Prophylactic Lamivudine to Improve the Outcome of Breast Cancer Patients With HBsAg Positive During Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

Prophylactic effect of lamivudine on chemotherapy-induced hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with solid tumour: A meta-analysis

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a remarkable risk during the chemotherapy for solid tumour patients. Nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) are recommended as prophylaxis for the reactivation of HBV infection in some cancer patients prior to systemic chemotherapy. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis aiming to determine the efficacy of prophylactic lamivudine on prevention of HBV reactivation and its related negative outcomes among solid tumour patients with chronic HBV infection receiving systemic chemotherapy. The primary outcome was HBV reactivation, and the secondary outcomes were HBV-related hepatitis, chemotherapy disruption, mortality and tyrosine-methio-nine-aspartate-aspartate (YMDD) mutations. Twelve original researches involving 1,101 patients were analysed in this study. The relative risk of HBV reactivation in patients with lamivudine prophylaxis was significantly lower than that without prophylaxis (RR = 0.17, 95% CL: 0.10-0.29, p < .00001). Lamivudine prophylaxis reduced the relative risk of hepatitis (p < .00001), chemotherapy disruptions (p = .01) and mortality (p = .08) due to HBV reactivation. Lamivudine prophylaxis is effective in reducing HBV reactivation and its related negative outcomes, such as hepatitis and chemotherapy disruption and mortality among chemotherapeutic solid tumour patients with chronic HBV infection. Future studies should lay more emphasis on the early HBV screening, mode of treatment and duration of NAs prophylaxis among solid tumour patients receiving chemotherapy.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A review and meta-analysis of prophylaxis management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during or after chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer has become a remarkable clinical problem. Prophylactic nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with breast cancer who are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive before chemotherapy. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of prophylactic lamivudine use with nonprophylaxis in HBsAg-positive breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for relevant articles until June 2016. Eligible articles comparing the efficacy of prophylactic lamivudine use with nonprophylaxis in HBsAg-positive breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were identified. Eight studies which had enrolled 709 HBsAg-positive breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were analysed. Lamivudine prophylaxis significantly reduced the rates of chemotherapy-associated hepatitis B flares in chronic hepatitis B in breast cancer compared with patients with nonprophylaxis (odds ratio [OR]=0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.35, P<.00001). Chemotherapy disruption rates attributed to HBV reactivation in the prophylaxis groups were significantly lower than the nonprophylaxis groups (OR=0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.43, P=.0002). Patients with lamivudine prophylaxis had a higher risk for tyrosine-methionine-aspartate-aspartate (YMDD) motif mutations than patients with nonprophylaxis (OR=6.33, 95% CI: 1.01-39.60, P=.05). Prophylactic antiviral therapy management is necessary for HBsAg-positive breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, in spite of high correlation with lamivudine-resistant HBV variants with YMDD motif mutations.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation and antiviral prophylaxis during lung cancer chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Antiviral drugs have been recommended as prophylaxis for the reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. However, screening and antiviral prophylaxis for lung cancer remain controversial because of insufficient evidence.

Purpose

In this study, we investigate the absolute risk for HBV reactivation and the prophylactic effects of antiviral drugs in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive lung cancer patients during chemotherapy.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and SinoMed from inception until 28 November 2016, and identified all potential relevant references with or without prophylactic use of antiviral therapy in HBsAg-positive lung cancer patients during chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the incidence of HBV reactivation, the secondary outcomes were the incidence of hepatitis, chemotherapy disruption and mortality.

Results

Eleven studies involving 794 patients were analyzed. The incidences of HBV reactivation in control group and antiviral prophylaxis group ranged from 0% to 38% (median, 21%, 95% CI: 0.17–0.25) and 0% to 7% (median, 4%, 95% CI: 0.02–0.06), respectively. Antiviral prophylaxis had significantly reduced the risk for HBV reactivation (RR, 0.22 [95% CI: 0.13–0.37], p< 0.0001), hepatitis (RR, 0.35 [95% CI: 0.22–0.56], p<0.0001) and chemotherapy disruption (RR: 0.29 [95% CI, 0.15–0.55], p<0.0002) compared to those without antiviral prophylaxis. There was no significant heterogeneity in the comparisons, and a fixed-model was used.

