Open Access

Aprepitant for refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma-associated pruritus: 4 cases and a review of the literature

  • Johanna S. Song1, 3, 4,
  • Marianne Tawa2,
  • Nicole G. Chau3,
  • Thomas S. Kupper1, 2, 4 and
  • Nicole R. LeBoeuf1, 2, 4Email author
BMC Cancer201717:200

DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3194-8

Received: 2 January 2017

Accepted: 11 March 2017

Published: 16 March 2017

Abstract

Background

Aprepitant is an FDA-approved medication for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It blocks substance P binding to neurokinin-1; substance P has been implicated in itch pathways both as a local and global mediator.

Case presentations

We report a series of four patients, diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, who experienced full body pruritus recalcitrant to standard therapies. All patients experienced rapid symptom improvement (within days) following aprepitant treatment.

Conclusion

Aprepitant has been shown in small studies to be efficacious for treating chronic and malignancy-associated pruritus. Prior studies have shown no change in clinical efficacy of chemotherapeutics with concurrent aprepitant administration. These cases further demonstrate that aprepitant can be considered as a therapeutic option in malignancy-associated pruritus and further support the need for larger clinical trials.

Keywords

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma Aprepitant Emend Pruritus Itch Case report

Background

Aprepitant (Emend; Merck & Co Inc) has been approved for use as an antiemetic in patients receiving chemotherapy. It blocks the binding of substance P to its receptor, neurokinin-1, which plays a role in pathways that induce nausea and vomiting. Recently in the literature, there have been multiple successful case reports of aprepitant use for pruritus. We report four cases of successful use of aprepitant for generalized pruritus in patients diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and review the available clinical literature.

Case presentation

A 51-year-old woman presented with a 1.5-year history of lymphomatoid papulosis and extensive cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma. The patient had experienced severe full-body itch with the diagnosis of her disease, which was moderately responsive to prednisone. She had previously been treated for her lymphoma with methotrexate and NB-UVB with no improvement in disease or itch. PUVA was tried and discontinued because of bullae development. She subsequently completed eight cycles of brentuximab, but had disease progression off treatment. She was then started on a clinical trial with an inhibitor of program death receptor 1 (PD-1), but was taken off the trial due to progressive disease. Itch persisted throughout her disease course. She began treatment with single-agent gemcitabine 6 weeks prior to the initiation of aprepitant and had persistent itch and disease with this.

On exam, she had multiple erythematous and skin-colored papules and plaques on her face, upper extremities, trunk and neck. She had no lymphadenopathy. Laboratory findings including serum chemistries, blood urea nitrogen, complete blood cell count, thyroid and liver function were normal.

Treatment with oral aprepitant, day 1, 125 mg; day 2, 80 mg; day 3, 80 mg was initiated with cycle 3, day 1 of gemcitabine chemotherapy (administered days 1, 8 of a 28 day cycle). Her symptoms improved three hours after aprepitant treatment from 10/10 to 0/10 for five days, but then her pruritus returned at 4/10 and increased thereafter until she took her next aprepitant dose with chemotherapy. On weeks where she did not take aprepitant, days 16–28, she experienced severe pruritus. She completed three cycles of gemcitabine with minimal response in her disease. Three weeks after aprepitant initiation, she underwent electron beam radiation therapy and began romidepsin. Aprepitant dosing was adjusted to every other day, with pruritus reaching 5/10 before the next dose and pruritus relief to 0/10 following every dose. Three months after aprepitant initiation, due to increased disease burden, brentuximab chemotherapy and surface conformal brachytherapy were initiated. Aprepitant dosing was then adjusted to every three days due to attempt to prolong reduced itch periods, as insurance coverage was challenging; she continued with pruritus reduction ranging from 4/10 to 0/10 for 1 year using this regimen.

