No abstract

Background: Cancer survivors (css) are frequently exposed to polypharmacy, which might increase their risk of drug interactions. Our study aimed to determine the relative prevalence of potential drug interactions (pdis) among css compared with non-cancer respondents (ncrs). Methods: Self-reported prescription data from 4975 patients were extracted from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and screened for pdis using iFacts: Drug Interaction Facts (Facts and Comparisons, St. Louis, MO, U.S.A.). The clinical significance of each pdi was graded on a 5-point scale based on the severity of the interaction and the level of evidence documenting the interaction. Summary statistics and logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of cancer history on the risk of pdis. Results: Of patients eligible for the analyses, the css (n = 302) indicated using 4.4 ± 0.22 prescriptions on average, and the ncrs (n = 908), 3.8 ± 0.09. Nearly half of both cohorts (40% of css, 43% of ncrs) had at least 1 pdi. In both cohorts, 12% were at risk for fatal or permanently debilitating effects. In multivariate analyses, css were significantly less likely than ncrs to be at risk for any pdis (odds ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.92; p = 0.02). Advanced age and low household income were associated with pdis among css. Medications most commonly prescribed to css with a pdi included metoprolol (15.6%), levothyroxine (13.6%), and furosemide (11.9%). Conclusions: Although css appear to be less susceptible than ncrs to pdis, the prevalence of pdis among css remains suboptimal. Specific subgroups of css may be particularly prone to pdis, underscoring the importance of increased vigilance.

ConClusionsIndependent risk factors for ihd and chf in css were identified. The risk stratification schema presented here may be helpful in developing a risk-based approach to preventive cardiovascular strategies for css.

Background: The survival benefit for single-agent anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy compared with combination therapy with irinotecan in KRAS wildtype (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients in the third-line treatment setting is not known. The objective of the present study was to describe the characteristics of, and to compare survival outcomes in, two cohorts of patients treated with either singleagent panitumumab or combination therapy with cetuximab and irinotecan. Methods: The study enrolled patients with KRAS wt mCRC previously treated with both irinotecan and oxaliplatin who had received either panitumumab or combination cetuximab–irinotecan before April 1, 2011, at the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA). Patients were excluded if they had received anti-EGFR agents in earlier lines of therapy. Data were prospectively collected, except for performance status (PS), which was determined by chart review. Information about systemic therapy was extracted from the BCCA Pharmacy Database. Results: Of 178 eligible patients, 141 received panitumumab, and 37 received cetuximab–irinotecan. Compared with patients treated with cetuximab–irinotecan, panitumumab-treated patients were significantly older and more likely to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 2 or 3 (27.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.001). Other baseline prognostic variables and prior and subsequent therapies were similar. Median overall survival was 7.7 months for the panitumumab group and 8.3 months for the cetuximab–irinotecan group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that survival outcomes were similar regardless of the therapy selected (hazard ratio: 1.28; p = 0.34). An ECOG PS of 2 or 3 compared with 0 or 1 was the only significant prognostic factor in this treatment setting (hazard ratio: 3.37; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Single-agent panitumumab and cetuximab–irinotecan are both reasonable third-line treatment options, with similar outcomes, for patients with chemoresistant mCRC.