RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Dexamethasone premedication is required with paclitaxel to prevent infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Both oral dexamethasone (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) and intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) regimens are used. The optimal premedication regimen and management of patients after HSR are unclear. METHODS: Data on HSRs in women receiving paclitaxel, 175 mg/m², every 3 weeks at Imperial College Healthcare Trust from May 2011 to February 2012 were obtained from the pharmacy database. During this period, dexamethasone premedication for paclitaxel was administered orally (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) from May to August 2011, then changed to intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) for 3 months, and then reverted to PO-D from November 2011. There were 93 and 55 patients who received PO-D and IV-D before paclitaxel, respectively. Hypersensitivity reaction rates were pooled with those from published studies for analysis. Gynecologic oncology centers in the UK and Canada were surveyed regarding premedication and post-HSR management. A Markov Monte-Carlo simulation model compared costs and benefits of different strategies. RESULTS: Hypersensitivity reaction rates with PO-D and IV-D were 5.4% (5/93) versus 14.5% (8/55) (P = 0.07) in Imperial College Healthcare Trust patients, and 6.8% (20/290) versus 14.1% (30/212) (P = 0.009) on pooled analysis with data from 2 additional studies (502 patients), respectively. However, IV-D is the most common premedication regimen used in the UK and Canada (48.5% and 34.2% of centers). Post-HSR paclitaxel on a desensitization protocol is a cost-effective alternative to discontinuing paclitaxel altogether. CONCLUSION: Oral dexamethasone seems to be superior to IV-D in preventing HSRs. Post-HSR patients should be considered for desensitization.
Asunto(s)
Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/prevención & control , Paclitaxel/uso terapéutico , Premedicación , Administración Oral , Antineoplásicos Fitogénicos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/mortalidad , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/patología , Humanos , Inyecciones Intravenosas , PronósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To rapidly evaluate the significant numbers of novel therapies entering clinical development requires maximization of clinical trial capacity. To enable this, we evaluated the profile of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in clinical practice, compared with those targeted in clinical trials. METHODS: Patients with EOC treated between March-September 2009 (cohort A, n = 115 patients) and January-July 2012 (cohort B, n = 109 patients), in the North West London Cancer Network with a catchment of 1.2 million, were identified. Patient characteristics were compared with phase II/III EOC studies identified using clinicaltrials.gov (85 trials; 54,603 patients). RESULTS: In cohort A, comparing the proportion of patients in clinical practice with those in trials, 40% versus 55% (P = 0.0006) were chemotherapy-naive, 20% versus 9% (P < 0.0001) had platinum-resistant disease (platinum-free interval, <6 months), 16.2% versus 39% (P < 0.0001) were receiving second line, and 43.8% versus 5% (P < 0.0001) third-line chemotherapy or greater, respectively. Ninety-eight percent of treated patients had a performance status of 2 or less. These results were validated in cohort B, U.K. National Cancer Research Network and U.S. Gynecologic Oncology Group trial databases. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the data to enable EOC trial portfolios to be balanced to clinical practice and suggest an increase in emphasis on trials for patients with platinum-resistant disease and third-line chemotherapy or greater, to address an area of clinical need and maximize recruitment.