Testing for hepatitis B infection in prospective chemotherapy patients: A retrospective study

Screening for viral hepatitis B infection in cancer patients before receiving chemotherapy - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening rate in cancer patients before systemic chemotherapy, aiming to identify those needing antiviral prophylaxis for HBV reactivation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. The pooled screening rate was estimated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on malignancy types, chemotherapy regimens, study period, and HBV endemic regions.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 29 studies from various endemic regions (19 low-endemic, three lower intermediate-endemic, and seven higher intermediate-endemic). These studies encompassed hematologic malignancies (n = 10), solid-organ tumors (n = 4), and combinations (n = 15). Seven studies used rituximab-containing regimens, four did not, and the remaining 11 did not specify chemotherapy regimens. The pooled screening rate was 57% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 46%-68%, I2 = 100%). Over time, screening rates improved from 37% (95%CI: 23%-53%) in 2006-2010 to 68% (54%-80%) in 2011-2015 and 69% (48%-84%) in 2016-2020. Screening rates were highest at 89% (74%-96%) in high endemic countries, followed by 60% (45-73%) in lower-intermediate and 49% (34-64%) in low-endemic countries. Patients with hematological malignancies had a higher screening rate than those with solid organ tumors, 65% (55%-74%) versus 37% (21%-57%), respectively. A screening rate was higher in patients receiving rituximab-containing chemotherapy than non-rituximab regimens, 68% (55%-79%) versus 45% (27%-65%).

CONCLUSION

Despite existing guidelines, pre-chemotherapy HBV screening rate remains unsatisfactory, with substantial heterogeneous rates globally. These findings underscore the need for effective strategies to align practices with clinical guidelines.

Prevention of hepatitis B reactivation in patients requiring chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can lead to severe acute hepatic failure and death in patients with HBV infection. HBV reactivation (HBVr) most commonly develops in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy, especially B cell-depleting agent therapy such as rituximab and ofatumumab for hematological or solid organ malignancies and that receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation without antiviral prophylaxis. In addition, the potential consequences of HBVr is particularly a concern when patients are exposed to either immunosuppressive or biologic therapies for the management of rheumatologic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and dermatologic diseases. Thus, screening with HBV serological markers and prophylactic or pre-emptive antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues should be considered in these patients to diminish the risk of HBVr. This review discusses the clinical manifestation, prognosis and management of HBVr, risk stratifications of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy and international guideline recommendations for the prevention of HBVr in patients with HBV infection and resolved hepatitis B.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in Taiwan: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Reactivation of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) during cancer chemotherapy is a severe and sometimes fatal complication. In 2009, the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan recommended and reimbursed screening for HBV infection and prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy. In this study, we determined the HBV screening rate in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy in Taiwan.

Methods: We retrospectively collected data from the National Health Insurance Research Database on patients who received systemic chemotherapy for solid or hematologic cancers from January 2000 through December 2012. We defined HBV screening based on testing for serum HBsAg within 2 years of the first chemotherapy commencement. We calculated overall and annual HBV screening rates in all patients and subgroups of age, gender, cancer type, hospital level, physician's department, and implementation of NHI reimbursement for HBV screening before cancer chemotherapy.

Results: We enrolled 379,639 patients. The overall HBV screening rate was 45.9%. The screening rates were higher in males, those with hematological cancer, those at non-medical centers and medical departments. The HBV screening rates before (2000–2008) and after the implementation of NHI reimbursement (2009–2012) were 38.1 and 57.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The most common practice pattern of HBV screening was only HBsAg (64.6%) followed by HBsAg/HBsAb (22.1%), and HBsAg/HBcAb/HBsAb (0.7%) (p < 0.0001). The annual HBV screening rate increased from 31.5 to 66.3% (p < 0.0001). The screening rates of solid and hematological cancers significantly increased by year; however, the trend was greater in solid cancer than in hematological cancer (35.9 and 26.2%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The HBV screening rate before cancer chemotherapy was fair but increased over time. These figures improved after implementing a government-based strategy; however, a mandatory hospital-based strategy might improve awareness of HBV screening and starting prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy.

