We describe the case of a 47-year-old man admitted to the Department of Hematology because of fever, enlarged cervical and supraclavicular lymph nodes, hepatosplenomegaly and non-specific lung infiltrations. The histopathological examination of the cervical lymph node revealed Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) NS type I. Clinical evaluation revealed stage IVB according to Ann Arbor classification and the presence of 5 unfavorable prognostic factors according to the International Prognostic Index. Despite BEACOPP chemotherapy (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), the enlarged lymph nodes, lung infiltrations and fever persisted. Microbiological and serological tests did not lead to the identification of any viral or bacterial pathogens. Bronchoscopy showed chronic inflammation and post-tuberculosis (TB) scars in bronchi without acid-fast bacilli in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. However, the biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node revealed multiple, caseating and necrotizing granulomatous lesions with scattered Reed-Sternberg (R-S) cells. The auramin staining presented acid-fast bacilli and allowed the diagnosis of productive and caseating TB coexisting with HL. The 4 tuberculostatics regimen and ABVD chemotherapy (adriamycin, bleomycin, vincristine, dacarbazine) resulted in a complete clinical response after 3 months of treatment. In conclusion, the association between HL and TB must be considered, especially in countries where the latter is endemic. The diagnosis may be difficult due to similarities in the clinical course, laboratory tests and imaging procedures.

The results indicate that influenza vaccination induces sufficient immune response in pts with NHL, irrespective of previous chemotherapy.

No abstract

Purpose This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Methods Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis. Results Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug–drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (Cmax) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC0–last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment. Conclusion Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Purpose The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; however, limited data are available on its use in patients with hepatic dysfunction. This study investigated whether hepatic impairment affects the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria were enrolled and received a single oral dose of rucaparib 600 mg. Concentrations of rucaparib and its metabolite M324 in plasma and urine were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between hepatic function groups, and safety and tolerability were assessed. Results Sixteen patients were enrolled (n = 8 per group). Rucaparib maximum concentration (Cmax) was similar, while the area under the concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0–inf) was mildly higher in the moderate hepatic impairment group than in the normal control group (geometric mean ratio, 1.446 [90% CI 0.668–3.131]); similar trends were observed for M324. Eight (50%) patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 2 had normal hepatic function and 6 had moderate hepatic impairment. Conclusion Patients with moderate hepatic impairment showed mildly increased AUC0–inf for rucaparib compared to patients with normal hepatic function. Although more patients with moderate hepatic impairment experienced TEAEs, only 2 TEAEs were considered treatment related. These results suggest no starting dose adjustment is necessary for patients with moderate hepatic impairment; however, close safety monitoring is warranted.