Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity--state of the art

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents-updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendation

PURPOSE

Our goal was to identify new anticancer agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medical Agency (EMA) since the 2016 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic update and classify their emetic potential.

METHODS

The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel classified the emetogenicity of the identified new antineoplastic agents based on nonsystematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, analysis of product labeling, and evaluation of emetic classification in other international guidelines and informal consensus. The emetogenic classification system for oral anticancer agents was revised into two emetic risk categories (minimal-low; moderate-high) to be consistent with the system reported by ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in their 2017 guideline update. The previously employed four emetic risk classification categories for intravenously administered antineoplastic agents were retained for this update.

RESULTS

From June 2015 to January 2023, 107 new antineoplastic agents (44 intravenously administered and 63 orally administered agents) were identified. The reported incidence of vomiting varied significantly across studies for many agents, especially for oral anticancer agents.

CONCLUSION

The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel acknowledges the limitations of our efforts to classify the emetic potential of anticancer agents, especially the imprecision associated with oral agents. However, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents by searching the available literature and reviewing other available international antiemetic guidelines.

Simulation of drug-drug interactions between breast cancer chemotherapeutic agents and antiemetic drugs

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are commonly experienced side effects in breast cancer (BCa) patients. Antiemetic drugs used in BCa treatment are either inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, while anticancer drugs are metabolized by CYPs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present work was to evaluate in silico drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential between BCa chemotherapeutic drugs and antiemetic agents.

METHODS

The Drug-Drug Interaction™ module of GastroPlus™ was employed to assess CYP-related interactions between antiemetic and anticancer therapy combinations. The CYP inhibitory or inducing parameters (IC50, Ki, EC50) used in simulations were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

Analyses of twenty-three BCa drugs indicated that 22% of the chemotherapeutic drugs do not need an antiemetic agent due to their low emetogenicity, whereas 30% of the anticancer drugs are not metabolized by CYPs. The remaining eleven anticancer drugs metabolized by CYPs generated ninety-nine combinations with nine antiemetics. Simulation of DDIs suggest that about half of the pairs did not demonstrate any potential for DDI, whereas 30%, 10%, and 9% of the pairs showed weak, moderate, and strong interaction potential, respectively. In the present study, netupitant was the only antiemetic that showed strong inhibitory interactions (predicted AUC ratio > 5) with CYP3A4-metabolzied anticancer therapies (e.g., docetaxel, ribociclib, olaparib). Moderate to no interactions were observed with ondansetron, aprepitant, rolapitant, and dexamethasone in combination with anticancer agents.

CONCLUSION

It is critical to recognize that these interactions can get amplified in cancer patients because of the severity of the disease and chemotherapy toxicities. Clinicians need to be aware of the DDI likelihood of the drug combinations used in BCa treatment.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis

PURPOSE

There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC.

METHODS

Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient’s quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

A retrospective study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: incidence and prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) is a common and significant problem in oncology patients and rated as one of cancer chemotherapy's most distressing side effects. The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence of CINV in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-treated patients and the prescribing pattern of CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study randomly collected data on demographics, CINV episodes, and prescribing patterns for adult oncology patients receiving intravenous highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) between January and December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 419 randomly selected records of HEC/MEC recipients with 2388 total chemotherapy cycles were included. The mean age was 53.6 ± 12.6 years old. The majority was female (66%), Malay (54.4%), diagnosed with cancer stage IV (47.7%), and with no comorbidities (47%). All patients were prescribed with IV granisetron and dexamethasone before chemotherapy for acute prevention, whereas dexamethasone and metoclopramide were prescribed for delayed prevention. Aprepitant was not routinely prescribed for the prevention of CINV. CINV incidence was 57% in the studied population and 20% in the total cycle. This study found a significant association between CINV incidence with performance status and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (OR = 3.071, CI = 1.515-6.223, p = 0.002; OR = 4.587, CI = 1.739-12.099, p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CINV incidence was rather high per patient but relatively low per cycle. Most patients were prescribed with dual regimen antiemetic prophylaxis.

IMPACT

This study provides evidence that there was suboptimal use of recommended agents for CINV, and there is a clear need for further improvements in CINV management.

