Introduction This study aims to determine the adequacy of current institutional standard practice for CINV prophylaxis for EPOCH and R-EPOCH at The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital. Methods Single-center, retrospective analysis was performed including all patients receiving EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas from 1/1/2012 to 6/30/2017. The primary endpoint was rate of CINV events, which included usage of more than 50 percent of available doses of breakthrough antiemetics while inpatient, hospitalization due to CINV or related complications, or adjustments made to the CINV prophylactic or breakthrough regimen during current or subsequent cycles. Secondary endpoints included determining prescriber adherence to institutional standard CINV prophylaxis, characterization of adjustments to the antiemetic regimen following the incidence of CINV, and identification of high-risk patients that may benefit from additional CINV prophylaxis. Results Of 111 patients, 54 (48.6%) experienced CINV events with any cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy. Of those patients, 17 (31.5%) received institutional standard CINV prophylaxis at baseline, 8 (14.8%) received additional scheduled antiemetics, and 26 (48.1%) were prescribed additional breakthrough antiemetics with their first cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH. Younger age, diagnosis of anxiety, and previous susceptibility to nausea were significantly associated with CINV events. Conclusion This study illustrates the inadequacy of current institutional standard for CINV prophylaxis for patients receiving EPOCH and R-EPOCH, highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. With nearly half of included patients experiencing CINV events, and most initially receiving more than our standard prophylaxis, changes to our standard antiemetics used with this chemotherapy regimen are needed.
Background: The optimal treatment of patients with systemic diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) or high-grade B-cell (HGBL) lymphomas with synchronous central nervous system (CNS) involvement at diagnosis is not well defined. High-dose methotrexate administered concurrently with R-CHOP (RM-CHOP) is a commonly used regimen, but data on outcomes achieved with this regimen are limited. Objective: To report our experience with RM-CHOP in patients with systemic DLBCL or HGBL with synchronous CNS involvement at diagnosis. Design: A single-center retrospective analysis. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with systemic DLBCL or HGBL with synchronous CNS involvement at diagnosis who were treated with RM-CHOP from January 2012 to January 2021. Results: Fifty patients were included with a median age of 62 years; 82% had DLBCL ( n = 41) and 18% had HGBL ( n = 9). Treatment with RM-CHOP was followed by consolidative autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in 14 patients (28%). The complete response (CR) rate following RM-CHOP was 62%. With a median follow-up of 40 months, the median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survivals were 16 and 58 months, and the 2-year PFS and OS were 41% and 57%, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidence of CNS progression/relapse was 29%. Outcomes were particularly poor in HGBL, with median PFS and OS of 6 and 7 months, compared with median PFS and OS of 22 months and not reached in DLBCL, respectively. The outcomes of patients with relapsed/progressive disease were poor, with only 63% of patients receiving subsequent treatments and only 21% achieving CR to next subsequent treatment. Most patients (58%) with disease relapse/progression had CNS involvement which was associated with very poor outcomes (median OS of 2 months). Conclusion: CNS involvement in aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at diagnosis dictates clinical outcomes and requires more effective treatment options.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.