Successful treatment with personalized dosage of imatinib in elderly patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors

A systematic review of non-standard dosing of oral anticancer therapies

Background

The use of oral systemic anticancer therapies (SACT) has increased and led to improved cancer survival outcomes, particularly with the introduction of small molecule targeted agents and immunomodulators. Oral targeted SACT are, however, associated with toxicities, which might result in reduced quality of life and non-adherence. To reduce treatment-related toxicity, the practice of non-standard dosing is increasing; however guidance to govern this practice is limited. A systematic review was conducted to identify evidence of, and outcomes from, non-standard dosing of oral SACT in oncology and malignant haematology.

Methods

A comprehensive search of 78 oral SACT was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Library©, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL©). Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and were critically appraised. Extracted data were tabulated to summarise key findings. Due to diversity of study designs and heterogeneity of reported outcomes, studies were categorised and evidence was synthesised in three main themes: dose interruption; dose reduction; and other dosing strategies.

Results

Thirty-four studies were eligible for inclusion: four clinical trials, fifteen cohort studies and fifteen case reports. Evidence for non-standard dosing was reported for eleven oral SACT. Dose interruptions were the most commonly reported strategy (14 studies); nine studies reported dose reductions; and eleven reported other dosing strategies. Eight retrospective cohort studies reported dose interruption of sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma and showed either similar or improved responses and survival outcomes, and fewer or equivalent high grade toxicities, compared to the standard schedule. Four cohort studies retrospectively evaluated dose reductions of imatinib, gefitinib or erlotinib, for chronic myeloid leukaemia and non-small cell lung cancer, respectively. Other dosing strategies included alternate-day dosing. The quality of the evidence was limited by the small sample size in many studies, retrospective study designs, and lack of reported toxicity and/or QoL outcomes.

Conclusions

This review identified limited evidence to support current non-standard dosing strategies, but some of findings, e.g. dose interruption of sunitinib, warrant further investigation in large-scale prospective clinical trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5066-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Personalization of regorafenib treatment in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in real-life clinical practice

Background:

Regorafenib (REG) has now been approved as the standard third-line therapy in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients at the recommended dose and schedule of 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. However, it has a relevant toxicity profile that mainly occurs within the first cycles of therapy, and dose and schedule adjustments are often required to reduce the frequency or severity of adverse events and to avoid early treatment discontinuation. To date, large amounts of data on the use of REG in metastatic GIST patients in daily clinical practice are not available, and we lack information about how this treatment personalization really affects the quality of life (QoL) of patients. The aim of the present retrospective study is to build a comprehensive picture of all alternative REG strategies adopted in daily clinical practice for use in metastatic GIST patients.

Methods:

Metastatic GIST patients treated with dose adjustment or alternative schedules of REG at seven reference Italian centres were retrospectively included.

Results:

For a total of 62 metastatic GIST patients, we confirmed that REG treatment adjustment is common in clinical practice and that it is very heterogeneous, with approximately 20 different strategies being adopted. Independent of which strategy is chosen, treatment personalization has led to a clinical benefit defined as complete or partial resolution of side effects in almost all patients, affecting the duration of REG treatment.

Conclusions:

The personalization of REG, even if it is heterogeneous, seems to be crucial to maximize the overall treatment duration.