5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital
BackgroundThe use of immunotherapy in the oncological environment has meant a revolution in the management of this pathology. Its effectiveness is based on activating the patient’s immune system through various mechanisms of action. A good safety profile makes its use attractive to oncologists, but...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A229-A229 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A229 |
---|---|
container_issue | Suppl 1 |
container_start_page | A229 |
container_title | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Ramos Rodríguez, J García Gil, S Del Rosario García, B Cantarelli, L Nazco Casariego, GJ González de la Fuente, GA González García, J Viña Romero, MM Gutiérrez Nicolás, F |
description | BackgroundThe use of immunotherapy in the oncological environment has meant a revolution in the management of this pathology. Its effectiveness is based on activating the patient’s immune system through various mechanisms of action. A good safety profile makes its use attractive to oncologists, but there are patients in whom toxicities of relevance can appear.PurposeTo describe the toxicity profile developed by patients in whom some type of immunotherapy has been administered for the treatment of their neoplastic process in a tertiary hospitalMaterial and methodsSeventy-eight-month retrospective study (January 2012–June 2018) in which we analysed all patients who had been prescribed inmunotherapy (Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab). The following variables were collected: age, gender, neoplasic process, prescribed drug, time of treatment and toxicities experienced.ResultsFifty-one patients registered, 34 were males (66.7%), mean age 62 years (40–71): 20 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (39%); 19 metastatic or unresectable melanoma (37%); four bladder cancer, (8%); three Hodgkin’s lymphoma (6%), two head and neck cancer (4%); two renal cancer (4%) and one colon cancer (1%). Nine patients received Pembrolizumab (18%), 37 Nivolumab (73%) and five Ipilimumab (10%).The median time of treatment was 3.05 months (0.7–18.9).The toxicities considered as immuno-related1 were the following: 12 rash (24%), 10 arthralgia (20%), nine gastrointestinal toxicity (18%), five hypothyroidism (10%) five pruritus (10%), four hepatitis (8%), three myalgia (6%), two ocular toxicity (4%), two skin dryness (4%), two vitiligo (4%), two hyperthyroidism (4%), two thrombocytopaenia (4%), one dry mouth (2%), one pneumonitis (2%), one autoimmune diabetes (2%) and one neuropathy (2%).ConclusionImmunotherapy is considered a good safety profile treatment, however its use is not toxicity-free. We wanted to show our experience and to indicate the need to familiarise ourselves with the toxicity that they can produce to maximise the benefit of the treatment.References and/or acknowledgements1. Postow MAI, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med2018;378:158–68.No conflict of interest. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.493 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2190001865</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2190001865</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1263-8fb2fda38088e2e2d7a4bbcd6cd802bd391ab9b840b5b25e51c2ea0be8fc1c633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo90MtKAzEUBuAgCpbadxh0nZrLJE3cSfFSLKio65DLGSZlbmamYndufFGfxJZaV_-_-DkHPoTOKZlSyuUlrMqutKnGjFCNwZadb5timmt-hEaM5DOstcyP_7uQp2jS99ERwbnSOdcj9CCeXp4xkeTn63tR1-umHUpItttktgnZ0H5GH4fNVQafHaQIjYcsNpnNhjKmgCv4gCor276Lg63O0Elhqx4mfzlGb7c3r_N7vHy8W8yvl9hRJjlWhWNFsFwRpYABCzObO-eD9EER5gLX1DrtVE6ccEyAoJ6BJQ5U4amXnI_Rxf5ul9r3NfSDWbXr1GxfGkY1IYQqKbYrsV-5emW6FGubNoYSs6MzBzqzozMHOrOl47-vKmh5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2190001865</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ramos Rodríguez, J ; García Gil, S ; Del Rosario García, B ; Cantarelli, L ; Nazco Casariego, GJ ; González de la Fuente, GA ; González García, J ; Viña Romero, MM ; Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</creator><creatorcontrib>Ramos Rodríguez, J ; García Gil, S ; Del Rosario García, B ; Cantarelli, L ; Nazco Casariego, GJ ; González de la Fuente, GA ; González García, J ; Viña Romero, MM ; Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundThe use of immunotherapy in the oncological environment has meant a revolution in the management of this pathology. Its effectiveness is based on activating the patient’s immune system through various mechanisms of action. A good safety profile makes its use attractive to oncologists, but there are patients in whom toxicities of relevance can appear.PurposeTo describe the toxicity profile developed by patients in whom some type of immunotherapy has been administered for the treatment of their neoplastic process in a tertiary hospitalMaterial and methodsSeventy-eight-month retrospective study (January 2012–June 2018) in which we analysed all patients who had been prescribed inmunotherapy (Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab). The following variables were collected: age, gender, neoplasic process, prescribed drug, time of treatment and toxicities experienced.ResultsFifty-one patients registered, 34 were males (66.7%), mean age 62 years (40–71): 20 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (39%); 