Psychological Distress, Coping Strategies, and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients Under Neoadjuvant Therapy: Protocol of a Systematic Review

Introduction

Women with breast cancer eligible for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) present a disorder of biopsychosocial variables and alteration of their quality of life. They cope with this changing by adopting psychological adjustment strategies, either passive or active. This systematic review aims to investigate the psychological distress, coping strategies, and quality of life in breast cancer patients under neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

Cochrane Library, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Wiley Online library represent the databases that were searched to identify relevant published articles until September 27, 2021. Full-text published articles, written in English and assessing the main outcomes (namely: psychological distress, coping strategies, and quality of life) in women with breast cancer under NAT will be included. Also, we will integrate papers dealing with the related bio psychosocial variables to the main variables. The paper selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of selected studies will be performed independently by two researchers, and disagreements will be resolved through discussions. We will bring together the results of all of the included studies to draw conclusions based on the body of evidence. The narrative approach will be adopted to analyze the results and conclusions extracted and we would perform quantitative groupings if we have similar data.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required as the proposed systematic review will not use primary data. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentation(s). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021230300.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data

BACKGROUND

Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin.

METHODS

The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the real-world setting in Spain

Purpose

Proper monitoring and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with antiemetics is crucial for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of antiemetics for the treatment of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) including carboplatin in the real-world setting in Spain.

Methods

A representative panel of cancer specialists was asked to collect information about the antiemetic treatments provided to patients receiving chemotherapy. Records formed part of the Global Oncology Monitor^© database (Ipsos Healthcare, London, UK). Chemotherapy data were extrapolated using Ipsos Healthcare’s projection methodology.

Results

A total of 73 experts were finally included. Data from 9519 patients, estimated to be representative of 202,084 patients, were collected. HEC (and carboplatin-based chemotherapy) was administered to 73,118 (36%) patients, cisplatin-based therapy being the most frequent treatment (n = 34,649, 47.38%). Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) alone or in combination were used as prophylaxis for CINV in 14,762 (20%) patients, while the combination of NK₁RA with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RAs) and dexamethasone as recommended by the international guidelines was used in 5849 (8%) patients only. No antiemetic prophylaxis was administered to 8.46% of the patients receiving HEC (n = 6189). Physicians classified cisplatin-, anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC-), and carboplatin-based regimens as HEC in 63%, 22% and 4% of the cases, respectively.

Conclusions

The use of NK₁RA-containing regimens for CINV prevention in patients treated with HEC was less than expected, suggesting poor adherence to international antiemetic guidelines.

Effect of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has an important role in the overall management of cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether adding aprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone can further prevent the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting caused by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens among women with gastrointestinal cancer at higher risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited young women (age ≤50 years) who drank little or no alcohol and had gastrointestinal cancer for which they received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy. A total of 248 women were enrolled and assigned in the ratio 1:1 to intervention and control groups from August 4, 2015, to March 31, 2020. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate patient baseline characteristics and efficacy. The analysis was conducted on October 30, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to the aprepitant group (aprepitant, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 6 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1) or the placebo group (placebo, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally on each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 12 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients without emesis episodes or rescue medication use during the overall phase of the first cycle. Other efficacy indicators, such as no vomiting and no nausea, were measured as the secondary and exploratory end points.

RESULTS

A total of 248 women from 4 clinical centers in China entered this study, and 243 patients (aprepitant regimen, 125 patients [51.4%]; placebo regimen, 118 patients [48.5%]) were evaluable for efficacy and safety; mean (SD) age of the total population was 40.1 (7.3) years. The CR rate was significantly higher in the aprepitant group vs the control group overall (107 [87.0%] vs 80 [66.7%]; P < .001) and in the acute (114 [92.7%] vs 91 [75.8%]; P = .001) and delayed (109 [88.6%] vs 84 [70.0%]; P = .001) phases of the trial. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (100 [80.0%] vs 96 [81.3%]; P = .79), and no grade 3 or 4 aprepitant treatment-related adverse events were observed. Multivariable analysis revealed that aprepitant use was the only independent factor associated with CR during the overall phase.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The combination of aprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone provided increased antiemetic efficacy in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen and was well tolerated by younger women with gastrointestinal cancer who have a history of little or no alcohol consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674294.

