Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-s4m2s Total loading time: 0.716 Render date: 2021-10-20T08:30:51.661Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Book contents

1 - Practical issues in the use of systemic anti-cancer therapy drugs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Usman Malik
Affiliation:
Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK
Philip Savage
Affiliation:
BC Cancer Agency, Victoria, BC, Canada
Louise Hanna
Affiliation:
Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff
Tom Crosby
Affiliation:
Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff
Fergus Macbeth
Affiliation:
Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The role of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in the management of cancer is evolving rapidly with widening indications for treatment and, in many diagnoses, additional therapies and lines of treatment now available. In 2015, there are now over 140 drugs licensed to be used for cancer treatment and it is not practical within this chapter to give a comprehensive description of each drug or treatment regimen. More detailed information can be found in chemotherapy textbooks, at the manufacturers' websites, the electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC) or from oncology pharmacy websites (e.g. http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc and www.bccancer.bc.ca, accessed January 2015). However, we hope this chapter, which focuses mainly on classic cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, will provide SACT prescribers, pharmacists and administrators with sufficient information to discuss treatment with patients, to prescribe and deliver drugs safely and to recognise common treatment-related side effects.

Over the last decade there has been a major increase in activity and workloads within chemotherapy treatment units. The 2009 National Cancer Advisory Group report described an increase in overall activity of 60% in just a four year period (NCAG, 2009). This rise in activity is in part a result of increased numbers of patients but there has also been a major expansion in the indications for which there is effective treatment, the upper age range of patients treated and, in many malignancies, the number of lines of therapy available for use. Whilst the newer drugs are predominantly oral agents, the recent development of maintenance monoclonal antibody therapies for breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and the more modern prolonged and complex regimens in gastrointestinal malignancies have added considerable pressure to the workload of pharmacy and chemotherapy treatment units.

A summary of the rapid increase in both the number of new cancer treatment drugs and the change in identity of new SACT agents can be see in Table 1.1 that shows both the historical and modern trends in new cancer drugs. This demonstrates the change from the initial cancer treatment drugs of the 1970s/80s/90s that were predominantly classic cytotoxic chemotherapy agents to a new, varied range of agents including monoclonal antibodies, TKI and MTOR inhibitors and other new agents (Savage and Mahmoud, 2013).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., et al. (2008). The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., 15, 585–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budman, D., Berry, D., Cirrincione, C., et al. (1998). Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J. Natl Cancer. Inst., 90, 1205–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calvert, A. H., Newell, D. R., Gumbrell, L. A., et al. (1989). Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J. Clin. Oncol., 7, 1748–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cullen, M., Steven, N., Billingham, L., et al. (2005). Antibacterial prophylaxis after chemotherapy for solid tumors and lymphomas. N. Engl. J. Med., 353, 988–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVita, V. T. Jr., Serpick, A. A. and Carbone, P. P. (1970). Combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's disease. Ann. Intern. Med., 73, 881–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DuBois, D. and DuBois, E. F. (1916). A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch. Intern. Med., 17, 863–71.Google Scholar
Estes, J. M., Rocconi, R., Straughn, J. M., et al. (2003) Complications of indwelling venous access devices in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol. Oncol., 91, 591–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. I., Gaynor, E. R., Dahlberg, S., et al. (1993). Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med., 328, 1002–06.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freireich, E. J., Karon, M. and Frei, E., III. (1964). Quadruple combination therapy (VAMP) for acute lymphocytic leukemia of childhood. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 5, 20.Google Scholar
Hall, R. G., Jean, G. W., Sigler, M., et al. (2013). Dosing considerations for obese patients receiving cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Ann. Pharmacother., 47, 1666–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrstedt, J., Aapro, M. S., Roila, F., et al. (2005). ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (NV). Ann. Oncol., 16 (Suppl. 1), i77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICON Group. (2002). Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus standard chemotherapy with either single-agent carboplatin or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in women with ovarian cancer: the ICON3 randomised trial. Lancet, 360, 505–15.
Katsumata, N., Yasuda, M., Isonishi, S., et al. (2013). Long-term results of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin versus conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin for treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (JGOG 3016): a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Oncol., 14, 1020–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S. J., Schover, L. R., Partridge, A. H., et al. (2006). American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol., 24, 2917–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepage, E., Gisselbrecht, C., Haioun, C., et al. (1993). Prognostic significance of received relative dose intensity in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: application to LNH-87 protocol. The GELA (Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte). Ann. Oncol., 4, 651–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M. C., Whitmore, W. F. Jr., Golbey, R., et al. (1960). Effects of combined drug therapy on metastatic cancer of the testis. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 174, 1291–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masters, J. and Köberle, B. (2003). Curing metastatic cancer: lessons from testicular germ-cell tumours. Nat. Rev. Cancer, 3, 517–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKelvey, E. M., Gottlieb, J. A., Wilson, H. E., et al. (1976). Hydroxyldaunomycin (Adriamycin) combination chemotherapy in malignant lymphoma. Cancer, 38, 1484–93.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minassian, V. A., Sood, A. K., Lowe, P., et al. (2000). Longterm central venous access in gynecologic cancer patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg., 191, 403–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NCAG. (2009). Chemotherapy Services in England: Ensuring Quality and Safety. London: National Chemotherapy Advisory Group.
PhRMA. (2012). Medicines in Development: Cancer. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, available online at www.pharma.org
Savage, P. and Mahmoud, S. (2013). Development and economic trends in cancer therapeutic drugs: an updated analysis of modern and historical treatment costs compared to the contemporary GDP per capita. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, Suppl. 31, abstract 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, P., Stebbing, J., Bower, M., et al. (2008). Why does cytotoxic chemotherapy cure only some cancers? Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol., 6, 43–52.CrossRef
Sehn, L. H., Donaldson, J., Chhanabhai, M., et al. (2005). Introduction of combined CHOP plus rituximab therapy dramatically improved outcome of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in British Columbia. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 5027–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sita-Lumsden, A., Short, D., Lindsay, I., et al. (2012). Treatment outcomes for 618 women with gestational trophoblastic tumours following a molar pregnancy at the Charing Cross Hospital, 2000–2009. Br. J. Cancer, 107, 1810–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. J., Khatcheressian, J., Lyman, G. H., et al. (2006). 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Oncol., 24, 3187–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, R., Peppercorn, J., Sikora, K., et al. (2011). Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol., 12, 933–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, G. C., Geller, N. L., Tan, C., et al. (1990). Serum tumor marker half-life during chemotherapy allows early prediction of complete response and survival in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Cancer Res., 50, 5904–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Toner, G. C., Stockler, M. R., Boyer, M. J., et al. (2001). Comparison of two standard chemotherapy regimens for good-prognosis germ-cell tumours: a randomised trial. Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trial Group. Lancet, 357, 739–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veal, G. J., Coulthard, S. A. and Boddy, A. V. (2003). Chemotherapy individualization. Invest. New Drugs, 21, 149–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, S. D., Birch, R., Einhorn, L. H., et al. (1987). Treatment of disseminated germ-cell tumors with cisplatin, bleomycin, and either vinblastine or etoposide. N. Engl. J. Med., 316, 1435–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×