Proton pump inhibitors affect capecitabine efficacy in patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

Proton pump inhibitors and cancer treatments: Emerging evidence against coadministration

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in cancer patients despite accumulating data showing that they can impact the efficacy of major anticancer drugs. This is particularly important with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).

RESULTS

Most TKIs require gastric acidity for their absorption and some retrospective series demonstrated that coprescription decreases the survival benefit of some TKI use (erlotinib, gefitinib and pazopanib). Relations between microbiota, the immune system, and the efficacy of immunotherapy are now obvious, just as modifications to gut flora after PPIs use are well-known. Many retrospective articles, including articles based on individual-participant data from randomized studies, demonstrated that patients treated with CPIs have a poorer outcome (overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate) when they received PPIs concomitantly, while there was no impact of such coprescription among patients in control arms, not treated with immunotherapies. Similar data were also observed in patients treated with palbociclib.

CONCLUSION

For these interactions, it is very important to use the precautionary principle and warn patients and physicians about this. In patients who require acid suppression because of severe symptoms, using antacids or H2 blockers could be recommended.

Proton pump inhibitors decrease efficacy of palbociclib in patients with metastatic breast

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this investigation was to assess the impact of concurrent proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who received palbociclib as first-line or successives therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted, enrolling patients diagnosed with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative mBC, and eligible for palbociclib treatment. Patients were categorized as "concurrent PPIs" if they received PPIs for at least two-thirds of the palbociclib therapy duration, and as "no concurrent PPIs" if they did not receive PPIs during the course of palbociclib treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included in the study. Among first-line patients treated with palbociclib, those using concurrent PPIs exhibited a PFS of 8.88 months, while patients using palbociclib without concurrent PPIs had a PFS of 67.81 months (p < 0.0001). In second-line or subsequent treatments, patients on palbociclib with concurrent PPIs had a PFS of 7.46 months, whereas those using palbociclib without concurrent PPIs had a PFS of 17.29 months (p = 0.122).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the concurrent use of PPIs in mBC patients receiving palbociclib negatively affects PFS, particularly in the first-line setting. Nevertheless, further investigation is warranted to explore the impact of PPIs on cycle-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors.

Impact of coadministration of proton-pump inhibitors and palbociclib in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The capsule formulation of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib has reduced solubility at gastric pH > 4.5 and may have decreased activity when used with proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). Herein, we report the effect of PPI on palbociclib capsule activity and safety in the PARSIFAL study.

METHODS

First-line endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients received palbociclib capsules plus fulvestrant or letrozole. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This post-hoc analysis compared PPI use. Patients were PPI-naïve (N-PPI) if not on PPI during the study, and either early (E-PPI) or long-term PPI (LT-PPI) if on PPI at study entry or for at least ≥⅔ of treatment, respectively. PPI groups were not mutually exclusive.

RESULTS

Among 486 patients, 66.9 % were N-PPI, 13.2 % E-PPI, 18.7 % LT-PPI, and 11.5 % of the PPI users were defined as neither. Median PFS (mPFS) was 29.6 months in the study population, 28.7 months in N-PPI, 23.0 months in E-PPI (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.5; 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1-2.2; p = 0.024), and 23.0 months in LT-PPI (HR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0-1.9; p = 0.035). By landmark analysis, PPI use was associated with poorer mPFS at 3 and 12 months. Grade ≥3 hematological adverse events occurred in 71.7 % of N-PPI, 57.8 % of E-PPI (p = 0.021), and 54.9 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.003). Dose reductions and dosing delays due to hematological toxicity occurred in 70.8 % of N-PPI, 56.3 % of E-PPI (p = 0.018), and 52.7 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

PPI use may reduce palbociclib capsule toxicity, dose modifications, and clinical activity in HR+/HER2- ABC.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors in Patients With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce the bioavailability of several anticancer drugs. The impact of PPIs co-administered with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors is controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the concomitant use of PPIs impacts palbociclib and abemaciclib effectiveness in breast cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study, conducted across 4 medical institutions in Japan, consecutively included patients with endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer, receiving palbociclib or abemaciclib between December 2017 and August 2022. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed. Treatment efficacy and safety with and without PPIs were compared. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using a log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio.

RESULTS

The study included 240 patients. After 1:1 matching, 112 patients were treated with and without PPIs. The median progression-free survival period was 1.2 years in the PPI group and 1.3 years in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.70-2.02). The median overall survival period was 3.6 years in the PPI group, whereas it was not reached in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.61-2.47). Consistent results were obtained for subgroups receiving palbociclib (n = 177) and abemaciclib (n = 63) without propensity score matching. Adverse event incidence and severity were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors is unlikely to be affected by concomitant PPI use. Future prospective pharmacokinetic studies are warranted.