Reconsidering Dexamethasone for Antiemesis when Combining Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy

Whether the immune suppressive action of glucocorticoid steroids, such as dexamethasone, might reduce the benefits of cancer immunotherapy has long been a concern. Observations that established tumor regressions in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) often persist, despite the use of steroids to mitigate ICI-related autoimmune breakthrough, are not sufficiently reassuring, because these observations do not address the potential blunting of immune priming at the initiation of ICI therapy. With increasing indications for ICI in combination with chemotherapy, this issue merits reconsideration. Professional society guidance advises that dexamethasone should be used as first-line prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting in patients receiving ICI and highly emetogenic chemotherapy combination regimens. Here, we review the availability of data on this subject and propose an alternative approach focused on the adoption of steroid minimization or sparing for prophylaxis of nausea until the underlying immune biology is better understood.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

GDF-15 Neutralization Alleviates Platinum-Based Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis, Anorexia, and Weight Loss in Mice and Nonhuman Primates

Platinum-based cancer therapy is restricted by dose-limiting side effects and is associated with elevation of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15). But whether this elevation contributes to such side effects has been unclear. Here, we explored the effects of GDF-15 blockade on platinum-based chemotherapy-induced emesis, anorexia, and weight loss in mice and/or nonhuman primate models. We found that circulating GDF-15 is higher in subjects with cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy and is positively associated with weight loss in colorectal cancer (NCT00609622). Further, chemotherapy agents associated with high clinical emetic score induce circulating GDF-15 and weight loss in mice. Platinum-based treatment-induced anorexia and weight loss are attenuated in GDF-15 knockout mice, while GDF-15 neutralization with the monoclonal antibody mAB1 improves survival. In nonhuman primates, mAB1 treatment attenuates anorexia and emesis. These results suggest that GDF-15 neutralization is a potential therapeutic approach to alleviate chemotherapy-induced side effects and improve the quality of life.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.

METHODS

Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.

The Importance of Dose Intensity When Administering Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in NSCLC—A Matter as Actual Now as in the Past

Lung cancer, as the leading cause of death in oncology is one of the most challenging diseases nowadays. Even after the implementation of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy as a standard of therapy for metastatic disease, the chemotherapy backbone remains essential in the treatment of these patients. This study aimed to evaluate how administration particularities in chemotherapy and toxicity management can influence the outcome. We conducted a retrospective single-institution study, at Elias University Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, between 2014 and 2018, in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer that received combination chemotherapy. The inclusion criteria for this trial were—histological proof of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stage IV disease, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of a maximum of two, treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy for at least four courses (patients with fewer courses were excluded). All patients received combination chemotherapy. The main focus was on the effect of dose reduction and treatment delay on overall survival and progression-free survival. A total of 129 patients were enrolled. The response rate in the studied population was 69% and 62.8% had no toxicity greater than grade 2. Chemotherapy regimens used had the following distribution—paclitaxel + carboplatin 41.9%, paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab 12.4%, pemetrexed + carboplatin 12.4%, gemcitabine + carboplatin 26.4% and other regimens 7%. Mean PFS (Progression Free Survival) was 9.1 months and the mean OS (Overall Survival) was 14 months. OS was not significantly different in the treatment delay group versus the no delay one, p < 0.25 but dose- reduction significantly impacted OS, p < 0.03. Administration particularities, like febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, treatment of chemotherapy-related anemia, respecting the details of chemostability and preparation rules and emesis prophylaxis, were considered reasons for the good outcome. Details regarding cytotoxic chemotherapy administration remain of paramount importance for a good outcome and the benefit for survival they convey is crucial. Sometimes the benefit the patient derives from these details is comparable to the one newer therapies convey.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

The Antiemetic Effect of Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang Formula against Cisplatin-Induced Emesis is Mediated through Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in a Rat Pica Model

Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang (XBXT), a traditional Chinese medicine formula, has been used for the treatment of emesis for nearly 2000 years, but its underlying mechanism is not yet fully clarified. The purpose of this study is to reveal the antiemetic mechanisms of XBXT by focusing on the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway in a chemotherapy-induced rat pica model. The pica model was generated by a single intraperitoneal injection of cisplatin in this study. Consumption of kaolin (a type of clay) and food and body weight were recorded every 24 hours. Cisplatin-induced increase in kaolin consumption (pica) was used to quantify chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Tissue from the ileum and antrum was stained with hematoxylin eosin (HE) to observe pathological changes. The levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β and IL-18 in serum, were detected by ELISA. In addition, changes in the NLRP3 inflammasome activation in the ileum and antrum were investigated using western blot and immunofluorescence microscopy. The results showed that oral administration of XBXT and ondansetron inhibited acute and delayed pica and significantly protected against the gastrointestinal pathological injury induced by cisplatin. The levels of ROS, IL-1β, and IL-18 in the serum of cisplatin-treated rats were also remarkably decreased by XBXT and ondansetron. Moreover, we found that XBXT can inhibit cisplatin-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The present study indicates that the inhibition of the NLRP3 inflammasome activation might be one of the potential mechanisms for the therapeutic effects of XBXT against CINV.