A survey of clinical practices among oncologists regarding hepatitis B screening in patients with cancer

Background & objectives:

Screening for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of chemotherapy in patients with cancer is recommended by all major hepatology and oncology societies. This study was aimed to determine the screening practices for hepatitis B among oncologists from India and their experience with hepatitis B reactivation.

Methods:

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among oncologists attending the Evidence-Based Medicine Conference at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. The questionnaire was developed in keeping with the recent guidelines for hepatitis B reactivation on chemotherapy, with questions regarding demographics, years in practice and hepatitis B screening practices and management. There was 78 per cent response rate to the questionnaire.

Results:

Most respondents were <35 yr of age (69%), with <five years of experience (39%), practicing in an academic institution (81%). Seventy four per cent respondents always screened their patients with cancer for hepatitis prior to chemotherapy, whereas 19 per cent in special settings and seven per cent never screened; 96 per cent respondents used hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) as a screening test, while 17 per cent also used antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Sixty one per cent respondents used entecavir or tenofovir for prophylaxis; 70 per cent continued prophylaxis till 6-12 months after completion of chemotherapy, while 21 per cent continued only till the end of chemotherapy.

Interpretation & conclusions:

More than 25 per cent of the oncologists were not screening their patients with cancer for viral hepatitis prior to cancer-directed therapy, and only 17 per cent of the oncologists used the recommended tests for screening. Better training of oncologists regarding viral hepatitis screening and management is needed.

High hepatitis B virus screening rate among patients receiving systemic anticancer treatment in Japan

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have a risk of reactivation after chemotherapy. All patients undergoing chemotherapy should be screened for HBV infection. No large-scale studies have been conducted to examine HBV screening practice in Japan.

METHODS

We analyzed health insurance claims equivalent data linked with a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry. Patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014, who were aged 20 years and older and those who underwent systemic anticancer treatment in 2014-15 were included. We assessed the HBV screening rates by the HBsAg or anti-HBc tests, HBV-DNA tests, and entecavir prescriptions. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify factors related to the receipt of screening.

RESULTS

Of 177,597 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [12.2] years), 82.6% and 12.9% patients had a solid tumor and hematologic malignancy, respectively. Among them, 88.1%, 6.3%, and 5.5% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and anti-CD20 antibodies, respectively. Overall, 70.6% of patients were screened. The positive predictor of HBV screening was receiving anti-CD20 antibodies [odds ratio (OR); 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06-2.41, p < 0.001] and negative predictors were age ≥ 85 (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), age 75-84 (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) and targeted therapy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.72). Among the screened patients, 13.2% were tested for HBV-DNA, and 1.49% were prescribed entecavir.

CONCLUSIONS

The HBV screening rate in Japan is higher than in other countries. Further improvement of the HBV screening rate is needed to prevent reactivation and avoidable deaths of patients with HBV infection.

Entecavir is Safe and Effective in Long Term for the Treatment of Hepatitis B in Immunocompromised Children

OBJECTIVE

Hepatitis B infection is common in patients with cancer, and prompt treatment is necessary; otherwise, it can result in life-threatening complications. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of entecavir in immunocompromised children with hepatitis B.

METHODS

This single-center prospective study was conducted on children with different malignancies referred to our department with evidence of hepatitis B infection. Only those children were included in the study who had HBsAg positive and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) more than 2 times the upper limit of normal and whose hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA was more than 20,000IU/ml. These children were put on entecavir and prospectively observed upto 192 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients who achieved undetectable HBV DNA at 48 weeks of treatment. Other efficacy end points were the proportion of patients with HBeAg seroconversion, undetectable HBV DNA, and ALT normalization at weeks 48 and 96 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 41 children met the inclusion criteria, of which 5 children died because of malignancy and 5 were lost to follow-up. Mean log DNA was 7.67 at the start which after starting entecavir reduced to 4.1, 2.8, 1.19, 1.09, and 0.84 at 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 weeks, respectively (P value < 0.0001). Mean ALT decreased from 332.5 which reduced to 190, 115, 63, and 46 at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks, respectively (P < 0.0001). 67.7% achieved the primary outcome and had undetectable DNA at 48 weeks which increased to 26 (83.9%) at 96 weeks. At 48 weeks, 80.6% patients achieved ALT normalization. Thirty percent developed HBeAg seroconversion. Two patients developed virological breakthrough, one at 96 weeks and another at 192 weeks. No significant adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