Long-Term Usage of Proton Pump Inhibitors Associated with Prognosis in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

The dose-response effect of proton pump inhibitors on colorectal cancer prognosis is still under exploration. This population-based study in Taiwan was designed to examine the effect of proton pump inhibitors on overall death, colorectal cancer-specific death, and recurrence in colorectal cancer patients with different cumulative proton pump inhibitor dose levels. This cohort study was based on the Taiwan Cancer Registry and Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2005 to 2020. After frequency matching with a 1:1 ratio, a total of 20,889 users with proton pump inhibitors and 20,889 without proton pump inhibitors were analyzed. The cumulative defined daily dose level of proton pump inhibitor was stratified to explore the dose-response relationship. A proton pump inhibitor exposure cumulative defined daily dose > 60 after colorectal cancer diagnosis had higher risk of all-cause death than non-proton pump inhibitor users with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.10 (95% CIs: 1.04-1.18). For recurrence, a proton pump inhibitor exposure cumulative defined daily dose > 60 had reduced recurrence risk with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% CIs: 0.76-0.93). This study demonstrated that the long-term use of proton pump inhibitors in patients with colorectal cancer was associated with an increased risk of death that related to the proton pump inhibitor exposure cumulative defined daily dose > 60 and had different dose-response effect in various dose level.

The impact of antibiotic and proton pump inhibitor use at the time of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy on survival in patients with endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the impact of antibiotic (ABX) and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients treated with adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (PC) for endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution cohort study of EC patients treated with ≥four cycles of adjuvant PC following surgical staging from 2014 to 2020. Demographics and clinicopathologic features, including ABX and PPI use, were compared using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed, and survival outcomes were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 325 patients, 95 (29%) received ABX, and 80 (24.6%) received PPI. ABX were associated with decreased 3-year PFS (49.9% vs. 66%; p = 0.0237) but not 3-year OS (68.9% vs. 79.9%; p = 0.0649). ABX targeting gram-positive bacteria were associated with decreased 3-year PFS (21.2% vs. 66.0% vs. 55.4%; p = 0.0038) and 3-year OS (36.5% vs. 79.9% vs. 75.6%; p = 0.0014) compared to no ABX and other ABX, respectively. PPI use was associated with decreased 3-year PFS (46.9% vs. 66.0%; p = 0.0001) and 3-year OS (60.7% vs. 81.9%; p = 0.0041) compared to no PPI. On multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders including stage, histology, grade, radiation, and co-morbidities, PPI use was independently associated with worse PFS (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.25-3.08; p = 0.0041) and OS (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.01-4.18, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective cohort study, we demonstrate that PPI use is independently associated with worse PFS and OS in patients with EC treated with PC. ABX use was associated with worse PFS on univariate analysis only. There is an unmet need to understand how PPI, ABX, and, potentially, the microbiome impact the effectiveness of chemotherapy in EC patients.

Comprehensive pharmacological geriatric assessment compared to usual care in an older adult with cancer in the absence of polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

Medication reconciliation as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment by a specialist pharmacist is a process that has been shown to be beneficial in terms of medication adherence in patients taking oral anticancer medication and potentially cost-effective in cancer patients. Medication review guidelines in older adults with cancer suggest using polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications) as an indication for medication review in older adults with cancer.

CASE REPORT

We present a case where a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the absence of polypharmacy resulted in two pharmacist interventions when standard care resulted in no intervention. A 71-year-old male prescribed capecitabine for rectal cancer had a medication reconciliation done as standard care before starting an oral anticancer medication. He then proceeded to get a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and was deemed to have a potentially excessive anticholinergic burden and underprescribed gastro protection. This case is interesting as it occurred in a patient who would not have met the current inclusion criteria for a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

As a result of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, a letter was written to the patient's general practitioner, recommending a change to anti-depressant therapy to optimise anticholinergic burden, as well as introducing a proton-pump inhibitor upon completion of the Capecitabine protocol concurrent with radiotherapy, to confer gastro-protection against the antidepressant medication, as per the START criteria. Upon discharge from medical oncology, neither of the changes had been adopted by the patient's general practitioner. This highlights one of the challenges facing clinical pharmacists in an outpatient setting, where evidence-based recommendations are not always implemented as care transitions from tertiary to primary care.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment is a process that identifies potential issues in older adults with cancer that aren't identified with standard medication review. This is also evident for medication reviews as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, and where resources allow, and recommendations are likely to be accepted, it should be offered to all older adults with cancer. Pharmacists are still faced with challenges in implementing recommendations from medication reviews, particularly in healthcare systems where pharmacist prescribing has yet to be introduced.