Three additional patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) were treated with aprepitant for pruritus. The clinical findings of these patients are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Clinical characteristics of patients with symptoms of itch treated with aprepitant therapy

Source (year)

No. of total patients

No. of responding patients

Complete vs. partial response

Itch Scale

Response by Scale

Age, y/sex

Primary cause of itch

Dose of aprepitant

Length of treatment

Patients with Malignancy Associated Itch

Duval et al. (2009) [20]

3

3

Partial

VAS

9 to 2

N/A

CTCL, SS

80 mg/d

7d

7 to 2

8 to 3

Vincenzi et al. (2010) [21]

2

2

Complete

VAS

8 to 0

44F

NSCLC on erlotinib

d1: 125 mg; d2, 3: 80 mg; then 125 mg, 80 mg alternating

2m

Partial

9 to 1

74 M

Vincenzi et al. (2010) [22]

2

2

Complete

VAS

8 to 0

N/A, M

Metastatic soft tissue sarcoma

d1: 125 mg; d2, 3: 80 mg

3d

Partial

9 to 1

N/A, F

Metastatic breast carcinoma

Booken et al. (2011) [15]

5

4

Partial

VAS

Mean 9.8 to 4.3

56F

CTCL, SS

d1: 125 mg; d2, 3: 80 mg; every 2 weeks

Median 15w (range 6–24)

65F

CTCL, SS

65 M

CTCL, SS

51 M

CTCL, MF

Mir et al. (2011) [23]

1

1

Partial

Subjective

Pruritus regressed

54, N/A

NSCLC on erlotinib

80 mg/d

14d

Ladizinski et al. (2012) [24]

1

1

Partial

VAS

10 to 1

66 M

CTCL, MF

80 mg/d; 3×/week

4m

Santini et al. (2012) [14]

24

41

Complete

VAS

Median, 8 to 0

42-76 M/F

Refractory itch, metastatic solid tumor

d1: 125 mg; d3, d5: 80 mg

1w

21

Partial

Median, 8 to 1

45-70 M/F

Naïve to treatment, metastatic solid tumor

Torres et al. (2012) [25]

2

2

Partial

VAS

8 to 2

N/A

CTCL, SS

80 mg/d

15d, then every other d for 10d

9 to 3

Jimenez Gallo et al. (2013) [26]

1

1

Partial

VAS

10 to 2

41F

CTCL, MF

d1: 125 mg; d2, 3: 80 mg; every 2 weeks

N/A

Borja-Consigliere et al. (2014) [27]

1

1

Partial

VAS

10 to 3

61F

CTCL

d1: 125 mg; d2, 3: 80 mg; every 2 weeks

13m

Villafranca et al. (2014) [28]

1

1

Partial

VAS

9 to 5 after two weeks, then to 4 after one month

27F

Hodgkin’s lymphoma

80 mg/d

1m

Present cases (2017)

4

4

Complete

NRS

10 to 0

51F

CTCL, lymphomatoid papulosis/cutaneous anaplastic lymphoma

d1: 125 mg; d2, d3: 80 mg

3w; then every 3d for 12m

Partial

10 to 6; after 8 months to 2; during non-treatment weeks pruritus increases to 6

68F

CTCL, MF

every 2w for 10m

10 to 2; during non-treatment weeks pruritus increased back to 10

64 M

every 2w for 6m

10 to 4

59 M

1m

Patients with Chronic Itch, Non-malignancy Associated

Ally et al. (2013) [29]

1

1

Partial

Subjective

Vast improvement

61F

Brachioradial pruritus

80 mg/d

2w

   

Complete

 

8 to 0

66F

Multifactorial (hyperuricemia, iron deficiency)

  
    

8 to 0

50F

Unknown

  

Stander et al. (2010) [13]

20

16

Partial

VAS

8 to 1

42 M

Multifactorial (thyroid dysfunction, neurogenic)

80 mg/d

6.6d (range 3–13)

10 to 3

59F

Multifactorial (metabolic syndrome)

10 to 4

73F

Multifactorial (renal, diabetes)

10 to 5

55F

Multifactorial (cholestatic, dry skin, psychosomatic factors)

10 to 5

52F

Unknown

8 to 4

78 M

Renal

6 to 3

72 M

Unknown

8 to 5

36 M

Unknown

7 to 4

72 M

Renal

5 to 3

66F

Multifactorial (renal, dry skin)

7 to 5

69 M

Renal

10 to 8

82F

Multifactorial (renal, hyperuricemia)

7 to 6

81F

Unknown

10 to 9

85F

Unknown

Abbreviations: N/A not available, d days, w weeks, m months, y years, VAS visual analogue scale, NRS numeric rating scale, CTCL cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, SS Sezary syndrome, MF mycosis fungoides, NSCLC non-small cell lung cancer

Discussion

Itch in the oncology patient presents an additional challenge that may dramatically affect quality of life in those already facing a cancer diagnosis and adverse effects from antineoplastic therapies. Pruritus is thought to be a multifactorial symptom that may be induced by local skin immune responses as well as global neurological pathways. Local cutaneous pathways are mediated by itch-selective C nerve fibers, whose signals are augmented by local T cells, mast cells, cytokines and neuropeptides. The C nerve fibers synapse with second-order projections, which continue to transmit signals to the thalamus for processing [1].