Entecavir is safe and effective in long term for the treatment of hepatitis B in immunocompromised children.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in the Setting of Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global health burden, affecting an estimated 257 million people, and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality due to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Reactivation of HBV infection among individuals with resolved and/or chronic HBV infection may result in clinical hepatitis with a rise in serum HBV DNA and serum alanine aminotransferase, and delayed identification may result in fulminant hepatitis and fatal liver failure. Routine screening for HBV is recommended in patients undergoing immunosuppressive drug regimens known to be associated with HBV reactivation (HBVr). A subset of patients identified to have positive hepatitis B surface antigen and/or hepatitis B core antibody may require preemptive antiviral therapy to reduce the risk of HBVr. This article summarizes the current evidence and society guidelines governing the evaluation and management of HBVr in the context of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive drug therapy.

Prevalence and risk factors of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with solid tumors with resolved HBV infection

BACKGROUND

Reports of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in solid tumors are very limited, and their frequencies and risk factors were previously unknown.

AIM

To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of HBV reactivation in patients with solid tumors with resolved HBV infection.

METHODS

All 1088 patients with solid tumors were assessed for eligibility; 251 patients had resolved HBV infection (negative for HBs antigen and positive for anti-HBc antibody and/or positive for anti-HBs antibody), and HBV-DNA was assessed for 243 of these patients in whom we analyzed the prevalence of HBV reactivation. Risk factors for HBV reactivation were exploratorily evaluated by analysis of a case-control study.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HBV-DNA reactivation was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-3.9%). We did not observe any exacerbation of HBV-DNA by early intervention. A low anti-HBs antibody titer (<10.0 mIU/mL) and high average daily dexamethasone dose (>1.0 mg/day) were high risk factors, with odds ratios of 5.94 (95% CI, 1.15-30.6, P = 0.03) and 8.69 (95% CI, 1.27-58.8, P = 0.02), respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBV reactivation in solid tumor patients was relatively rare. Therefore, risk factors that can identify targets for HBV screening must be determined in future studies.

Hepatitis B screening before rituximab therapy: a multicentre South Australian study of adherence

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to administration of rituximab, due to high risk of HBV reactivation in at-risk patients.

AIMS

To determine: (i) adherence to the South Australian (SA) protocol for HBV screening; (ii) HBV prevalence in patients receiving rituximab; and (iii) outcomes of patients at risk of HBV reactivation.

METHODS

All patients commenced on rituximab at the six major SA public hospitals during a 12-month period were included in the study. Adherence was assessed by documentation of both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) prior to initiation of rituximab. Patients were observed for a minimum of 6 months following rituximab initiation.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the study. The main indication for rituximab therapy was haematological malignancy (76.0%). Two hundred and nine (47.7%) failed to receive appropriate HBV screening, 86 (19.6%) had neither HBsAg nor HBcAb performed, and 119 (27.2%) had only HBsAg performed. The identified prevalence of at-risk cases (either HBsAg- or HBcAb-positive) within the study population was 4.6% (20/438 cases). One case of HBV reactivation was identified, but none led to acute liver failure, transplantation or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor adherence to HBV screening protocols suggests the need for targeted clinician education and system redesign. While the rate of reactivation was low, the prevalence of at-risk patients in this population was high and justifies further initiatives to increase adherence rates to HBV screening pre-rituximab.

