Chicken pox infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy: A retrospective analysis from a tertiary care center in India

SummaryThere is paucity of data on the incidence, severity and management of chicken pox in patients receiving active chemotherapy for cancer.From October 2010 to October 2011, patients were included in this study if they developed a chicken pox infection during their chemotherapy. The details of patients’ cancer diagnosis and treatment along with clinical and epidemiological data of the chicken pox infections were assessed from a prospectively maintained database.Twenty-four patients had a chicken pox infection while receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The median age of the patients was 21 years, and two-thirds of the patients had solid tumor malignancies.Overall, eight (33%) patients had complications, six (25%) patients had febrile neutropenia, four (17%) had diarrhea/mucositis, and four (17%) had pneumonia. The median time for recovery of the infection and complications in the patients was 9.5 days (5–29 days), whereas for neutropenic patients, it was 6.5 days (3–14 days). The median time for recovery from chicken pox infections in neutropenic patients was 10 days (5–21 days), compared with 8.5 days (0–29 days) in non-neutropenic patients (P=0.84). The median time for recovery from infections was 8.5 days in patients with comorbidities (N=4), which was the same for patients with no comorbidities.The clinical presentation and complication rates of chicken pox in cancer patients, who were on active chemotherapy, are similar to the normal population. The recovery from a varicella infection and complications may be delayed in patients with neutropenia. The varicella infection causes a therapy delay in 70% of patients. Aggressive antiviral therapy, supportive care and isolation of the index cases remain the backbone of treatment

Unraveling the spectrum of KIT mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: An Indian Tertiary Cancer Center Experience

Background: Primary mutations in the KIT gene are the driving force for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) tumorigenesis. Predictive role of KIT mutation status aids oncologists in patient management. There is a paucity of comprehensive data on the frequency of mutations in the KIT gene in GIST affecting Indian patients. The aims of this study were to determine the frequency and spectrum of molecular alterations affecting the KIT gene and assess their association with clinicopathologic features in a cohort of patients of GIST. Materials and Methods: Morphological and immunohistochemically confirmed GIST cases (n = 114) accessioned from August 2014-June 2015 were analyzed for mutations in KIT exons 9, 11, 13, and 17 and subjected to Sanger sequencing onto the ABI 3500 Genetic Analyzer. The sequences were analyzed using sequence analysis software: SeqScape® and Chromas Lite. Results: KIT mutations were seen in 70% of cases and the majority of KIT mutations involved exon 11 (57%), followed by exon 9 (10%), exon 13 (3%), and exon 17 (1%). Most common exon 11 mutations were in-frame deletions (61.4%) followed by substitution mutations (19.3%). Exon 9 mutations showed identical duplication of Ala-Tyr at codons 502–503. Simultaneous mutations affecting exon 11 and 13 were discovered. Novel variations, namely, p.Q556E (c.1666C>G), p.Q556dup (c.1666_1668dupCAG), p.K558_V559delinsS (c.1672_1677delAAGGTTinsAGT), p.Y503_F504insTY (c.1509_1510insACCTAT), and p.K642R (c.1925A>G) involving exons 11, 9, and 13, respectively, were observed. Interpretation and Conclusions: First study with complete analysis of all 4 exons of KIT (exons 9, 11, 13, and 17) in Indian GIST patients. Along with well-described KIT mutations, several rare double mutations as well as novel alterations were reported in this series

Tolerance and adverse event profile with sorafenib in Indian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: The current standard of treatment for advanced hepatocellular cancer Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is Sorafenib. Data regarding its tolerance and adverse event profile in Indian patients is scarce. Materials and Methods: The primary aim of this analysis was to assess the adverse events (Grade 3 and Grade 4 as per CTCAE v4.0) and requirements for dose reduction with sorafenib in advanced HCC. Details of consecutive patients started on 800 mg/day dosing were obtained from a prospectively maintained database (over a period of 6 months) and analyzed. Results: Thirty-nine patients were available for inclusion in the study. Median age was 58 years (range: 20–75). All patients were classified as Barcelona clinic liver cancer C. Common side effects seen were liver dysfunction (38.5%), hand-foot-syndrome-rash (HFSR) (Grade 2 and 3-25.6%), fatigue (Grade 2 and Grade 3–10.3%), and diarrhea (7.7%). Dose reduction was required in 43.6% of patients. Drug interruptions/cessation was required in 38.5% of patients within the first four months of treatment. Nearly 41% of patients required cessation of sorafenib due to intolerable side-effects while 28.2% stopped sorafenib due to progressive disease. At a median follow-up of 4.9 months, median event-free survival (EFS) was 4.20 months (95% confidence interval: 3.343–5.068). Conclusion: A higher incidence of liver dysfunction and HFSR is seen in Indian patients as compared to published data. A significant proportion of patients required cessation of sorafenib due to adverse events in our series. However, EFS remains on par with that seen in larger studies with sorafenib in advanced HCC