Conclusion

The risks of HBV reactivation and relevant complications are high in HBsAg-positive lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and available evidences support HBV screening for antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy for lung cancer patients.

Gastroenterologists Have Suboptimal Hepatitis B Virus Screening Rates in Patients Receiving Immunosuppressive Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatitis B reactivation in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy can lead to liver failure and death. Prior studies have shown suboptimal hepatitis B screening rates, but few have compared screening rates across specialties or factors associated with screening.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using a hospital-based chemotherapy database and outpatient pharmacy records from January 1999 to December 2013. HBV screening rates prior to initiation of immunosuppression were determined. Multivariate analysis was used to determine predictors of HBV screening.

RESULTS

Of the 4008 study patients, 47 % were screened prior to receiving immunosuppressive therapy; only 48 % on rituximab and 45 % of those on anti-TNF therapy were screened. Transplant specialists screened most frequently (85 %) while gastroenterologists screened the least (34 %). Factors significantly associated with HBV screening were younger age, Asian race, use of anti-rejection therapy, and treatment by a transplant specialist (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

HBV screening prior to immunosuppressive therapy is suboptimal, especially among gastroenterologists. Efforts to improve screening rates in at risk populations are needed.

Management of hepatitis B reactivation in immunosuppressed patients: An update on current recommendations

The proportion of hepatitis B virus (HBV) previously exposed patients who receive immunosuppressive treatment is usually very small. However, if these individuals are exposed to potent immunosuppressive compounds, the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) increases with the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in the serum. Chronic HBsAg carriers have a higher risk than those who have a total IgG anticore as the only marker of resolved/occult HBV disease. The loss of immune control in these patients may results in the reactivation of HBV replication within hepatocytes. Upon reconstitution of the immune system, infected hepatocytes are once again targeted and damaged by immune surveillance in an effort to clear the virus. There are different virological scenarios, and a wide spectrum of associated drugs with specific and stratified risk for the development of HBVr. Some of this agents can trigger a severe degree of hepatocellular damage, including hepatitis, acute liver failure, and even death despite employment of effective antiviral therapies. Currently, HBVr incidence seems to be increasing around the world; a fact mainly related to the incessant appearance of more powerful immunosuppressive drugs launched to the market. Moreover, there is no consensus on the length of prophylactic treatment before the patients are treated with immunosuppressive therapy, and for how long this therapy should be extended once treatment is completed. Therefore, this review article will focus on when to treat, when to monitor, what patients should receive HBV therapy, and what drugs should be selected for each scenario. Lastly, we will update the definition, risk factors, screening, and treatment recommendations based on both current and different HBV management guidelines.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation and Prophylaxis During Solid Tumor Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Solid tumor chemotherapy regimens pose a risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, but screening and antiviral prophylaxis remains controversial because of insufficient evidence.

PURPOSE

To determine the risk for HBV reactivation with and without antiviral prophylaxis and the effectiveness of prophylaxis in adults with solid tumors and chronic or resolved HBV infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE through 1 July 2015 and Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, TOXNET, and Scopus through 1 March 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

26 English-language observational studies and randomized, controlled trials in patients with chronic or resolved HBV receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, quality, and risk of bias were assessed by 1 researcher and verified by another independent researcher.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects model meta-analyses were used to estimate the risk and odds ratio (OR) of reactivation with versus without antiviral prophylaxis. Reactivation in chronic HBV without prophylaxis ranged from 4% to 68% (median, 25%) with substantial heterogeneity. Prophylaxis reduced the risk for HBV reactivation (OR, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.22]), HBV-related hepatitis (OR, 0.18 [CI, 0.10 to 0.32]), and chemotherapy interruption (OR, 0.10 [CI, 0.04 to 0.27]). In 3 studies of patients with resolved HBV infection, none received HBV prophylaxis and reactivation risk ranged from 0.3% to 9.0%.

