orphan symptoms
play

Orphan Symptoms: XEROSTOMIA Paolo Bossi Head and Neck Medical - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Orphan Symptoms: XEROSTOMIA Paolo Bossi Head and Neck Medical Oncology Unit Istituto Nazionale Tumori Milan, Italy Conflict of Interest Participation in Advisory Boards: Roche, Merck, Mundipharma, Astrazeneca, BMS AGENDA - Again an orphan


  1. Orphan Symptoms: XEROSTOMIA Paolo Bossi Head and Neck Medical Oncology Unit Istituto Nazionale Tumori Milan, Italy

  2. Conflict of Interest Participation in Advisory Boards: Roche, Merck, Mundipharma, Astrazeneca, BMS

  3. AGENDA - Again an orphan symptom.. What is it? - Who decides the intensity of xerostomia? - The burden of the symptom(s) - Causes: RT – radioiodine Tx – systemic Tx (chemo - targeted agents- immune) – other drugs - Possible treatments

  4. ORPHAN SYMPTOMS What is an orphan symptom ?… Difficult to be defined!

  5. ORPHAN SYMPTOMS What is an orphan disease? A disease that has not been “adopted” by the pharmaceutical industry because it provides little financial incentive to make and market new medications to treat or prevent it. An orphan disease may be a rare disease or a common disease that has been ignored because it is far more prevalent in areas without market.

  6. ORPHAN SYMPTOMS What is an orphan symptom ?…  A neglected symptom?  A symptom not assessed in any classification?  A rare adverse event?  T oxicity without effective treatment?

  7. WHY XEROSTOMIA SHOULD BE AN ORPHAN SYMPTOMS?  A neglected symptom? x

  8. WHY XEROSTOMIA SHOULD BE AN ORPHAN SYMPTOMS?  A symptom not assessed in any classification? x Evaluation of symptoms reported by 6 PRO measures: 1. ESAS 2. SDS 3. MDASI 4. EORTC QLQ-C30 V.3 5. Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) 6. Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)

  9. WHY XEROSTOMIA SHOULD BE AN ORPHAN SYMPTOMS? C O H R A P M H P A I N O N S

  10. WHY XEROSTOMIA SHOULD BE AN ORPHAN SYMPTOMS? x  A rare adverse event?

  11. WHY XEROSTOMIA SHOULD BE AN ORPHAN SYMPTOMS?  T oxicity without effective treatment?

  12. ORPHAN SYMPTOMS What is an orphan symptom ?… I have no drug It is rare! to treat it! A symptom nobody would like to identify and to treat? I do not know how to classify!

  13. WHICH GRADING OF XEROSTOMIA? CTCAE V 4.0  Another physician’s interpretation of subjective symptom?  Do the objective assessment of CTCAE really measure the impact on everyday life?

  14. SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT WITH RT Comparison between observer’s (physician) way to assess toxicity and patient evaluation with EORTC Quality of Life questionnaires

  15. SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT WITH RT  Sensitivity of observer = 74%; specificity = 90%

  16. PRO-CISION IN SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT?

  17. PRO-CTCAE LIBRARY

  18. PRO-CTCAE LIBRARY

  19. XEROSTOMIA: the burden of the problem cancer treatments cancer mucositis polipharmacy XEROSTOMIA Taste alterations T ooth Dysphagia Difficulty in chewing decay Oral cavity Reduced QoL malnourishment infection

  20. TREATMENT -RELATED CAUSES  Radiation  Radioiodine therapy  Chemotherapy  Targeted therapies  Immunotherapy

  21. RADIATION-INDUCED XEROSTOMIA: Head & Neck Ca  Serous acinar cells seem especially susceptible to radiation damage  change in saliva composition (“sticky saliva”)  One week post-radiation loss of 60-90% of salivary output has been documented.  Late symptoms (>3 months): moderate-severe xerostomia in 60-75% with 2DRT and 40% with modern techniques

  22. RADIATION-INDUCED XEROSTOMIA: PREVENTION Decrease the exposure of salivary gland tissues from excessively high RT doses Lancet Oncology 2011