Practice Patterns in Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in a Major US Hospital Network

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy face an increased risk of reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

AIM

To determine the HBV screening rate in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy in various clinical settings.

METHOD

We identified 11,959 adult cancer patients (age ≥ 18 years) receiving parenteral chemotherapy between 2012 and 2015 within a major US hospital network, including a large university hospital, community teaching hospitals, and community oncology clinics.

RESULT

Two thousand and forty-five patients (17.1%) were screened for either HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) or HBV core antibody (HBcAb) before chemotherapy, and 1850 patients (15.5%) had both HBsAg and HBcAb tested before chemotherapy. 8.4% were exposed to HBV, and 0.9% had chronic HBV infection (both HBsAg/HBcAb positive). Patients with hematologic tumor were more often screened than with solid tumor (55.6 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy with higher HBV reactivation risk had higher yet suboptimal HBV screening rate (41.1% B-depleting agents, 21.5% anthracycline, 14.9% steroid, 64.7% anti-TNF alpha and 18.6% other chemotherapy, p < 0.001). Patients with age ≥ 50 years (old 16.2% vs. young 23.9%, p < 0.001) and Asian ethnicity (Asian 13.6 vs. Caucasian 16.6%, p < 0.001) were screened less for HBV despite higher prevalence of HBV exposure (old 9.3% vs. young 4.3%, p < 0.001 and Asian 27.8% vs. Caucasian 6.4%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy in community oncology clinics were less screened versus community teaching hospitals or university hospital (12.7 vs. 19.1 vs. 19.7%, p < 0.001), despite similar prevalence of HBV infection. On multivariate analysis, receiving chemotherapy at a community oncology clinic [odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.72, p < 0.001] was independently associated with less HBV screening compared to receiving chemotherapy at a university or community teaching hospital.

CONCLUSION

HBV screening among patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy was suboptimal and less commonly performed in community oncology clinics compared to teaching hospitals.

Liver toxicity of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for breast cancer patients with hepatitis virus infection

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy has greatly improved the prognosis of breast cancer patients. However, it may also result in undesirable side effects such as hepatitis virus reactivation. Little information is available on the liver toxicity of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for breast cancer patients with hepatitis virus (HBV/HCV) infection.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective survey of 835 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2015 at our institution. All patients had been screened for HBV/HCV infection at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. We retrospectively investigated the toxicity of chemotherapy and the changes in HBV/HCV load based on a medical record review.

RESULTS

52 patients with positive anti-HBV antibody test and 21 patients with positive anti-HCV antibody tests received chemotherapy. 762 patients without HBV and HCV infection served as the control group. The morbidity of liver toxicity and disruptions in chemotherapy attributable to liver toxicity were not significantly different among control group, HBV group and HCV groups (27.7% vs 34.6% vs 42.9%, P = 0.189 and 5.0% vs 9.6% vs 9.5%, P = 0.173, respectively). No patients presented with HBV/HCV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer patients with HCV can be treated with chemotherapy and targeted therapy with trastuzumab. Breast cancer patients with HBV who accept antiviral therapy can be treated with chemotherapy and targeted therapy with trastuzumab and patients can benefit from prophylactic antiviral therapy before chemotherapy. However, a multidisciplinary cooperation and closely monitoring liver function during the course of chemotherapy may benefit patients.

Effects of hepatitis C virus infection on the safety of chemotherapy for breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the major pathogens of chronic viral hepatitis, and approximately 38 million patients are infected with HCV in China. However, little information is available on the effect of HCV infection during chemotherapy for breast cancer and the impact of HCV infection on the toxicity of chemotherapy and targeted therapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective survey of 835 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2015 at our institution. All patients had been screened for HCV infection at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. We retrospectively investigated the toxicities of chemotherapy and the changes in HCV load based on a review of the medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients with positive anti-HCV antibody tests received chemotherapy. The median patient age was 46.3 ± 11.2 years. Four (19.0%) patients exhibited abnormal liver function at baseline. The morbidity of abnormal liver function at baseline was higher in HCV-infected patients (19.0% vs. 0, P = 0.000). Four patients received trastuzumab therapy. Five (23.8%) patients who received chemotherapy developed hepatitis. No patients presented with HCV reactivation. The morbidity of hepatitis and the rate of disruption of chemotherapy were not significantly different between breast cancer patients without HCV infection and those with HCV infection (23.8 vs. 14.2% P = 0.342, 9.5 vs. 5.0% P = 0.619, respectively).