Clinical practice and outcomes in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Experience from an Indian tertiary care center

Background: Management of advanced Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has been revolutionized with the use of Imatinib guided by mutation analysis. Data from India remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Patients with metastatic GIST who were treated at Department of Gastro-intestinal & Hepaticopancreaticobiliary Oncology Unit at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai between December, 2004 and December 2015 were included in the analysis. Clinical and radiological data was retrieved from stored medical records and charts. Results: A total of 83 patients with metastatic GIST were available for analysis. Median age was 54 years with a 3:1 male predominance. Stomach was the most common site of primary with liver being the most common site of metastasis. c-Kit mutation analysis results were available for 44 patients with exon 11 mutant being the most common mutation. With a median follow up of 33 months, the 10 years estimated progression free and overall survival (OS) was 18% and 51% respectively. Overall response rate to first line imatinib was 37.6% and estimated 3 years OS to first line therapy was significantly better for Exon 11 mutated patients (p=0.016). 34 patients received second line therapy in the form of either sunitinib, pazopanib or increased dose imatinib with a clinical benefit rate of 73.5%. C-Kit mutated patients had a better median OS compared to non mutated patients. Conclusions: GIST diagnosed and treated in the Indian subcontinent appears to show improved outcomes. The importance of c-Kit mutation analysis in determining the prognosis and outcomes of patients with advanced GIST is emphasized

Metastatic anorectal melanomas – An exploratory retrospective analysis on the benefits of systemic therapy versus best supportive care in a resource-limited setting from India

Aim: Data regarding the optimal management of metastatic anorectal melanoma (mARM) is scarce. The primary aim was to evaluate the potential benefits of systemic therapy in mARM. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of all mARM who presented between July 2013 and June 2015 at the Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital. Results: Of a total of 37 patients, twelve patients were planned for best supportive care (BSC) only while the remaining 25 patients received systemic therapy. The median overall survival (OS) for the whole cohort was 27 weeks. The OS was significantly better in patients who received first-line therapy as compared to those who were offered BSC (median OS: 14 vs. 33 weeks; P = 0.04). Patients with PS of 1 did significantly better than PS of 2 more (OS 70 vs. 17 weeks; P = 0.015). Conclusion: mARM should be offered chemotherapy, especially in good performance patients. Paclitaxel/Platinum or Capecitabine/Temozolomide regimens can be considered as the preferred regime in the resource-limited setting where immunotherapy may not be a feasible option

Experience with non-cremophor-based paclitaxel-gemcitabine regimen in advanced pancreatic cancer: Results from a single tertiary cancer centre

Background & objectives: Gemcitabine combined with non-cremophor-based paclitaxel is one of the standards of care in advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. This study was undertaken to retrospectively evaluate real world non-trial outcomes with this combination. Methods: Patients with histologically proven advanced inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), treated with non-cremophor-based paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination (PG) (gemcitabine-nanoxel or gemcitabine-abraxane) between January 2012 and June 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. Response assessment was done every 8-12 wk with computed tomography scan and responses were measured as per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria where feasible. Toxicity was recorded as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4 criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 78 patients with PDAC were treated with the combination. Of these, 83.3 per cent of patients had metastatic disease. The median number of chemotherapy cycles administered was three. The objective response rate for the whole group was 30.8 per cent. Grade III/IV toxicities were seen in 35.9 per cent of patients. Median PFS was 5.6 months and median OS was 11.6 months. Interpretation & conclusions: Non-cremophor-based paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine appeared efficacious for advanced pancreatic cancers in routine clinical practice. Within the confines of a single-centre retrospective analysis, gemcitabine-nanoxel and gemcitabine-abraxane appeared to have similar efficacy and toxicity in advanced pancreatic cancers

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) with GI Cancer Chemotherapy: Do We Need CINV Risk Score Over and Above Antiemetic Guidelines in Prescribing Antiemetic Regime?

Background Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28–77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant (p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy (p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea (p = 0.001), acute (p = 0.038), and delayed (p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV