ArticleCase reports in oncology
Need for Flexible Adjustment of the Treatment Schedule for Aprepitant Administration against Erlotinib-Induced Refractory Pruritus and Skin Rush.
Article in Case reports in oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Common dermatological side-effects associated with erlotinib, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), include pruritus and skin rash, which are mediated by substance P, leading to the occasional discontinuation of cancer treatment. Aprepitant is an antagonist of neurokinin-1 receptor, through which substance P activates the pruritogens. Thus, aprepitant is expected to offer a promising option for the treatment of erlotinib-induced pruritus. However, the appropriate treatment schedule for aprepitant administration is under consideration. Here, we discuss the need for flexible adjustment of the treatment schedule for aprepitant administration against erlotinib-induced refractory pruritus and skin rush. A 71-year-old female smoker presented with stage IV EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma. She was started on erlotinib at 150 mg/day. However, by 28 days, severe pruritus and acneiform skin rush resistant to standard therapies occurred, resulting in the interruption of erlotinib therapy. After recovery, she was restarted on erlotinib at 100 mg/day. However, severe pruritus and skin rush developed again within 2 weeks. Then, we started the first 3-day dose of aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 3, and 80 mg on day 5) based on the results of the previous prospective study, which showed the success rate of 100% with at least the second dose of aprepitant. However, the pruritus and skin rush exacerbated again within 4 weeks. Therefore, we started the second 3-day dose of aprepitant, but in vain. At this point, as the patient-centered medicine, bi-weekly schedule of the 3-day dose of aprepitant was considered and, then, adopted. As the results, the pruritus and skin rush remained well-controlled throughout the subsequent treatment with erlotinib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.