CONCLUSION

HCV infection had no adverse impact on chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. However, consulting a gastroenterologist and closely monitoring liver function during the course of chemotherapy may benefit patients.

Need to improve awareness and management of hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy is not an uncommon event because of upsurge in the development of more potent and new immunosuppressive therapy (IST) including monoclonal antibodies leading to profound B cell depletion. However, this condition is still not being commonly made known to practising clinicians. More importantly, serious adverse outcomes including liver decompensation and death have been reported from time to time. This is likely related to the insufficient efforts to disseminate the knowledge or inattentive attitude from clinicians towards the need for hepatitis B virus screening before starting IST. It is of crucial importance, as these adverse outcomes are largely preventable by prophylactic or early treatment by antiviral agents. The risk of hepatitis B reactivation depends on the type and duration of the IST, patient characteristics and disease conditions. While we are eagerly waiting for a more cohesive consensual management recommendations from the different specialties who are involved in managing these patients, consolidated data are readily available for clinicians to define whether their patients would have a low or a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation. A management strategy without ambiguity should be formulated.

Outcomes of the implementation of the computer-assisted HBView system for the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in chemotherapy patients: a retrospective analysis

Background

Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is recommended worldwide for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy in accordance with clinical guidelines, but compliance varies by country and facility. Alert systems may be useful for promoting screening, but it is unclear how effective such systems are. In this study, we investigated HBV screening procedures and their incorporation into treatment regimens following the implementation of an alert system.

Methods

An alert system was introduced at our hospital in April 2012. The rates of HBV screening in the periods before and after the introduction of the alert system (September 2010 to March 2012 and April 2012 to October 2013, respectively) were investigated. We collected data on hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb), and HBV-DNA testing in patients. As a result of this analysis, we developed a system in which pharmacists would intervene to check and confirm whether HBV screening had occurred in patients scheduled to begin treatment with chemotherapy. We named our project the “HBView” project, and the rate of HBV screening and the number of times pharmacists intervened was studied during specific time periods before and after the HBView project commenced (July 2013 to December 2013 and January 2014 to June 2014, respectively).

Results

After introducing the alert system, the percentage of patients tested for HBsAb/HBcAb and HBV-DNA increased significantly, from 71.6 % to 84.9 % and from 44.5 % to 69.7 %, respectively. However, the rate of compliance with HBV testing guidelines was not 100 % after interventions. The numbers of patients who were not screened but should have been before and after the introduction of HBView were 6 and 17, respectively. Two patients at risk of HBV reactivation were identified after intervention by pharmacists; their intervention thus prevented HBV reactivation.

Conclusions

Compliance with clinical HBV screening guidelines was not sufficiently improved after the introduction of the automatic alert system; however, the HBView project proved useful in reinforcing the automatic alert system.

Risk of Severe Acute Exacerbation of Chronic HBV Infection Cancer Patients Who Underwent Chemotherapy and Did Not Receive Anti-Viral Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Reactivation of HBV replication with an increase in serum HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity has been reported in 20-50% of hepatitis B carriers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Manifestation of HBV reactivation ranges from asymptomatic self-limiting hepatitis to severe progressive hepatic failure and fatal consequences.