Influence of Hemoglobin Level on Muscle and Physical Functions, Activities of Daily Living, and Quality of Life in Patients With Hematological Malignancies

Purpose. Patients with hematological malignancies often present with reduced muscle and physical functions, which are caused by the disease or related treatment. Moreover, patients with hematological malignancies rapidly develop low hemoglobin levels, and this may affect muscle and physical functions. This study aimed to identify the influence of hemoglobin levels on muscle and physical functions in patients with hematological malignancies. Methods. Using a cross-sectional study design, this study included 60 patients with hematological malignancies (mean age = 68.0 ± 10.2 years, women 56.7%) who were hospitalized for chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-related side effects and underwent examination for skeletal muscle mass (SMM), muscle strength, physical function, activities of daily living (ADLs), psychological status, and quality-of-life (QOL), including physical symptoms. Participants were divided into 3 groups according to tertiles of hemoglobin levels: low (n = 19), middle (n = 20), and high (n = 21). Evaluation items were compared among the 3 groups. Results. There was no significant difference among the 3 groups in terms of SMM. The low hemoglobin group showed significantly higher values of fatigue and dyspnea and lower values of muscle strength, ADLs, and QOL than the high hemoglobin group. Conclusions. Hemoglobin levels did not affect SMM; however, muscle weakness, decrease in physical function, physical symptoms such as fatigue and dyspnea, and decline in ADLs and QOL were observed in patients with low hemoglobin levels.

Competing Morbidities In Advanced Head And Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Strong Implication Of A Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard approach for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Despite its undisputed advantages, CCRT is associated with acute and late toxicities, leading to unfavorable implications (eg, unplanned interruptions and noncancer-related mortality). The former prolongs the overall treatment time leading to a detrimental effect on tumor control. The latter consists of several noncancer morbidities arising from treatment-related toxicities, identifying a new pathway in cancer fate. This pathway has been termed noncancer mortality or competing mortality and consists of a series of treatment-competing morbidities, which nullify all therapeutic efforts aimed at curing these patients. The management of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who experience treatment-related toxicities is complex and requires expertise in oncological treatment as well as supportive care. The optimal management of these patients should start with knowledge regarding the most important competing morbidities developing during all phases of the disease (ie, from diagnosis to follow-up) to minimize treatment interruptions, ensure appropriate psychological support, and achieve the best oncological result. The purpose of the present review is to analyze the most important competing morbidities due to patient’s condition at baseline and CCRT, which could result in noncancer mortality. A multidisciplinary team approach is strongly required in the management of this disease.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Randomized Phase II Trial to Compare the Efficacy of Haloperidol and Olanzapine in the Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Nepal

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to compare efficacy and toxicity of olanzapine (OLN; a higher-cost drug) and haloperidol (HAL; a lower-cost drug) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a randomized, phase II trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either OLN 10 mg orally on days 1 to 4 or HAL 1 mg orally on day 1 and 0.5 mg twice daily on days 2 to 4. Both groups received ondansetron 16 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg intravenously on day 1. Patients recorded their nausea using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and recorded daily episodes of vomiting from day 1 to day 5. The primary end point was complete nausea prevention (CNP; ie, ESAS of 0). Secondary end point was complete emesis prevention (CEP).

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned, and 64 received their allocated treatment (n = 32 in each arm). There was no difference in CNP during the overall period (days 1 to 5) between OLN and HAL (68.7% v 71.8%; P = .78). In the acute period (day 1) and the delayed period (days 2 to 5), CNP was similar between OLN and HAL (acute: 84.3% v 81.2%; delayed: 68.7% v 75%). No difference was identified in the rate of CEP during the overall period (81.2% with OLN v 78.1% with HAL; P = .75), during the acute period (93.7% with OLN v 90.6% with HAL), or during the delayed period (84.3% with OLN v 84.3% with HAL). No difference in toxicities was noted between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

In this study, HAL had comparable efficacy to OLN in the management of CINV, which suggests that it is the higher-value option in patients who receive HEC in resource-scarce countries.

