Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.
Introduction:Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an oncological emergency. The choice of empiric therapy depends on the locally prevalent pathogens and their sensitivities, the sites of infection, and cost. The Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines are being followed for the management of FN in India.Methods:This is a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care cancer centre from September 2012 to September 2014.Objectives:The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) To review the pattern of microbial flora, susceptibility pattern, and important clinical variables among bloodstream infections in febrile neutropenic patients with solid tumors and hematological malignancies. (2) As per the institutional protocol to periodically review the antibiotic policy and susceptibility pattern, and compare the findings with an earlier study done in our institute in 2010. This was a prospective study conducted from September 2012 to September 2014.Results:About 379 episodes of FN were documented among 300 patients. About 887 blood cultures were drawn. Of these, 137 (15%) isolates were cultured. Isolates having identical antibiograms obtained from a single patient during the same hospitalization were considered as one. Hence, 128 isolates were analyzed. About 74 (58%) cultures yielded Gram-negative bacilli, 51 (40%) were positive for Gram-positive cocci, and 3 (2%) grew fungi. Among Gram-negative organisms, Escherichia coli followed by Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae accounted for 78% of the isolates. Among Gram-positive cocci, Staphylococcus species accounted for 84% of the isolates. We have noted a changing trend in the antibiotic sensitivity pattern over the years. Following the switch in empirical antibiotics, based on the results of the study done in 2010 (when the empirical antibiotics were ceftazidime + amikacin), the sensitivity to cefoperazone-sulbactam has plunged from about 80% to 60%%. Similar reduction in susceptibility was noted for piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. On the contrary, there was a marked increase in sensitivity to ceftazidime (50–76%). Based on these results, we have reverted to ceftazidime + amikacin as the empirical antibiotics.Conclusion:Every institute must have a regular revision of antibiotic policy based on periodic assessment of the clinical and microbiological profile in FN. This will combat antibiotic resistance.
Primary bone lymphoma (PBL) is an uncommon tumor accounting for approximately 4-5% of extra nodal lymphoma and less than 1% of all non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Disease may be complicated at presentation by pathological fracture or spinal cord compression. Diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) accounts for the majority of cases of PBL. Owing to its rarity, only a few retrospective studies have been published addressing the prognosis and treatment of primary bone lymphoma. In this paper, we report our experience with two cases of PBL treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy and review literature to elucidate the optimal treatment of primary bone lymphoma.
Purpose. Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the esophagus are very uncommon with only a few studies published worldwide. Studies on clinical profile, management, and outcomes are very uncommon. Methods. We report the largest single institution retrospective review of 43 patients of pure esophageal NENs out of our registry of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors treated between 2005 and 2014. Data on the incidence, tumor location, clinical symptoms, stage at presentation, grading, treatment protocol, and treatment outcomes was collected and analyzed. Results. Among 1293 cases of esophageal cancers, pure esophageal NENs were diagnosed in 43 cases. The mean patient age was 55.8 years. The male : female ratio was 1.5 : 1. 81.4% of the tumors were located in the lower third of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC; G3) accounted for the vast majority of NENs (83.7%). 53.5% patients were Stage IV and 32.5% were Stage III at presentation. The combined median survival of stages II and III patients was 18.25 months, with treatment. The median survival of treated patients with metastatic disease was 6.5 months. Conclusion. Esophageal NENs most commonly were neuroendocrine carcinomas, presented in metastatic stage and were associated with poor prognosis. Grade 2 (G2) tumors had better outcomes than NEC (G3). In nonmetastatic disease, presence of lymph node metastasis and unresectable disease had poorer outcomes.
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.