Marie-Rose B S Crombag1,2, Aurelia H M de Vries Schultink3,4, Jacobine G C van Doremalen3,5, Hans-Martin Otten6, Andries M Bergman7, Jan H M Schellens4,5, Jos H Beijnen3,4,5, Alwin D R Huitema3,4,8. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, The Netherlands Cancer Institute and MC Slotervaart, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.crombag@nki.nl. 2. Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.crombag@nki.nl. 3. Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, The Netherlands Cancer Institute and MC Slotervaart, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Division of Medical Oncology, MC Slotervaart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Division of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may be more prone to chemotherapy-induced hematological toxicity, but tailored docetaxel dosing guidelines in older patients are lacking because of conflicting data. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the impact of older age on the incidence of hematological toxicity in patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel in daily clinical practice. METHODS: This study included patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel between January 2006 and January 2016 at the Netherlands Cancer Institute and Medical Center Slotervaart for whom dosing and hematological toxicity data were available from electronic patient records. We evaluated the impact of age on the incidence of grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicity. RESULTS: In total, 175 patients treated with docetaxel were included in the analysis, with a median age of 67 years (range 47-86). Baseline hematological laboratory values were not age related. After the first treatment cycle, hematological toxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the oldest age quartile (25%, p = 0.02) than in the younger age quartiles (9%, 11%, and 7%, respectively, for age quartiles 1, 2, and 3). CONCLUSION: The risk of hematological toxicity was significantly higher in the oldest age quartile than in younger patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel in daily clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may be more prone to chemotherapy-induced hematological toxicity, but tailored docetaxel dosing guidelines in older patients are lacking because of conflicting data. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the impact of older age on the incidence of hematological toxicity in patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel in daily clinical practice. METHODS: This study included patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel between January 2006 and January 2016 at the Netherlands Cancer Institute and Medical Center Slotervaart for whom dosing and hematological toxicity data were available from electronic patient records. We evaluated the impact of age on the incidence of grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicity. RESULTS: In total, 175 patients treated with docetaxel were included in the analysis, with a median age of 67 years (range 47-86). Baseline hematological laboratory values were not age related. After the first treatment cycle, hematological toxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the oldest age quartile (25%, p = 0.02) than in the younger age quartiles (9%, 11%, and 7%, respectively, for age quartiles 1, 2, and 3). CONCLUSION: The risk of hematological toxicity was significantly higher in the oldest age quartile than in younger patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel in daily clinical practice.
Authors: M S Aapro; J Bohlius; D A Cameron; Lissandra Dal Lago; J Peter Donnelly; N Kearney; G H Lyman; R Pettengell; V C Tjan-Heijnen; J Walewski; Damien C Weber; C Zielinski Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Patrikidou; M Uccello; A Tree; C Parker; G Attard; R Eeles; V Khoo; N van As; R Huddart; D Dearnaley; A Reid Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Ryan M Franke; Michael A Carducci; Michelle A Rudek; Sharyn D Baker; Alex Sparreboom Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marie-Rose B S Crombag; Thomas P C Dorlo; Ellen van der Pan; Anoek van Straten; Andries M Bergman; Nielka P van Erp; Jos H Beijnen; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Vivian Lam; Katey Webber; Simran Padam; Mina S Sedrak; Vivek Musinipally; Madison Grogan; Carolyn J Presley; Janice Grandi; Chandrika Sanapala; Daniel A Castillo; Grace DiGiovanni; Supriya G Mohile; Louise C Walter; Melisa L Wong Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 12.693