Aprepitant, approved for use in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in 2003, has been used with increasing frequency for this indication both as a stand-alone treatment and as part of combination regimens. This medication is well tolerated. In a systematic review including 8740 patients treated with aprepitant, statistically significant differences in fatigue and hiccups as well as infections were seen; of note the patients contributing to increased infections were from a single study where high doses of dexamethasone were used concomitantly [2, 3]. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist that can cross the blood-brain barrier; it prevents substance P from binding to its NK1 receptor. Substance P, a tachykinin neuropeptide, mediates nausea pathways in the brainstem as well as itch pathways from the skin to spinal cord [4]. Injected substance P into the skin of non-atopic patients induces an itch response in normal and inflamed skin [5]. Atopic dermatitis patients have been observed to have increased substance P-positive and NK1 receptor-immunoreactive nerve fibers as compared to healthy controls [6]. Substance P has been shown to bind NK1 receptors on keratinocytes, which activate mast cell degranulation and release of cytokines and chemokines such as histamine, prostaglandin D2 and leukotriene B4, which mediate itch [7]. NK1 receptors are also present in rat dorsal horn neurons, which may play a role in neurologic itch [8]. The importance of these neurotransmitters specifically in oncology patients has not been studied and their roles require further research.

Pruritus is sometimes a non-specific presenting complaint of underlying malignancy. While this is most often described with Hodgkin’s disease, it is also reported with many solid tumors such as those originating in the breast, gastrointestinal system and liver. In small studies of patients with non-specific generalized itching, underlying malignancy was found to be the cause of itch in fewer than 10% of patients [9]. Appropriate assessment of true, diffuse pruritus symptoms includes an age and symptom appropriate malignancy evaluation. The pathophysiology of malignancy and itch has yet to be clearly elucidated; however, many mediators have been suggested to play a role. Recent studies propose that the T-cell dysregulation associated with Hodgkin’s lymphoma contributes to high rates of pruritus associated with this malignancy [10] and the cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and IL-31 may also play roles in lymphoma-associated or chronic itch [9]. In our reported cases, patients suffered from cutaneous lymphoma, which unlike pruritus without a rash, has multiple potential contributors to itch symptoms. These patients were concurrently treated for their primary malignancy with variable response. Although malignancy treatment may also relieve pruritus, in all of our cases, patients had previously failed conventional treatments for itch for many months prior. Our cases also reported pruritus cessation within hours to days after aprepitant treatment, in the setting of progressive or persistent malignancy, suggesting that aprepitant has a direct effect on symptom relief. Prior reports also suggest that patients suffered rebound itch upon cessation of aprepitant with continuation of chemotherapy, suggesting a role for aprepitant’s direct involvement in pruritus relief.

Aprepitant is metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system, specifically CYP3A4. It moderately inhibits CYP3A4, induces CYP2C9 and possibly affects other isoenzymes. As such, medication interactions, specifically with chemotherapeutic drugs metabolized by these enzymes should always be considered [11]. However, studies in patients concurrently treated with aprepitant and docetaxel, vinorelbine or cyclophosphamide have not shown clinically significant decreases in chemotherapeutic serum concentrations [12].

To date, at least 74 patients in the literature have been reported to experience pruritus relief with aprepitant treatment (Table 1). In prospective studies, pruritus relief has been reported in 80–91% of patients, suggesting that aprepitant may be uniquely effective against itch, especially in patients with symptoms refractory to standard treatments [1315]. Because itch pathways have not been fully elucidated and are likely activated through more than one process in the oncology patient with inflammatory skin lesions, deactivating itch likely requires a multi-faceted approach. With persistence of an inflammatory malignancy, the trigger of the itch response persists and it is expected that the itch will recur. In addition, chemotherapeutic regimens may result in modified pathways via effects on the skin and small nerve fibers. When multiple potential causes of itch exist, combination therapy with conventional anti-itch agents may be helpful; emollients, topical steroids, antihistamines, gabapentin, pregabalin, mirtazapine, ultraviolet light and tricyclic antidepressants should be considered depending on patient findings, comorbidities and with consideration of medication interactions. These can be adjusted to bridge non-aprepitant days and in instances of treatment delays due to medication access.