19 metastatic or unresectable melanoma (37%); four bladder cancer, (8%); three Hodgkin’s lymphoma (6%), two head and neck cancer (4%); two renal cancer (4%) and one colon cancer (1%). Nine patients received Pembrolizumab (18%), 37 Nivolumab (73%) and five Ipilimumab (10%).The median time of treatment was 3.05 months (0.7–18.9).The toxicities considered as immuno-related1 were the following: 12 rash (24%), 10 arthralgia (20%), nine gastrointestinal toxicity (18%), five hypothyroidism (10%) five pruritus (10%), four hepatitis (8%), three myalgia (6%), two ocular toxicity (4%), two skin dryness (4%), two vitiligo (4%), two hyperthyroidism (4%), two thrombocytopaenia (4%), one dry mouth (2%), one pneumonitis (2%), one autoimmune diabetes (2%) and one neuropathy (2%).ConclusionImmunotherapy is considered a good safety profile treatment, however its use is not toxicity-free. We wanted to show our experience and to indicate the need to familiarise ourselves with the toxicity that they can produce to maximise the benefit of the treatment.References and/or acknowledgements1. Postow MAI, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med2018;378:158–68.No conflict of interest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.493</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Bladder cancer ; Cancer ; Colorectal cancer ; Head & neck cancer ; Immunotherapy ; Kidney cancer ; Lung cancer ; Monoclonal antibodies ; Targeted cancer therapy</subject><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A229-A229</ispartof><rights>2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2019 2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27928,27929</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ramos Rodríguez, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García Gil, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Rosario García, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarelli, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nazco Casariego, GJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González de la Fuente, GA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González García, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Viña Romero, MM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</creatorcontrib><title>5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>BackgroundThe use of immunotherapy in the oncological environment has meant a revolution in the management of this pathology. Its effectiveness is based on activating the patient’s immune system through various mechanisms of action. A good safety profile makes its use attractive to oncologists, but there are patients in whom toxicities of relevance can appear.PurposeTo describe the toxicity profile developed by patients in whom some type of immunotherapy has been administered for the treatment of their neoplastic process in a tertiary hospitalMaterial and methodsSeventy-eight-month retrospective study (January 2012–June 2018) in which we analysed all patients who had been prescribed inmunotherapy (Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab). The following variables were collected: age, gender, neoplasic process, prescribed drug, time of treatment and toxicities experienced.ResultsFifty-one patients registered, 34 were males (66.7%), mean age 62 years (40–71): 20 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (39%); 19 metastatic or unresectable melanoma (37%); four bladder cancer, (8%); three Hodgkin’s lymphoma (6%), two head and neck cancer (4%); two renal cancer (4%) and one colon cancer (1%). Nine patients received Pembrolizumab (18%), 37 Nivolumab (73%) and five Ipilimumab (10%).The median time of treatment was 3.05 months (0.7–18.9).The toxicities considered as immuno-related1 were the following: 12 rash (24%), 10 arthralgia (20%), nine gastrointestinal toxicity (18%), five hypothyroidism (10%) five pruritus (10%), four hepatitis (8%), three myalgia (6%), two ocular toxicity (4%), two skin dryness (4%), two vitiligo (4%), two hyperthyroidism (4%), two thrombocytopaenia (4%), one dry mouth (2%), one pneumonitis (2%), one autoimmune diabetes (2%) and one neuropathy (2%).ConclusionImmunotherapy is considered a good safety profile treatment, however its use is not toxicity-free. We wanted to show our experience and to indicate the need to familiarise ourselves with the toxicity that they can produce to maximise the benefit of the treatment.References and/or acknowledgements1. Postow MAI, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med2018;378:158–68.No conflict of interest.