Intervenções para redução de diarréia em pacientes recebendo quimioterapia para câncer colorretal: revisão sistematica

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II study of AGI004 for control of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea

Background: AGI004 is a controlled-release transdermal patch preparation of mecamylamine. We conducted a randomised placebo-controlled phase II study of two dose levels of AGI004 in chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea (CID).

Methods: Adult patients receiving chemotherapy who had experienced diarrhoea (NCI grade 1-2) during previous cycles of chemotherapy were eligible. In all, 64 patients were randomised to receive AGI004 4mg then 8mg per 24 h transdermal patch or placebo for two sequential cycles of chemotherapy. Patients' severity of diarrhoea was physician-assessed using NCI grade of diarrhoea and patient-assessed using information recorded in daily diaries of bowel movements.

Results: Overall AGI004 doubled the odds of a response to treatment on the first day of chemotherapy based on physician assessment of NCI grade of diarrhoea compared with placebo (odds ratio = 2.0, 90% confidence interval: 0.9-4.5) and there was a trend to improved response rates for AGI004 for the full treatment cycle although these results were not statistically significant. There was also evidence of significantly improved response rates based on patient assessment of diarrhoea both overall (P = 0.05) and at the 8-mg dose level (P = 0.02) compared with placebo.

Conclusion: AGI004 demonstrated effectiveness in reducing chemotherapy-associated diarrhoea, with results suggesting response across multiple measurements of diarrhoea. Treatment was well tolerated with no drug-related adverse events. Further evaluation of this agent in the management of CID is warranted.

Guidance on the management of diarrhoea during cancer chemotherapy

Diarrhoea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients is common, causes notable morbidity and mortality, and is managed inconsistently. Previous management guidelines were based on poor evidence and neglect physiological causes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. In the absence of level 1 evidence from randomised controlled trials, we developed practical guidance for clinicians based on a literature review by a multidisciplinary team of clinical oncologists, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacist, and a surgeon. Education of patients and their carers about the risks associated with, and management of, chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea is the foundation for optimum treatment of toxic effects. Adequate—and, if necessary, repeated—assessment, appropriate use of loperamide, and knowledge of fluid resuscitation requirements of affected patients is the second crucial step. Use of octreotide and seeking specialist advice early for patients who do not respond to treatment will reduce morbidity and mortality. In view of the burden of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea, appropriate multidisciplinary research to assess meaningful endpoints is urgently required.

Malnutrition and chemotherapy : implications for nursing practice

Background: Malnutrition before and during chemotherapy is associated with poor treatment outcomes. The risk of cancer-related malnutrition is exacerbated by common nutrition impact symptoms during chemotherapy, such as nausea, diarrhoea and mucositis. Aim of presentation: To describe the prevalence of malnutrition/ malnutrition risk in two samples of patients treated in a quaternary-level chemotherapy unit. Research design: Cross sectional survey. Sample 1: Patients ≥ 65 years prior to chemotherapy treatment (n=175). Instrument: Nurse-administered Malnutrition Screening Tool to screen for malnutrition risk and body mass index (BMI). Sample 2: Patients ≥ 18 years receiving chemotherapy (n=121). Instrument: Dietitian-administered Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment to assess malnutrition, malnutrition risk and BMI. Findings Sample 1: 93/175 (53%) of older patients were at risk of malnutrition prior to chemotherapy. 27 (15%) were underweight (BMI <21.9); 84 (48%) were overweight (BMI >27). Findings Sample 2: 31/121 patients (26%) were malnourished; 12 (10%) had intake-limiting nausea or vomiting; 22 (20%) reported significant weight loss; and 20 (18%) required improved nutritional symptom management during treatment. 13 participants with malnutrition/nutrition impact symptoms (35%) had no dietitian contact; the majority of these participants were overweight. Implications for nursing: Patients with, or at risk of, malnutrition before and during chemotherapy can be overlooked, particularly if they are overweight. Older patients seem particularly at risk. Nurses can easily and quickly identify risk with the regular use of the Malnutrition Screening Tool, and refer patients to expert dietetic support, to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial

Background: Advanced colorectal cancer is treated with a combination of cytotoxic drugs and targeted treatments. However, how best to minimise the time spent taking cytotoxic drugs and whether molecular selection can refine this further is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to establish how cetuximab might be safely and effectively added to intermittent chemotherapy.

Methods: COIN-B was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, exploratory phase 2 trial done at 30 hospitals in the UK and one in Cyprus. We enrolled patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for metastases. Randomisation was done centrally (by telephone) by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation with a random element. Treatment allocation was not masked. Patients were assigned (1:1) to intermittent chemotherapy plus intermittent cetuximab or to intermittent chemotherapy plus continuous cetuximab. Chemotherapy was FOLFOX (folinic acid and oxaliplatin followed by bolus and infused fluorouracil). Patients in both groups received FOLFOX and weekly cetuximab for 12 weeks, then either had a planned interruption (those taking intermittent cetuximab) or planned maintenance by continuing on weekly cetuximab (continuous cetuximab). On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was recommenced for 12 weeks followed by further interruption or maintenance cetuximab, respectively. The primary outcome was failure-free survival at 10 months. The primary analysis population consisted of patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment without progression, death, or leaving the trial. We tested BRAF and NRAS status retrospectively. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38375681.