In small studies, aprepitant has been shown to be both safe and effective in treatment of malignancy-associated and refractory chronic pruritus. In 10 patients with an atopic diathesis, aprepitant reduced itch >40% in 9/10 patients [13]. Further research is needed to evaluate the patient population most likely to respond to aprepitant for pruritus, as it may be a tool for malignancy-associated itch, as well as in inflammatory conditions associated with chronic pruritus. However, as demonstrated in our table, there is significant heterogeneity in dosing regimens and duration of treatment. Practitioners have prescribed dosing either as 80 mg daily or in a tri-fold pack of 125 mg/80 mg/80 mg for 3 days to 24 weeks. While further studies are needed to determine the most effective dosing regimen in oncology patients, of the previous reports of six patients treated with aprepitant 80 mg daily, none experienced a complete response in pruritus. In our patients, we use tri-fold dosing of 125 mg/80 mg/80 mg, administered weekly if itch recurs after the first 3 doses. Given that our patients experienced an increase in pruritus symptoms on days without aprepitant treatment, until larger dosing studies are available, we continue treatment while patients are experiencing relief, as cessation may cause itch to return to baseline levels.

These cases demonstrate that the use of aprepitant may be helpful in patients with CTCL who experience pruritus refractory to conventional treatments. An estimated 66–88% of CTCL patients report experiencing pruritus with effects on quality of life [16, 17]. Reports that included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score along with the visual analogue scale (VAS) demonstrated a high correlation between the two measures. Patients who experienced large improvements in pruritus symptoms by VAS had similar dramatic decreases in DLQI scores. The VAS is a commonly used tool for quantifying itch. It has been validated in patients with chronic itch or pruritic dermatoses with a high correlation with the numeric rating scale [18, 19]. Future studies exploring how itch impacts patient quality of life and the effectiveness of interventions such as aprepitant should consider patient-reported outcomes. A disease-specific scale may be of significant use in the oncology population.

Conclusion

We observed 4 cases of significant pruritus improvement in CTCL patients treated with aprepitant, supporting that this modality can be useful in treating some patients with malignancy-associated itch refractory to conventional treatments. There continues to be a need for larger comparative effectiveness trials of aprepitant in patients with chronic, malignancy and treatment-associated itch. Review of the literature demonstrated discrepancies in dose and timing of aprepitant regimens as well as outcome measures; prospective studies should evaluate dosing to discern the most effective administration schedule. Future study is imperative as oncology patients may experience negative impact on quality of life from treatment refractory pruritus.

Notes

Abbreviations

CTCL: 

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma

DLQI: 

Dermatology Life Quality Index

NK1

Neurokinin-1

VAS: 

Visual analogue scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors have no acknowledgements.

Funding

No funding was acquired for this study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available as they are patient information in an electronic medical record but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

NRL conceived the study, takes full responsibility of the manuscript, and oversaw all drafts of the manuscript. JSS, MT, NGC, and TSK reviewed patient charts. JSS drafted the majority of the manuscript. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

Dr. Kupper serves on the advisory board for Adaptive Biotechnologies. All other authors including Dr. Song, Ms. Tawa, Dr. Chau, and Dr. LeBoeuf have no conflict of interest to declare.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients for publication of this case series and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Brigham and Women’s and Dana Farber Cancer Institute IRB.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
(2)
Center for Cutaneous Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
(3)
Center for Head and Neck Cancer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
(4)
Harvard Medical School