Influence of proton pump inhibitors on the pathological response of rectal cancer: a multicentre study

Background

The standard neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer involves fluoropyrimidines and radiotherapy and, most recently, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). A drug-drug interaction between fluoropyrimidines and proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was suggested, with a negative impact on oncological outcomes in breast, colon and gastric cancers. Little is known about such an effect on rectal tumours. We aimed to evaluate the impact of PPI utilisation on the pathological response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Retrospective multicentre study of rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine (cohort 1) or 5-fluororuracil (5-FU) (cohort 2); TNT with oxaliplatin-based regimens was allowed. The pathological response was considered a complete (ypCR) or complete + partial (ypCR + ypPR) according to American Joint Committee on Cancer. PPI use was considered at any time during the neoadjuvant period if concomitant to fluoropyrimidines.

Results

From January 2007 to November 2020, 251 patients received capecitabine and 196 5-FU. The rates of PPI use in cohorts 1 and 2 were 20.3% and 26.5%, respectively. TNT was offered to 18.3% in cohort 1. PPI use did not influence ypCR in cohort 1 (yes versus no: 29.4% versus 19.5%; p = 0.13) or 2 (yes versus no: 25.0% versus 26.4%; p = 1.0). Similar ypCR + ypPR were observed in both cohorts 1 (76.5% versus 72.0%; p = 0.60) and 2 (86.5% versus 76.4%; p = 0.16). PPI use was not associated with pathological response in multivariable analysis. PPI users experienced more grade 3 or higher diarrhoea and infections.

Conclusion

PPI concomitant to capecitabine/5-FU chemoradiation did not influence the pathological response in rectal cancer but was associated with more treatment-related adverse events.

Drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: an underrecognized cause of treatment failure

New concepts and drugs have revolutionized medical treatment for cancers. These drugs, which are very expensive and usually well tolerated, have dramatically improved cancer prognosis. We must use them wisely for patients to fully benefit. Gastric acid antisecretory drugs and particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionized the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and severe gastroesophageal reflux, but are frequently overused for symptomatic treatment of epigastric pain or heartburn. Long-term acid suppression may alter the efficacy of many anticancer drugs, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), by either decreasing gastric acid secretion and thus drug absorption, or by modifying the gut microbiome that modulates the response to ICIs. Oncologists thus need to pay particular attention to the concomitant use of PPIs and anticancer drugs. These interactions translate into major clinical impacts, with demonstrated loss of efficacy for some TKIs (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib), and conflicting results with many other oral drugs, including capecitabine and CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, the profound changes in the gut microbiome due to using PPIs have shown that the benefit of using ICIs may be suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. The first sentence of a recent Comment in Nature was "Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them". We fear that every day millions of cancer patients are taking medications that harm them. While this may well be only association and not causation, there is enough to make us pause until we reach a clear answer. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

The Association between Baseline Proton Pump Inhibitors, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, and Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Although emerging evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced dysbiosis negatively alters treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients, no study systematically investigates the association between PPIs, ICIs, and chemotherapy; (2) Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched from inception to 20 May 2022, to identify relevant studies involving patients receiving ICIs or chemotherapy and reporting survival outcome between PPI users and non-users. Survival outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. p-scores, with a value between 0 and 1, were calculated to quantify the treatment ranking, with a higher score suggesting a higher probability of greater effectiveness. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies to complement our network meta-analysis; (3) We identified 62 studies involving 26,484 patients (PPI = 8834; non-PPI = 17,650), including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the neck and head. Eight post-hoc analyses from 18 randomized-controlled trials were included in our network, which demonstrated that, in advanced NSCLC and UC, patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI (p-score: 0.2016) are associated with both poorer OS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.67) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.61) than those without PPIs (p-score: 1.000). Patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI also had poorer OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.31) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.48) in comparison with those receiving chemotherapy (p-score: 0.6664), implying that PPIs may compromise ICI's effectiveness, making it less effective than chemotherapy. Our pairwise meta-analyses also supported this association. Conversely, PPI has little effect on patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the neck and head who were treated with ICIs; (4) "PPI-induced dysbiosis" serves as a significant modifier of treatment response in both advanced NSCLC and UC that are treated with ICIs, compromising the effectiveness of ICIs to be less than that of chemotherapy. Thus, clinicians should avoid unnecessary PPI prescription in these patients. "PPI-induced dysbiosis", on the other hand, does not alter the treatment response to ICIs in advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the head and neck.