</description><subject>Bladder cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Head & neck cancer</subject><subject>Immunotherapy</subject><subject>Kidney cancer</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Monoclonal antibodies</subject><subject>Targeted cancer therapy</subject><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNo90MtKAzEUBuAgCpbadxh0nZrLJE3cSfFSLKio65DLGSZlbmamYndufFGfxJZaV_-_-DkHPoTOKZlSyuUlrMqutKnGjFCNwZadb5timmt-hEaM5DOstcyP_7uQp2jS99ERwbnSOdcj9CCeXp4xkeTn63tR1-umHUpItttktgnZ0H5GH4fNVQafHaQIjYcsNpnNhjKmgCv4gCor276Lg63O0Elhqx4mfzlGb7c3r_N7vHy8W8yvl9hRJjlWhWNFsFwRpYABCzObO-eD9EER5gLX1DrtVE6ccEyAoJ6BJQ5U4amXnI_Rxf5ul9r3NfSDWbXr1GxfGkY1IYQqKbYrsV-5emW6FGubNoYSs6MzBzqzozMHOrOl47-vKmh5</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Ramos Rodríguez, J</creator><creator>García Gil, S</creator><creator>Del Rosario García, B</creator><creator>Cantarelli, L</creator><creator>Nazco Casariego, GJ</creator><creator>González de la Fuente, GA</creator><creator>González García, J</creator><creator>Viña Romero, MM</creator><creator>Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital</title><author>Ramos Rodríguez, J ; García Gil, S ; Del Rosario García, B ; Cantarelli, L ; Nazco Casariego, GJ ; González de la Fuente, GA ; González García, J ; Viña Romero, MM ; Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1263-8fb2fda38088e2e2d7a4bbcd6cd802bd391ab9b840b5b25e51c2ea0be8fc1c633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Bladder cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Head & neck cancer</topic><topic>Immunotherapy</topic><topic>Kidney cancer</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Monoclonal antibodies</topic><topic>Targeted cancer therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ramos Rodríguez, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García Gil, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Rosario García, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarelli, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nazco Casariego, GJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González de la Fuente, GA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González García, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Viña Romero, MM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ramos Rodríguez, J</au><au>García Gil, S</au><au>Del Rosario García, B</au><au>Cantarelli, L</au><au>Nazco Casariego, GJ</au><au>González de la Fuente, GA</au><au>González García, J</au><au>Viña Romero, MM</au><au>Gutiérrez Nicolás, F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A229</spage><epage>A229</epage><pages>A229-A229</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>BackgroundThe use of immunotherapy in the oncological environment has meant a revolution in the management of this pathology. Its effectiveness is based on activating the patient’s immune system through various mechanisms of action. A good safety profile makes its use attractive to oncologists, but there are patients in whom toxicities of relevance can appear.PurposeTo describe the toxicity profile developed by patients in whom some type of immunotherapy has been administered for the treatment of their neoplastic process in a tertiary hospitalMaterial and methodsSeventy-eight-month retrospective study (January 2012–June 2018) in which we analysed all patients who had been prescribed inmunotherapy (Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab). The following variables were collected: age, gender, neoplasic process, prescribed drug, time of treatment and toxicities experienced.ResultsFifty-one patients registered, 34 were males (66.7%), mean age 62 years (40–71): 20 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (39%); 19 metastatic or unresectable melanoma (37%); four bladder cancer, (8%); three Hodgkin’s lymphoma (6%), two head and neck cancer (4%); two renal cancer (4%) and one colon cancer (1%). Nine patients received Pembrolizumab (18%), 37 Nivolumab (73%) and five Ipilimumab (10%).The median time of treatment was 3.05 months (0.7–18.9).The toxicities considered as immuno-related1 were the following: 12 rash (24%), 10 arthralgia (20%), nine gastrointestinal toxicity (18%), five hypothyroidism (10%) five pruritus (10%), four hepatitis (8%), three myalgia (6%), two ocular toxicity (4%), two skin dryness (4%), two vitiligo (4%), two hyperthyroidism (4%), two thrombocytopaenia (4%), one dry mouth (2%), one pneumonitis (2%), one autoimmune diabetes (2%) and one neuropathy (2%).ConclusionImmunotherapy is considered a good safety profile treatment, however its use is not toxicity-free. We wanted to show our experience and to indicate the need to familiarise ourselves with the toxicity that they can produce to maximise the benefit of the treatment.References and/or acknowledgements1. Postow MAI, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med2018;378:158–68.No conflict of interest.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.493</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2047-9956 |
ispartof | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A229-A229 |
issn | 2047-9956 2047-9964 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2190001865 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Bladder cancer Cancer Colorectal cancer Head & neck cancer Immunotherapy Kidney cancer Lung cancer Monoclonal antibodies Targeted cancer therapy |
title | 5PSQ-060 Immunotherapy and toxicity: experience in a third-level hospital |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T13%3A53%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=5PSQ-060%E2%80%85Immunotherapy%20and%20toxicity:%20experience%20in%20a%20third-level%20hospital&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Ramos%20Rodr%C3%ADguez,%20J&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A229&rft.epage=A229&rft.pages=A229-A229&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.493&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2190001865%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2190001865&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |