Search

Background: Gynecological cancer is one of the highest risk factors for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Although low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended as an anticoagulant for treating CAT, recent studies have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an acceptable alternative. Patients with cancer require a series of chemotherapies concomitantly with DOAC administration; however, the extent to which these drugs influence DOAC blood concentrations is unknown. In this study, we measured the plasma concentration of edoxaban during chemotherapy for gynecological cancers to determine its safety. Methods: Patients histologically diagnosed with ovarian or uterine corpus cancer and CAT were recruited after primary surgery and before the initiation of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, including paclitaxel. Patients were administered edoxaban (30 or 60 mg) orally for CAT. The plasma concentrations of edoxaban and active factor Xa were determined and their percentage change before and after chemotherapy was calculated. Additionally, blood coagulation tests were analyzed. Results: Sixteen patients with gynecological cancer (12 with ovarian cancer and 4 with uterine corpus cancer) were enrolled. Among these, 15 samples were collected one day after chemotherapy initiation. During chemotherapy, the trough concentration of edoxaban changed from 17.6 ± 10.6 to 20.0 ± 15.6 ng/ml, and the mean percentage change in edoxaban concentration was 14.5%. Therefore, the trough concentrations of edoxaban, which represent excretion capacity, were not significantly increased by chemotherapy with paclitaxel. The area under the plasma edoxaban concentration–time curve and the active factor Xa concentration were also unaffected. Conclusion: Patients with CAT and ovarian or uterine corpus cancer administered edoxaban orally showed no significant increase in the trough concentration of edoxaban while undergoing chemotherapy. This suggests the safety of edoxaban use during the treatment of gynecological cancers. Trial registration: EGCAT study; Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs051190024. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Irinotecan sometimes causes lethal septic shock but the risk factors remain unclear. This retrospective case-control study explored the potential risk factors for septic shock following irinotecan treatment. Methods: All women who received irinotecan-containing chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies at Shizuoka General Hospital from October 2014 to September 2020 were investigated. The clinical backgrounds and blood test results of those who developed septic shock after irinotecan-containing chemotherapy were compared with those who did not. Odds ratios (ORs) for developing septic shock after receiving irinotecan were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using univariable logistic regression analysis. Results: During the study period, 147 women received irinotecan-containing chemotherapy. Three women developed septic shock due to neutropenic enterocolitis after irinotecan treatment, and 144 did not. The three patients with septic shock had recurrent cervical cancer, heterozygous variants in the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene (two patients had *1/*6, one had *1/*28 variants), a history of concurrent chemoradiation therapy, 50–60 Gy of pelvic irradiation, and platinum-combined chemotherapy. A history of pelvic irradiation was identified as a possible risk factor for developing septic shock after irinotecan-containing chemotherapy (OR 63.0, 95% CI 5.71–8635; p < 0.001). The OR of UGT1A1 polymorphism for septic shock was 9.09 (95% CI 0.86–1233; p = 0.070) in the complete case analysis. Conclusion: Medical personnel involved in cancer therapy should consider the possible risk of septic shock developing due to neutropenic enterocolitis when administering irinotecan-containing chemotherapy in patients with a history of pelvic irradiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has improved organ preservation or overall survival (OS) of locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (LAHNSCC), but in clinical trials of conventional CRT, increasing CRT intensity has not been shown to improve OS. In the Adjuvant ChemoTherapy with S-1 after curative treatment in patients with Head and Neck Cancer (ACTS-HNC) phase III study, OS of curative locoregional treatments improved more with adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 (tegafur gimeracil oteracil potassium) than with tegafur/uracil (UFT). ACTS HNC study showed the significant efficacy of S-1 after curative radiotherapy in sub-analysis. We explored the efficacy of S-1 after curative CRT in a subset of patients from the ACTS-HNC study. Methods: Patients with stage III, IVA, or IVB LAHNSCC were enrolled in this study to evaluate the efficacy of S-1 compared with UFT as adjuvant chemotherapy after curative CRT in the ACTS-HNC study. Patients received S-1 at 80–120 mg/day in two divided doses for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest, or UFT 300 or 400 mg/day in two or three divided doses daily, for 1 year. The endpoints were OS, disease-free survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and post-locoregional relapse survival. Results: One hundred eighty patients (S-1, n = 87; UFT, n = 93) were included in this study. Clinical characteristics of the S-1 and UFT arms were similar. S-1 after CRT significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.93) and DMFS (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26–0.97) compared with UFT. Conclusion: As adjuvant chemotherapy, S-1 demonstrated better efficacy for OS and DMFS than UFT in patients with LAHNSCC after curative CRT and may be considered a treatment option following curative CRT. For this study was not preplanned in the ACTS-HNC study, the results is hypothesis generating but not definitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]