Do proton pump inhibitors affect the effectiveness of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), one of the most commonly prescribed medications, carry a myriad of adverse events. For colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, it still remains unclear whether the concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) would negatively affect chemotherapy. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022, to identify relevant studies involving CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and reporting comparative survival outcomes between PPI users and non-users. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. We identified 16 studies involving 8,188 patients (PPI = 1,789; non-PPI = 6,329) receiving either capecitabine-based or fluorouracil-based regimens. The overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.15; I² = 0%) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.35; I² = 29%) were similar between PPI users and non-users in patients taking capecitabine-based regimens, with low statis-tical heterogeneity. Although the subgroup analysis indicated that early-stage cancer patients taking capecitabine monotherapy with concurrent PPI had a significantly higher disease progression rate (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; I² = 0%) than those who did not use PPIs, both groups had comparable all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.29; I² = 0%). On the other hand, there was little difference in both OS and PFS in both early- and end-stage patients taking capecitabine combination therapy between PPI users and non-users. Conversely, the use of concomitant PPI in patients taking fluorouracil-based regimens contributed to a marginally significant higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.40; I² = 74%), but with high statistical heterogeneity. In conclusion, PPI has little survival influence on CRC patients treated with capecitabine-based regimens, especially in patients taking capecitabine combination therapy. Thus, it should be safe for clinicians to prescribe PPI in these patients. Although patients treated with fluorouracil-based regimens with concomitant PPI trended toward higher all-cause mortality, results were subject to considerable heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338161.

Literature review of imaging, pathological diagnosis, and outcomes of metachronous lung and pancreatic metastasis of cecal cancer

Background

Pancreatic metastasis from colorectal cancer is extremely rare. Here, we report a case of colorectal cancer with lung and pancreatic metastasis and analyze the histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to generate a differential diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colon cancer.

Case presentation

AC1

A 78-year-old man was admitted because of a recently elevated carcinoembryonic antigen. This patient had undergone laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cecal cancer IIA (T3N0M0) 5 years before admission, and thoracoscopic left upper lung wedge resection for primary colon cancer lung metastasis 2 years before admission. At that time, the patient was thought to have pancreatic metastasis from colon cancer. He underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (combined with splenectomy). Postoperative pathology revealed colon cancer metastasis. We performed NGS on tumor samples at three loci and found colon cancer's most common oncogenic driver genes (KRAS, APC, and TP53). One month after surgery, the patient was given capecitabine for six cycles of chemotherapy. At present, no high adverse reactions have been reported.

Discussion

For patients with pancreatic space-occupying, such as a previous history of colorectal cancer, and recent carcinoembryonic antigen elevation, we should highly suspect pancreatic metastatic colorectal cancer. NGS is an essential auxiliary for identifying metastatic tumors. Surgery combined with postoperative chemotherapy is an effective treatment.

Re-thinking the possible interaction between proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) rank within the top ten most prescribed medications in Europe and USA. A high frequency of PPI use has been reported amongst patients undergoing chemotherapy, to mitigate treatment-induced gastritis or gastro-oesophageal reflux. Several recent, mostly retrospective, observational studies have reported inferior survival outcomes among patients on capecitabine who concomitantly use PPI. Whilst this association is yet to be definitively established, given the prominence of capecitabine as an anti-cancer treatment with multiple indications, these reports have raised concern within the oncological community and drug regulatory bodies worldwide. Currently, the leading mechanism of interaction postulated in these reports has focussed on the pH altering effects of PPI and how this could diminish capecitabine absorption, leading to a decrease in its bioavailability. In this discourse, we endeavour to summarise plausible pharmacokinetic interactions between PPI and capecitabine. We provide a basis for our argument against the currently proposed mechanism of interaction. We also highlight the long-term effects of PPI on health outcomes, and how PPI use itself could lead to poorer outcomes, independent of capecitabine.

Association between the Co-administration of Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists and the Effectiveness of Capecitabine in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score Analysis

Background: The association between the effectiveness of capecitabine and the concomitant administration of gastric acid suppressants remains controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the effectiveness of capecitabine is affected by the co-administration of histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients using real-world data. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III CRC who received either capecitabine monotherapy or the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as adjuvant therapy between January 2009 and December 2014 in Japan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in this study, of which 30 were co-administered H₂RAs. RFS at five years was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2-88.1%) and 79.8% (95% CI: 76.0-83.0%) in the H₂RA and non-H₂RA groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score-adjusted analyses showed that the co-administration of H₂RAs was associated with a poor RFS among those receiving capecitabine monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI: 0.86-4.70 and HR, 1.81; 95% CI: 0.77-4.22, respectively). In contrast, these results were inconsistent with the group receiving the CapeOX regimen. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that the co-administration of H₂RAs may not reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine therapy in patients with early-stage CRC. To confirm this relationship, a prospective study with a pharmacokinetic approach is needed.