LIMITATIONS

Significant heterogeneity in underlying study populations and treatment regimens, incomplete baseline data, possibility of publication bias, and limited study quality. Most studies were observational and from Asia.

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic HBV receiving solid tumor chemotherapy, the risk for HBV reactivation is similar to the risk with other types of immunosuppressive therapy. Results support HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy for solid tumors.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health.

Hepatitis B reactivation in the setting of chemotherapy and immunosuppression - prevention is better than cure

Due to the inherent relationship between the immune system and the hepatitis B virus (HBV) in exposed and infected individuals, immunomodulation associated with the treatment of solid tumours, haematological malignancies and inflammatory disorders has been linked to HBV reactivation (HBVr). Reactivation of HBV infection in the setting of chemotherapy and immunosuppression may lead to fulminant liver failure and death, but there is a cumulative body of evidence that these are potentially preventable adverse outcomes. As chronic hepatitis B is largely asymptomatic but also endemic worldwide, clinicians caring for patients requiring chemotherapy or immunosuppression need to be vigilant of the potential for HBVr in susceptible individuals. Serological screening and prophylactic and pre-emptive antiviral treatment with a nucleos(t)ide analogue should be considered in appropriate settings. Hepatitis B prevalence is examined in this review article, as are the risks of HBVr in patients receiving chemo- and immunosuppressive therapy. Recommendations regarding screening, monitoring and the role of antiviral prophylaxis are outlined with reference to current international associations’ guidelines and the best available evidence to date.

Distribution of breast density in Iranian women and its association with breast cancer risk factors

Background:

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and the first-leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the world. Indeed, breast cancer is ranked as the first malignancy among Iranian women. Breast density, defined as the percentage of fibro glandular breast tissue in mammographic images, is one of the known risk factors for breast cancer. According to American college of radiology-Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR-BIRADS), mammographic density is divided into four categories. Studies have shown that increased breast density is associated with significant increase in breast cancer risk. Therefore, it is assumed that breast density should be associated with other breast cancer risk factors.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to assess the epidemiologic distribution of breast density of the patients in a referral center in Iran, and to evaluate the association of high breast density and breast cancer risk factors and other factors that may possibly affect the mammographic density according to previous studies.

Patients and Methods:

In an analytical cross-sectional study, 728 of those who had referred to Imam Khomeini Imaging Center either for diagnostic or screening purposes, participated in the study, after filling out the informed consent form, the survey questionnaire based survey assessing breast cancer risk factors affecting the breast density and related demographic features, was conducted. SPSS 11.5 software and chi-square, t-test and logistic regression tests were used to analyze the data.

Results:

Most of patients (75%) in categories 2 and 3 of mammographic density had a breast density of 51.9%, however, this amount was less (49.2%) in screening mammograms, while in diagnosing group it was more (51.6%). The Findings showed an increase in age, body mass index (BMI), duration of breast feeding, and also to be menopause e, unemployed and married, younger than 29 years old at first delivery, having children up to 8 and smoking are associated with less breast density. Diagnostic mammograms and symptomatic patients showed denser breasts. But density had no association with oral contraceptives pill (OCP) consumption or hormone replacement therapy or calcium and/or vitamin D consumption, age at menarche and menopause, menstruation cycle phase and family history of breast cancer. Age at the first delivery, menopausal status and parity were independently associated with breast density.

Conclusions:

Density distribution and risk factors prevalence is different among symptomatic patients and the diagnostic mammograms of the screened persons, hence such information should be considered in the patient managements. In order to consider the effect of marriage and parity on decreasing the breast density, basic consultations should be performed. Smokers and obese women may falsely show low breast density while they may be in high-risk group. In this study no specific phase of menstrual cycle is suggested for mammographic examinations.