AIM

To investigate the risk of severe acute exacerbation of chronic HBV infection in HBsAg-positive cancer patients with solid tumors or hematological malignancies who underwent chemotherapy without antiviral prophylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of charts was conducted for HBsAg-positive cancer patients in our institution who underwent chemotherapy and did not receive anti-viral prophylaxis between the periods of July 2007 to January 2013. We investigate the incidence of severe acute exacerbation of chronic HBV infection if these patients with a variety of solid tumors and hematological malignancies.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (hematological malignancies: 16; solid tumors: 140) were included. The incidence of severe acute HBV exacerbation in the patients with hematological malignancy was higher than that in solid tumors (25.0% [4/16] vs 4.3% [6/140]); P = 0.005). Additionally, patients receiving rituximab-based chemotherapy had higher acute exacerbation rate than those with non-rituximab-based chemotherapy (40.0% vs 4.1%, P = 0.001). Among the patients with solid tumors, the incidences of severe acute exacerbation of chronic HBV in hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, gynecological cancer, urological tract cancer, head/neck cancer and other solid malignancies were 2.3%, 4.0%, 7.1%, 9.0%, 16.7%, 6.7%, 0% and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Severe acute exacerbation of chronic HBV infection may occur in HBsAg-positive patients with a variety of solid tumors who received chemotherapy without adequate anti-viral prophylaxis. Hematological malignancy and rituximab-based chemotherapy are the risk factors related to severe acute exacerbation of chronic HBV infection in HBsAg-positive cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Prevention of acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in a hepatitis B virus endemic area

Reactivation of hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy may cause interruption of chemotherapy and lead to liver failure and death. In our institute, a computerized order entry-based alert system was introduced in September 2011 to remind healthcare providers of HBV testing when prescribing chemotherapy. Since August 2012, an order entry-based therapeutic control system has been applied to ensure HBV prophylaxis during chemotherapy. This retrospective cohort study included cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital from November 2009 to June 2013. The prechemotherapy HBV screening rate, HBV prophylactic rate, and severe HBV acute exacerbation rate were compared between stages with different order systems. Newly diagnosed cancer patients (n = 2512) were included. The HBV testing rate in the screening reminder stage was higher than that in the educational stage (93.5% versus 40.2%, P < 0.001), whereas the adequate HBV prophylactic rates in the two order entry-based stages were comparable (41.1% versus 39.2%). Patients in the order entry-based therapeutic control stage had a higher HBV screening rate (99.3% versus 40.2%, P < 0.001) and a higher HBV prophylactic rate (95.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.001) than those in the educational stage. Additionally, the severe HBV acute exacerbation rate in the therapeutic control stage was lower than those in the educational and screening reminder stages (0% versus 1.2% and 1.2%, respectively; both P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A computerized order entry-based therapeutic control system can provide excellent prechemotherapy HBV screening for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and can effectively prevent severe acute exacerbation of HBV infection in hospitals among HBV endemic areas.

The compliance of doctors with viral hepatitis B screening and antiviral prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy using a hospital-based screening reminder system

Background and Aim

Screenings for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antiviral prophylaxis are recommended for HBsAg-positive patients before the start of cytotoxic chemotherapy; however, compliance with these recommendations varies among doctors. We investigated the compliance of doctors with these recommendations using a reminder system and assessed the outcomes of HBsAg-positive patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Methods

Using a computer-assisted reminder system, doctors were alerted of both HBsAg screening and antiviral prophylaxis prior to prescribing chemotherapy. The compliance between different doctors and outcomes of patients were investigated during the period of execution of this system. The rates of compliance with both recommendations were compared among various cancer types.

Results

A total of 1053 patients were enrolled, of which only 88 had previous data pertaining to HBsAg status. Using this reminder system, an overall screening rate of 85.5% (825/965) was achieved and did not significantly differ according to cancer type. However, the overall antiviral prophylactic rate was only 45.5% (61/134). The rates of antiviral prophylaxis were lower for doctors treating lung, breast and colorectal cancers than for those treating hematological malignancies (all p<0.05). Consequently, the rate of HBV reactivation was lower in patients who received antiviral prophylaxis than in those who did not (1.6% vs. 15.1%; p<0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that male gender and antiviral prophylaxis were both related to reactivation of hepatitis B (p<0.05).