References

  1. Yosipovitch G, Bernhard JD. Clinical practice. Chronic pruritus. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1625–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. dos Santos LV, Souza FH, Brunetto AT. Sasse AD, da Silveira Nogueira Lima JP: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(17):1280–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chawla SP, Grunberg SM, Gralla RJ, Hesketh PJ, Rittenberg C, Elmer ME, Schmidt C, Taylor A, Carides AD, Evans JK, et al. Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer. 2003;97(9):2290–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Wallengren J. Neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of itch. Dermatol Ther. 2005;18(4):292–303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Thomsen JS, Sonne M, Benfeldt E, Jensen SB, Serup J, Menne T. Experimental itch in sodium lauryl sulphate-inflamed and normal skin in humans: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of histamine and other inducers of itch. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146(5):792–800.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Pincelli C, Fantini F, Massimi P, Girolomoni G, Seidenari S, Giannetti A. Neuropeptides in skin from patients with atopic dermatitis: an immunohistochemical study. Br J Dermatol. 1990;122(6):745–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kulka M, Sheen CH, Tancowny BP, Grammer LC, Schleimer RP. Neuropeptides activate human mast cell degranulation and chemokine production. Immunology. 2008;123(3):398–410.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Carstens EE, Carstens MI, Simons CT, Jinks SL. Dorsal horn neurons expressing NK-1 receptors mediate scratching in rats. Neuroreport. 2010;21(4):303–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Yosipovitch G. Chronic pruritus: a paraneoplastic sign. Dermatol Ther. 2010;23(6):590–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Rubenstein M, Duvic M. Cutaneous manifestations of Hodgkin's disease. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45(3):251–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mir O, Coriat R. Aprepitant for pruritus: drug-drug interactions matter. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(10):964–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Curran MP, Robinson DM. Aprepitant: a review of its use in the prevention of nausea and vomiting. Drugs. 2009;69(13):1853–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Stander S, Siepmann D, Herrgott I, Sunderkotter C, Luger TA. Targeting the neurokinin receptor 1 with aprepitant: a novel antipruritic strategy. PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e10968.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Santini D, Vincenzi B, Guida FM, Imperatori M, Schiavon G, Venditti O, Frezza AM, Berti P, Tonini G. Aprepitant for management of severe pruritus related to biological cancer treatments: a pilot study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(10):1020–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Booken N, Heck M, Nicolay JP, Klemke CD, Goerdt S, Utikal J. Oral aprepitant in the therapy of refractory pruritus in erythrodermic cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(3):665–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Vij A, Duvic M. Prevalence and severity of pruritus in cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51(8):930–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright A, Wijeratne A, Hung T, Gao W, Whittaker S, Morris S, Scarisbrick J, Beynon T. Prevalence and severity of pruritus and quality of life in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;45(1):114–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Phan NQ, Blome C, Fritz F, Gerss J, Reich A, Ebata T, Augustin M, Szepietowski JC, Stander S. Assessment of pruritus intensity: prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92(5):502–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Reich A, Heisig M, Phan NQ, Taneda K, Takamori K, Takeuchi S, Furue M, Blome C, Augustin M, Stander S, et al. Visual analogue scale: evaluation of the instrument for the assessment of pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92(5):497–501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Duval A, Dubertret L. Aprepitant as an antipruritic agent? N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1415–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Vincenzi B, Tonini G, Santini D. Aprepitant for erlotinib-induced pruritus. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):397–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Vincenzi B, Fratto ME, Santini D, Tonini G. Aprepitant against pruritus in patients with solid tumours. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(9):1229–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mir O, Blanchet B, Goldwasser F. More on aprepitant for erlotinib-induced pruritus. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(5):487.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ladizinski B, Bazakas A, Olsen EA. Aprepitant: a novel neurokinin-1 receptor/substance P antagonist as antipruritic therapy in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(5):e198–199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Torres T, Fernandes I, Selores M, Alves R, Lima M. Aprepitant: Evidence of its effectiveness in patients with refractory pruritus continues. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(1):e14–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jimenez Gallo D, Albarran Planelles C, Linares Barrios M, Fernandez Anguita MJ, Marquez Enriquez J, Rodriguez Mateos ME. Treatment of pruritus in early-stage hypopigmented mycosis fungoides with aprepitant. Dermatol Therapy. 2014;27(3):178–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Borja-Consigliere HA, Lopez-Pestana A, Vidal-Mancenido MJ, Tuneu-Valls A. Aprepitant in the treatment of refractory pruritus secondary to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2014;105(7):716–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Villafranca JJ, Siles MG, Casanova M, Goitia BT, Dominguez AR. Paraneoplastic pruritus presenting with Hodgkin's lymphoma: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2014;8:300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ally MS, Gamba CS, Peng DH, Tang JY. The use of aprepitant in brachioradial pruritus. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(5):627–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement