Aapro, M.S., Cameron, D.A., Pettengell, R., Bohlius, J., Crawford, J., Ellis, M., . . . Zielinski, C. (2006). EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours. European Journal of Cancer, 42, 2433–2453.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in adult patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer
TYPES OF PATIENTS ADDRESSED: Adult patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer
PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT:
The following questions were applied by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) G-CSF Guidelines Working Party.
In adult patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy:
The article describes guidelines prepared by the G-CSF Guidelines Working Party of the EORTC to systematically review available published data and derive evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate use of G-CSF in adult patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer.
The following are levels of evidence applied by the EORTC G-CSF Guidelines Working Party.
The following grades of recommendations were applied by the EORTC G-CSF Guidelines Working Party.
DATABASES USED: MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles selected were published in English from December 31, 1994–September 16, 2005. Reference lists of the identified meta-analyses were interrogated manually, and any primary papers considered relevant were included. Abstract books from key international congresses were searched manually to identify relevant evidence presented at meetings from 2003–2005.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving children younger than 18 years of age or patients with leukemia were excluded, as were cost analyses, as these lack international applicability. Relevant articles “in press” and additional papers identified by members of the working party were included in limited instances.
Recommendation 1: Patient-related risk factors for increased incidence of FN
Recommendation 2: Chemotherapy regimens associated with increased risk of FN
Recommendation 3: G-CSF to support chemotherapy
Recommendation 4: Impact of the overall FN risk on G-CSF use
Recommendation 5: G-CSF in patients with existing FN
Recommendation 6: Choice of formulation
Aapro, M.S., Schmoll, H.J., Jahn, F., Carides, A.D., & Webb, R.T. (2013). Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 39(1), 113-117.
To characterize the antiemetic treatment response of aprepitant when combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone compared to ondansetron and dexamethasone alone, in multiple patient populations receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)
Study participants had been diagnosed with lung, breast, gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) tumor types and were included in four previously completed randomized control trials. Authors selected the articles for review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were outlined for each study.
All patients were in active antitumor treatment.
The results of the post hoc analysis of the pooled data demonstrated that complete antiemetic responses were observed in a higher proportion of both HEC and MEC treated patients for all tumor types. For HEC treated patients, significant differences were found in GU (61% versus 44.7%, p = 0.001), GI (68% versus 45%, p = 0.013), and lung cancers (73% versus 53%, p = 0.001). In MEC-treated patients, a significant difference was found in breast cancer (54.9% versus 43.9%, p = 0.0001). Complete response (no vomiting and no rescue medications) following MEC ranged from 54.9% in the breast cancer group to 76% in the lung cancer group.
This analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens. The authors recommend the use of an antiemetic regimen that includes aprepitant prior to the first cycle, noting that it will prevent anticipatory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in those patients who respond to the preventative measures.
Evidence supports the use of aprepitant in combination with other antiemetic medications for patients receiving MEC and HEC. This supports current understanding of multiple pathways leading to CINV.
Burtness, B., Anadkat, M., Basti, S., Hughes, M., Lacouture, M.E., McClure, J.S., . . . Spencer, S. (2009). NCCN Task Force Report: Management of dermatologic and other toxicities associated with EGFR inhibition in patients with cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 7(Suppl. 1), S5–S21.
To describe commonly used therapies that National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Task Force members agreed are appropriate standards of care to manage dermatologic and ocular toxicities that occur in patients with cancer being treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors.
NCCN Task Force members reviewed available published data on treating toxicities associated with EGFR inhibitors, reviewed data from the treatment of clinically similar toxicities from different etiologies, and shared their expert opinions. Through this process, they developed recommendations for managing dermatologic and ocular toxicities associated with EGFR inhibition in patients with cancer.
The databases searched were not identified specifically. The authors stated their recommendations were supported only by anecdotal evidence.
Search keywords, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria were not provided.
Modifying EGFR Inhibitor Therapy
Topical Therapies for Rash
Prophylactic/Mitigating Treatments:
Reactive Treatments:
Systemic Therapies for Rash
Prophylactic/Mitigating Treatments:
Reactive Treatments:
Paronychia:
Pruritus:
Xerosis:
Fissuring on the heels or fingertips:
Desquamation:
The NCCN Task Force report described the management of dermatologic and ocular toxicities that occur in patients receiving EGFR inhibitors. Few recommendations were evidence based; however, some commonly used therapies have data supporting their use.
Implications for nursing practice include integrating the recommendations of the NCCN Task Force into facility algorithms for preventing or managing several types of EGFR-induced skin reactions. Well-designed research is needed in this area.