Efficacy and Tolerability of Amifostine in Elderly Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Curr Ther Res Clin Exp

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2014 Jun 18

PMID 24936110

Citations 1

Authors

Sabri Barutca

Nezih Meydan

Harun Akar

Irfan Yavasoglu

Gurhan Kadikoylu

Zahit Bolaman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Amifostine is a cytoprotective agent used to prevent cisplatin nephrotoxicity. It is associated with dose-limiting acute toxicities of emetic symptoms (nausea and vomiting) and transient hypotension.

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and tolerability of amifostine in elderly cancer patients.

Methods: This 18-month, prospective, comparative study was conducted at the Department of Internal Medicine, Adnan Menderes University Hospital (Aydin, Turkey). Adult (aged 40-<85 years) hospitalized patients with advanced-stage cancer without comorbid diseases were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups: age <70 years (group 1) and ≥70 years (group 2). All patients were treated with amifostine + cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT). Amifostine 910 mg/m(2) (maximum, 1500 mg) was administered as a 15-minute IV infusion. Clinical systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) were measured at 0 minute (baseline), at 8 and 15 minutes of amifostine infusion, and at 30 minutes after the start of amifostine infusion. In addition to physical examination, chest radiography, electrocardiography, blood chemistry (including serum electrolytes and renal function tests), complete blood count, and complete urinalyses were performed before each CT administration and at the post-CT day of toxicity assessment.

Results: Thirty-five consecutive patients were enrolled (22 men, 13 women; mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; group 1, n = 22; group 2, n = 13). Patients received a total of 153 CT cycles (median, 4 cycles/patient; group 1, 96 cycles; group 2, 57 cycles). Amifostine caused significant SBP and DBP reductions at 8 minutes of infusion compared with baseline in groups 1 (both P < 0.001) and 2 (P = 0.002 and P = 0.006, respectively). Overall, 20 patients (57.1%) experienced ≥ 1 symptomatic hypotensive episode; these rates were not significantly different between groups 1 (11 cases, 50.0%) and 2 (9 cases, 69.2%). Amifostine infusion was interrupted a similar number of times (6 times in group 1 and 4 times in group 2 [6.3% and 7.0% of administrations, respectively]) due to hypotension, but could be restarted in all. At 15 minutes, mean SBP and DBP values were not significantly different from baseline in either group. The mean baseline SBP values were similar between groups at baseline, and, overall, the differences in mean SBP and DBP values were not significant between groups at any time point. All other toxicities were comparable, and serum creatinine concentrations did not change significantly from baseline with CT in either group.

Conclusions: In this study of the efficacy and tolerability of amifostine in elderly patients with advanced-stage cancer without comorbid diseases, amifostine was effective in reducing cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, with transient systolic and diastolic hypotension being the most prominent adverse effect. All other toxicities were either low grade or preventable. No significant differences in amifostine tolerability or toxicities were observed between the study groups.

Citing Articles

Cisplatin-induced renal toxicity in elderly people.

Duan Z, Cai G, Li J, Chen X Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020; 12:1758835920923430.

PMID: 32489432 PMC: 7238313. DOI: 10.1177/1758835920923430.

References

Buntzel J, Kuttner K, Frohlich D, Glatzel M . Selective cytoprotection with amifostine in concurrent radiochemotherapy for head and neck cancer. Ann Oncol. 1998; 9(5):505-9. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008282412670. View

Antonadou D, Coliarakis N, Synodinou M, Athanassiou H, Kouveli A, Verigos C . Randomized phase III trial of radiation treatment +/- amifostine in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 51(4):915-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01713-8. View

Hensley M, Schuchter L, Lindley C, Meropol N, Cohen G, Broder G . American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy protectants. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(10):3333-55. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.10.3333. View

Brizel D, Wasserman T, Henke M, Strnad V, Rudat V, Monnier A . Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(19):3339-45. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.19.3339. View

Tamhane A, Logan B . Accurate critical constants for the one-sided approximate likelihood ratio test of a normal mean vector when the covariance matrix is estimated. Biometrics. 2002; 58(3):650-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00650.x. View

Mabro M, Faivre S, Raymond E . A risk-benefit assessment of amifostine in cytoprotection. Drug Saf. 1999; 21(5):367-87. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199921050-00003. View

Bukowski R . Amifostine (Ethyol): dosing, administration and patient management guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 1996; 32A Suppl 4:S46-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(96)00328-0. View

Sriswasdi C, Jootar S, Giles F . Amifostine and hematologic effects. J Med Assoc Thai. 2000; 83(4):374-82. View

Koukourakis M . Amifostine in clinical oncology: current use and future applications. Anticancer Drugs. 2002; 13(3):181-209. DOI: 10.1097/00001813-200203000-00001. View

10.

Bardet E, Martin L, Calais G, Tuchais C, Bourhis J, Rhein B . Preliminary data of the GORTEC 2000-02 phase III trial comparing intravenous and subcutaneous administration of amifostine for head and neck tumors treated by external radiotherapy. Semin Oncol. 2003; 29(6 Suppl 19):57-60. DOI: 10.1053/sonc.2002.37348. View

11.

Blumberg A, Nelson D, Gramkowski M, Glover D, Glick J, Yuhas J . Clinical trials of WR-2721 with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1982; 8(3-4):561-3. DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(82)90684-8. View

12.

Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, Horton J, Davis T, McFadden E . Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6):649-55. View

13.

Komaki R, Lee J, Kaplan B, Allen P, Kelly J, Liao Z . Randomized phase III study of chemoradiation with or without amifostine for patients with favorable performance status inoperable stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002; 12(1 Suppl 1):46-9. DOI: 10.1053/srao.2002.31363. View

14.

Lorusso D, Ferrandina G, Greggi S, Gadducci A, Pignata S, Tateo S . Phase III multicenter randomized trial of amifostine as cytoprotectant in first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2003; 14(7):1086-93. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg301. View

15.

Viele C, Holmes B . Amifostine: drug profile and nursing implications of the first pancytoprotectant. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998; 25(3):515-23. View

16.

Orditura M, De Vita F, Roscigno A, Infusino S, Auriemma A, Iodice P . Amifostine: A selective cytoprotective agent of normal tissues from chemo-radiotherapy induced toxicity (Review). Oncol Rep. 1999; 6(6):1357-62. DOI: 10.3892/or.6.6.1357. View

17.

Dorr R, Holmes B . Dosing considerations with amifostine: a review of the literature and clinical experience. Semin Oncol. 1999; 26(2 Suppl 7):108-19. View

18.

Genvresse I, Lange C, Schanz J, Schweigert M, Harder H, Possinger K . Tolerability of the cytoprotective agent amifostine in elderly patients receiving chemotherapy: a comparative study. Anticancer Drugs. 2001; 12(4):345-9. DOI: 10.1097/00001813-200104000-00007. View

19.

Cui H, Zhang S, Li P, Guan Z, Sun X, Shen K . [Amifostin in protection of kidney from cisplatinum injury]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2002; 24(1):48-50. View

20.

Gridelli C, Cigolari S, Maiorino A, Ianniello G, Brancaccio L, Rossi A . Amifostine plus cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study. Lung Cancer. 2000; 28(3):237-44. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(99)00131-2. View