Findings: We registered 401 patients, 226 of whom were enrolled. Results for 169 with KRAS wild-type are reported here, 78 (46%) assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 91 (54%) to continuous cetuximab. 64 patients assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 66 of those assigned to continuous cetuximab were included in the primary analysis. 10-month failure-free survival was 50% (lower bound of 95% CI 39) in the intermittent group versus 52% (lower bound of 95% CI 41) in the continuous group; median failure-free survival was 12·2 months (95% CI 8·8–15·6) and 14·3 months (10·7–20·4), respectively. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were skin rash (21 [27%] of 77 patients vs 20 [22%] of 92 patients), neutropenia (22 [29%] vs 30 [33%]), diarrhoea (14 [18%] vs 23 [25%]), and lethargy (20 [26%] vs 19 [21%]).

Interpretation: Cetuximab was safely incorporated in two first-line intermittent chemotherapy strategies. Maintenance of biological monotherapy, with less cytotoxic chemotherapy within the first 6 months, in molecularly selected patients is promising and should be validated in phase 3 trials.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Background: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. Methods: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1: 1: 1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. Findings: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.17 (95% CI 0.98-1.39; p=0.07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.07 (0.90-1.28; p=0.44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.27 (1.03-1.57; p=0.02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.15 (0.93-1.42; p=0.21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. Interpretation: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Cochrane review summary for cancer nursing : influenza vaccination in children having chemotherapy for cancer

Background: Children having chemotherapy for cancer are prone to developing influenza infections. Influenza virus infection may lead to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization, interruption of treatment, and other severe adverse outcomes such as death. Although clinical guidelines recommend children who are being treated for cancer be vaccinated against influenza, evidence supporting this recommendation is unclear.--------- Objectives: The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating immunologic response in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy, compared with other control groups; (2) assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing influenza infection; and (3) establish any adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in children with cancer.

Colorectal cancer survivors’ exercise experiences and preferences : qualitative findings from an exercise rehabilitation programme immediately after chemotherapy

Little is known about cancer survivors’ experiences with and preferences for exercise programmes offered during rehabilitation (immediately after cancer treatment). This study documented colorectal cancer survivors’ experiences in an exercise rehabilitation programme and their preferences for programme content and delivery. At the completion of 12-weeks of supervised exercise, 10 participants took part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Data from these interviews were coded, and themes were identified using qualitative software. Key findings were that most participants experienced improvements in treatment symptoms, including reduced fatigue and increased energy and confidence to do activities of daily living. They also reported that interactions with the exercise trainer and a flexible programme delivery were important aspects of the intervention. Most participants reported that they preferred having a choice of exercise, starting to exercise within a month after completing treatment, having supervision and maintaining a one-on-one format. Frustrations included scheduling conflicts and a lack of a transition out of the programme. The findings indicate that colorectal cancers experience benefits from exercise offered immediately after treatment and prefer individual attention from exercise staff. They further indicate directions for the implementation of future exercise programmes with this population.

Diarrhoea risk factors in enterally tube fed critically ill patients : a retrospective audit

Objective: Diarrhoea in the enterally tube fed (ETF) intensive care unit (ICU) patient is a multifactorial problem. Diarrhoeal aetiologies in this patient cohort remain debatable; however, the consequences of diarrhoea have been well established and include electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, bacterial translocation, peri anal wound contamination and sleep deprivation. This study examined the incidence of diarrhoea and explored factors contributing to the development of diarrhoea in the ETF, critically ill, adult patient. ---------- Method: After institutional ethical review and approval, a single centre medical chart audit was undertaken to examine the incidence of diarrhoea in ETF, critically ill patients. Retrospective, non-probability sequential sampling was used of all emergency admission adult ICU patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. ---------- Results: Fifty patients were audited. Faecal frequency, consistency and quantity were considered important criteria in defining ETF diarrhoea. The incidence of diarrhoea was 78%. Total patient diarrhoea days (r = 0.422; p = 0.02) and total diarrhoea frequency (r = 0.313; p = 0.027) increased when the patient was ETF for longer periods of time. Increased severity of illness, peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp02), glucose control, albumin and white cell count were found to be statistically significant factors for the development of diarrhoea. ---------- Conclusion: Diarrhoea in ETF critically ill patients is multi-factorial. The early identification of diarrhoea risk factors and the development of a diarrhoea risk management algorithm is recommended.