Conclusions

By using this reminder system, the overall screening rate for HBsAg was satisfactory, whereas the antiviral prophylaxis was inadequate in patients with solid tumors due to the varying compliance of the attending doctors. Further strategies to improve both screening and prophylaxis are needed to minimize HBV-related events during cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Computerized physician order entry-based system to prevent HBV reactivation in patients treated with biologic agents: the PRESCRIB project

Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) applications are widely used to prevent medical errors. In our center, a CPOE system has been in use since 2009 on both the inpatient and outpatient levels. A new and simple alert was introduced in the CPOE system to notify healthcare providers of the potential risk of viral reactivation when prescribing biological therapies, thereby facilitating the request for a serological profile (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], anti-HBc, and anti-HBs) in patients who have not had these tests. Between May 2012 and May 2013, a total of 1,076 patients undergoing biological treatment were included in the implementation of the CPOE in our hospital, resulting in the identification of 4 HBsAg-positive and 69 anti-HBc-positive/HBsAg-negative patients, two of them with positive viral loads. Since the implementation of this alert system, over 90% of patients who were prescribed a biological drug (BD) have undergone serological screening to detect hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The use of the alert system has increased the screening rate from less than 50% to 94% for HBsAg and from less than 30% to 85% for anti-HBc in patients for whom a BD is prescribed. Six patients received prophylactic antiviral therapy. No patient had HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a CPOE system that has allowed our hospital to increase the rate of HBV screening. Its use has facilitated the identification of patients at high risk for HBV reactivation and permitted physicians to prescribe prophylactic measures according to current guidelines.

Hepatitis C virus reactivation in cancer patients in the era of targeted therapies

The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence of hepatitis C reactivation in cancer patients in the era of targeted therapies. Targeted therapies are novel therapeutics frequently used in cancer patients. During treatment with targeted therapies, viral replication is one of the major problems that can occur. The PubMed database, ASCO, and ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium abstracts were searched up until September 15, 2013 using the following search keywords: “targeted therapies, rituximab, alemtuzumab, brentuximab, hepatitis, hepatitis C reactivation, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, imatinib, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, everolimus, anti-HER therapies, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapies, cetuximab, panitumumab, and ipilimumab”. Papers considered relevant for the aim of this review were selected by the authors. The data about rituximab-induced hepatic flare in hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive patients is controversial. However, there is the possibility of life-threatening hepatic flare that can develop after HCV ribonucleic acid (HCV-RNA) viral load increases. Routine follow-up of liver function tests should be advised. Especially in high-risk patients, such as those with baseline chronic active hepatitis and cirrhosis, and where there are plans to administer rituximab concomitantly with corticosteroids, it is advised to have close follow-up of HCV viral load. The data is insufficient to make accurate statements about the association of alemtuzumab therapy and HCV reactivation. However, alemtuzumab may cause deep immunosuppression. Due to this, it is better to follow up with liver function tests and HCV RNA levels during alemtuzumab therapy. Brentuximab has effects on antibody dependent cellular toxicity and may decrease humoral immunity. Thus, we believe that during brentuximab treatment of HCV infected patients, clinicians may encounter hepatitis C reactivation. There have been no reported cases of hepatitis C reactivation with imatinib therapy. However, there are many reports of hepatitis B reactivation with imatinib treatment. Based on the evidence of hepatitis B reactivation with imatinib and the effects of imatinib on immune system functions, we suggest that imatinib therapy might be a risk factor for HCV reactivation. Anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 therapies are not associated with hepatic flare in HCV infected patients. Post-transplant studies reported that mTOR was safely administered to patients with active hepatitis C without causing hepatic flare. Cetuximab and panitumumab have not been associated with HCV reactivation. Two cases of HCV infected melanoma were safely treated with ipilimumab without any HCV reactivation or hepatic flare. Targeted therapies are a new and emerging area of oncology treatment modalities. While treating HCV infected cancer patients, clinicians should be mindful of the immunosuppressive properties of targeted therapies. Further randomized trials are needed to establish algorithms for this issue.