  23. XEROSTOMIA Dirix , Lancet Oncol, 2010

  24. FIVE PHASE III TRIALS COMPARING 2D/3DRT VS IMRT Site Stage Overall RT RT dose, Gy CHT I/II Npts technique (tumor) III/IV 2D/RT IMRT Pow Naso 45 - 45 2D-RT vs IMRT 68 66-68 no IJROBP 20106 Kam Naso 56 - 56 2D-RT vs IMRT 66+/-BT 66+/-BT no JCO 2017 Nutting Oro- 80 2D-RT vs IMRT 65 65 Neo LO 2011 Hypo 23 14 (postop) (40%) 71 Gupta Oro- 12 32 70 66 Conc R&O 2014 Hypo 48 17 3D-RT vs IMRT Lar 11 Peng Naso 194 616 2D-RT vs IMRT 74+/-BT 74+/-BT Neo/con R&O 2012 422 c/adj 25

  25.  Xerostomia scores grades 2-4 A significant overall benefit in favor of IMRT HR of 0.76 (p< 0.0001)  Locoregional control and OS Not significant benefit in favour of IMRT both for LRC and OS 26

  26. RADIOIODINE TX- INDUCED XEROSTOMIA Before and 5 mo after radioiodine treatment:  Reduction in salivary flow rate  Change in composition (less protein and amylase)  Worse subjective xerostomia inventory score J Nucl Med 2016

  27. TARGETED TX- AND IMMUNOTX- INDUCED XEROSTOMIA DRUG INCIDENCE Everolimus 6% Dacomitinib 8-14% Multitargeted 4-12% angiogenesis inh Nivolumab/ 4-8% Pembrolizumab Ipilimumab negligible

  28. MANY DRUGS CAUSES XEROSTOMIA! List of medications affecting salivary gland function and inducing xerostomia

  29. MANY DRUGS CAUSES XEROSTOMIA! Consider, among all, the frequently prescribed opioids: morphine, fentanyl, tapentadol, tramadol …

  30. AN ORPHAN SYMPTOM: NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY A THERAPY!

  31. TREATMENT: mainstays 1) Cholinergic agonists: pilocarpin, cevimeline 2) Gustatory and masticatory stimulants 3) Lubrificants, saliva substitutes 4) Acupuncture 5) Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy 6) Gene therapy

  32. 1) Cholinergic agonists: pilocarpin, cevimeline  Stimulate muscarinic receptors on the surface of (residual) salivary gland cells  Benefits: active both during and after RT; increase in unstimulated saliva; benefit on subj xerostomia  Drawbacks: toxicities (bronchospasm, bradycardia, vasodilatation, diarrhea); short-lived efficacy  T opical administration??

  33. 1) Cholinergic agonists: pilocarpin, cevimeline Oral Oncology, 2017

  34. 2) Gustatory and masticatory stimulants  Acidic substances  Purely symptomatic measures  Limited studies

  35. 3) Lubrificants, saliva substitutes  Widely used  No need of residual salivary function  Weak evidences  Enzyme-enriched could be better  High viscosity is better

  36. 4) Acupuncture  Stimulation possible only with residual salivary function  Weak or no evidence

  37. 5) Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy  Some studies suggest possible long-term benefit  However: low number of patients, heterogeneous pt population, no risk-assessment on possible procancerogen effect

  38. 6) Gene Therapy  Viral vector injection of gene able to partially restore salivary tissue  Human aquaporin-1 gene transfer  Preliminary data, phase I-II trial

  39. Practically speaking … suggestions  First step: symptomatic measures  T est different saliva substitutes by individual patients to select the most effective one  If not efficacious: in patients without risk factors try pilocarpine 5 mg t.i.d (10 mg if no adv events)  Clinical trials on supportive care!

  40. Conclusions  An orphan symptom due to lack of treatments …  Again, ask the patient what does it mean  Burden of consequences  Radiation is the main cause  Treatment: salivary substitutes – cholinergic drugs  Push to clinical trials in supportive care!

  41. Thanks for your attention! paolo.bossi@istitutotumori.mi.it

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend