Acute hemolysis in a patient with a newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Hematological adverse events in the management of glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

Hematological adverse events (HAEs) are common during treatment for glioblastoma (GBM), usually associated with temozolomide (TMZ). Their clinical value is uncertain, as few investigations have focused on outcomes for HAEs during GBM treatment.

METHODS

We combined data from two randomized clinical trials, RTOG 0525 and RTOG 0825, to analyze HAEs during treatment for GBM. We investigated differences between chemoradiation and adjuvant therapy, and by regimen received during adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

1454 patients participated in these trials, of which 1154 (79.4%) developed HAEs. During chemoradiation, 44.4% of patients developed HAEs (54% involving more than one cell line), and were most commonly lymphopenia (50.6%), and thrombocytopenia (47.5%). During adjuvant treatment, 45% of patients presented HAEs (78.6% involving more than one cell line), and were more commonly leukopenia (62.7%), and thrombocytopenia (62.3%). Median overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were longer in patients with HAEs (OS 19.4 months and PFS 9.9 months) compared to those with other or no adverse events (OS 14.1 months and PFS 5.9 months). There was no significant difference in survival between grade 1 and/or 2 versus grade 3 and/or 4 HAEs. History of HAEs during chemoradiation was a protective factor for presentation of HAEs during adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

HAEs are common during GBM treatment, and often involve more than one cell line (more likely during adjuvant therapy). HAEs may be associated with prolonged OS and PFS, particularly during adjuvant therapy. HAEs during chemoradiation was a protective factor for HAEs during adjuvant therapy.

G6PD Variants and Haemolytic Sensitivity to Primaquine and Other Drugs

Restrictions on the cultivation and ingestion of fava beans were first reported as early as the fifth century BC. Not until the late 19th century were clinical descriptions of fava-induced disease reported and soon after characterised as “favism” in the early 20th century. It is now well known that favism as well as drug-induced haemolysis is caused by a deficiency of the glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) enzyme, one of the most common enzyme deficiency in humans. Interest about the interaction between G6PD deficiency and therapeutics has increased recently because mass treatment with oxidative 8-aminoquinolines is necessary for malaria elimination. Historically, assessments of haemolytic risk have focused on the clinical outcomes (e.g., haemolysis) associated with either a simplified phenotypic G6PD characterisation (deficient or normal) or an ill-fitting classification of G6PD genetic variants. It is increasingly apparent that detailed knowledge of both aspects is required for a complete understanding of haemolytic risk. While more attention has been devoted recently to better phenotypic characterisation of G6PD activity (including the development of new point-of care tests), the classification of G6PD variants should be revised to be clinically useful in malaria eliminating countries and in populations with prevalent G6PD deficiency. The scope of this work is to summarize available literature on drug-induced haemolysis among individuals with different G6PD variants and to highlight knowledge gaps that could be filled with further clinical and laboratory research.

Pneumocystis jirovecii prophylaxis in patients treated for high-grade gliomas: a survey among neuro-oncologists

Background

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is a known complication in patients with high-grade gliomas (HGGs) who are treated with radiation and chemotherapy. PJP prophylaxis is commonly recommended, but there are currently no clear guidelines regarding duration of treatment and choice of drugs. This study aimed to assess current practice patterns of PJP prophylaxis among neuro-oncologists.

Methods

An online survey of 14 multiple choice questions was sent to 207 neuro-oncologists and medical oncologists treating brain cancers at all National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in the United States. Recipients were identified via a search of the cancer centers' websites.

Results

Sixty-one invited experts completed the survey (response rate 29%; of these, 72% were neuro-oncologists, 18% were medical oncologists, and 10% were pediatric neuro- or medical oncologists). Seventy percent of respondents stated that they routinely prescribe PJP prophylaxis, while 7% do not provide prophylaxis. Eighty-one percent of respondents use absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) to assess lymphopenia and 13% also monitor CD4 lymphocyte counts during prophylaxis. The most commonly used first-line agent is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (88% of respondents), followed by pentamidine (6%). Discontinuation of PJP prophylaxis is determined by the following: count recovery (33% by ALC; 18% by CD4 lymphocyte counts), radiation completion (23%), and chemotherapy completion (7%). Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase levels were routinely checked by only 13% of respondents.

Conclusions

PJP prophylaxis is commonly used in HGG patients, but there are large variations in practice patterns, including the duration of prophylaxis. As consideration for PJP prophylaxis affects all patients with HGG, standardization of prophylaxis should be formally addressed.