Purpose Fosaprepitant is known to cause infusion-site reactions. However, there is limited data regarding these reactions including the effect of peripheral intravenous administration or other potential factors on their incidence. This single-institution retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the incidence of infusion-site reactions with single-dose intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant when given through a peripheral line prior to administration of chemotherapy. Risk factors for the development of infusion-site reactions with fosaprepitant were also explored. Methods Medical records of patients with cancer receiving IV fosaprepitant through a peripheral line were reviewed. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of infusion-site reactions at our institution. Data collection included demographics, fosaprepitant infusion information, and grading of reactions. Results We found a 15 % incidence of infusion-site reactions among all peripherally administered doses of fosaprepitant. The 50 reactions occurred in 43 unique patients representing an incidence per patient of 28.7 % (43/150; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 21.6–36.6). Factors found to be associated with infusion-site reactions included age [odds ratio (OR) 0.97 (95 % CI 0.94–0.99)], location of IV line [OR forearm vs. hand 0.41 (95% CI 0.20–0.85); OR antecubital fossa vs. hand 0.31 (95 % CI 0.11–0.87)], and simultaneous maintenance IV fluid rate ≥100 mL/h during fosaprepitant infusion [OR 0.19 (95 % CI 0.08–0.44)]. Conclusions The incidence of infusion-site reactions with peripherally administered fosaprepitant as seen in this study is higher than that reported in the package insert. Risk factors for developing infusion-site reactions in our patient population include age, location of IV line, and simultaneous maintenance IV fluid rate of <100 mL/h.

NCT01206777.

Background. Surveillance is crucial to oncology, yet there is scant evidence to guide strategies. Purpose. This survey identified sarcoma surveillance strategies for Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) members and rationales behind them. Understanding current practice should facilitate studies to generate evidence-based surveillance protocols. Methods. Permission was granted by the Research and Executive Committee of the MSTS to survey members on surveillance strategies. First, the questionnaire requested demographic and clinical practice information. Second, the survey focused on clinicians' specific surveillance soft tissue and bone sarcoma protocols. Results. 20 percent of MSTS members completed the survey. The primary rationale for protocols was training continuation, followed by published guidelines, and finally personal interpretation of the literature. 95% of the respondents believe that additional studies regarding appropriate surveillance protocols are needed. 87% reported patient concerns regarding radiation exposure from surveillance imaging. For soft tissue and bone sarcoma local recurrence, responders identified surgical margin, histologic grade, and tumor size as the most important factors. For metastases, important risk factors identified included histologic grade, tumor size, and histologic type. Protocols demonstrated wide variation. Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that surveillance strategies utilized by MSTS members are not evidence-based, providing rationale for multi-institutional studies. It also confirms the public health issue of excessive radiation exposure.

Addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics resulted in low rates of delayed nausea/vomiting associated with high-dose melphalan and PBSCT, and has now become standard practice in this patient population at our institution.

Background: The use of IV rituximab for the treatment of a variety of malignant and nonmalignant indications has been associated with significant challenges related to time and labor. To help alleviate some of these logistic challenges, institutions have implemented protocols to shorten the time in which rituximab is infused. The purpose of this study was to support the safe implementation of a 90-minute rapid infusion protocol for rituximab at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC). Methods: A 90-minute rituximab protocol was developed, and proactive measures were taken to educate physicians, pharmacists, and nurses on ordering, processing, compounding, and administering rituximab. A weekly report of patients who received rituximab at RLRVAMC was generated November 1, 2018 through April 1, 2019. Patients then were screened for rapid infusion of the drug based on eligibility criteria, and health care providers (HCPs) were notified. After each patient received a rapid infusion, a retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate patient tolerability and assess for any safety concerns that would require protocol modification. The primary endpoint for this study was the incidence of grade 3 and 4 infusion-related reactions (IRRs) associated with rapid infusions of rituximab based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. Results: Eleven patients received 24 rapid infusions of rituximab. Of these infusions, 1 (4.2%) resulted in a grade 3 IRR; no infusions resulted in a reaction of grade ≥ 4. The use of rapid infusion of rituximab when compared with nonrapid infusion saved 39.3 minutes on average per patient. Conclusions: The proactive measures that were used to implement the rapid infusion rituximab protocol improved HCP prescribing rates, nursing satisfaction, and the management of IRRs. This study confirmed appropriateness of rapid administration of rituximab in this veteran population and has increased interest in implementing other rapid infusion protocols.

Background: There is a paucity of data on long-term survivorship and outcomes for total humerus replacements (THR) with only two series reporting 10-year survival. Patients and Methods: A review of 769 consecutive, prospectively collected endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single-center between 1980 and 2019 was performed. Patients with THRs were isolated and analyzed for outcomes, complications, and modes of failure. Results: Eighteen patients with 20 THR implants were identified. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 148 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 74-194) and 60 months (IQR = 17-155 months) for all patients. Two prostheses required revision for failure, both for symptomatic shoulder dislocation. There were three local recurrences. Revision-free survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 100%, 86% and 86%, respectively. There were no cases of ulnar component failure, radial nerve palsy, or periprosthetic infection. Conclusions: THR prosthesis survivorship is comparable to the previous series, with a longer follow-up than has previously been reported. Symptomatic shoulder instability was common (25%), and was the only cause of revision. Reverse total shoulder could be an important way to address this in the future. Local recurrence rates were high, as has been reported elsewhere for THR.

No abstract

No abstract