephrotoxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria v4.03. Data related to the following proposed risk factors were collected: age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate dose, number of high-dose methotrexate exposures, leucovorin administration route, baseline renal function, albumin, hydration status, Clostridium difficile infection, urine pH, and concomitant interacting and nephrotoxic medications. The primary endpoint was evaluated with exact binomial methods and risk factors were identified using multivariable random-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Final analyses included 140 patients with 432 high-dose methotrexate exposures. There were no differences in baseline demographical characteristics. Fifty-four patients (38.6%) experienced nephrotoxicity of any grade: 27.9% with grade 1, 5.7% with grade 2, 3.6% grade 3, 0% with grade 4, and 1.4% with grade 5 toxicity. More patients in the toxicity group received doses of methotrexate ≥3 g/m(2) (58.3% versus 57.2%, p < 0.001), had an albumin level <3 g/dL (31.9% versus 15.9%, p = 0.04), and received an interacting medication during high-dose methotrexate clearance (44.4% versus 24.7%, p = 0.003). Male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.27-4.18, p = 0.006), albumin (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75, p = 0.002), number of drug interactions (OR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.15-2.21, p = 0.005), and use of furosemide (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.46-4.48, p = 0.001) were all independent risk factors for the development of nephrotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrotoxicity is a possible complication of therapy with high-dose methotrexate with most instances comprising grade 1-2 toxicity. Male gender, low albumin, and administration of interacting drugs or furosemide during high-dose methotrexate clearance may predispose patients to nephrotoxicity.

Traditional and emerging antifungal therapies.

Invasive mycoses continue to be a major problem in the growing population of immunosuppressed patients. More antifungal agents are now available than ever. The options are many, with more efficacies and less toxicity than in the past. These agents differ in terms of spectrum of activity, pharmacologic properties, and indications. In this article we discuss the three major classes of antifungal agents: the polyens, the triazoles, and the echinocandins. The emphasis is placed on their clinical use, side effects, drug interactions, and other practical issues.