TELENURSING FOR THE CONTROL OF CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED NAUSEA AND VOMITING: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

ABSTRACT Objective: to verify the effectiveness of telenursing in the control of nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic chemotherapy. Method: a randomized controlled trial of 61 cancer patients undergoing outpatient chemotherapy treatment, randomized into experimental group and control group. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated by the instrument Multinational Association on Supportive Care in Cancer. The telephone intervention was performed four times after chemotherapy. To verify the effects of this on the variables, the Mann-Whitney test and Student's t-test were used. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to confirm the hypothesis of differences in the pre- and post-test intragroup scores. Results: the groups were homogeneous regarding sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The experimental group showed a statistically significant reduction in the occurrence of nausea (p=0.0089), in the degree of nausea, in two moments, between 24 hours and three days, and three days and five days (p=0.007 and p=0.009, respectively), in the occurrence of vomiting (p=0.008) and in the number of vomiting episodes (p=0.020). Conclusion: telephone intervention is a potential nursing intervention to reduce nausea and vomiting associated with antineoplastic chemotherapy. Brazilian Clinical Trial Registry: RBR-6s8qm5.

Characteristics of muscle function and the effect of cachexia in patients with haematological malignancy

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated the muscle function of patients with haematological malignancy and healthy controls and examined the effect of cachexia on muscle function.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients with haematological malignancy, hospitalised for chemotherapy, and 71 healthy controls underwent examination of skeletal muscle mass (SMM; total body and upper and lower limbs), handgrip strength and isometric knee extensor strength. Patients with haematological malignancy were divided into three groups based on Glasgow Prognostic Score: non-cachexia (n = 31), pre-cachexia (n = 23) and cachexia (n = 17) groups. The evaluation items were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

Patients with haematological malignancy had lower SMM of the total body and lower limbs, handgrip strength and isometric knee extensor strength than healthy controls. There was no significant difference in SMM of the upper limbs among the groups. When classifying patients with haematological malignancy according to GPS, there was no significant difference among the three groups for any of the evaluation items.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with haematological malignancy, although significant muscle wasting and weakness were observed in the lower limbs, the effect of cachexia was minimal. The reduction in muscle function involved disuse syndrome, which accompanied a decline in physical activity.

Low-intensity exercise therapy with high frequency improves physical function and mental and physical symptoms in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy

This study aimed to investigate the effects of low-intensity exercise therapy (LIET) on the physical and mental symptoms and functions in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy. Forty-four patients hospitalised for chemotherapy performed LIET. The exercise intensity of LIET was defined as achieving <40% of the predicted maximum heart rate calculated using the Karvonen formula. LIET consisted of aerobic and resistance training, which was carried out on weekdays. The intervention was omitted in the case of poor general health status and strong patient refusal. Muscular and physical function, activities of daily living (ADLs), psychological distress and quality of life (QOL) were evaluated upon initiation of rehabilitation and at discharge. Participants were divided into high- and low-frequency groups according to their LIET frequency. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. In the high-frequency group, muscle function was maintained, while physical function, ADLs, psychological distress and QOL were significantly improved. However, in the low-frequency group, muscle function of the lower limb was significantly reduced and no other improvement was observed. Low-intensity exercise therapy could be a potential treatment strategy for patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy who are unable to perform mid- or high-intensity exercise.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

A review of the literature on the relationships between genetic polymorphisms and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Despite current advances in antiemetic treatments, between 30% to and 60% of oncology patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) and 13% to 33% report chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV). Inter-individual differences are observed in the occurrence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This review summarizes and critiques studies on associations between occurrence and severity of CINV and polymorphisms in serotonin receptor, drug metabolism, and drug transport pathway genes. Sixteen studies evaluated the associations between the occurrence and/or severity of CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Across these studies, three SNPs in 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor (5-HT3R) genes, two alleles of the cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily D member 6 (CYP2D6) gene, and three SNPs in ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1 (ABCB1) gene were associated with the occurrence and severity of CINV. Given the limited number of polymorphisms evaluated, additional research is warranted to identify new mechanisms to develop more targeted therapies.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of a ginger extract in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin

BACKGROUND

The activity of ginger in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been suggested, but design inadequacies, heterogeneity of the population, small numbers and poor quality of tested products limit the possibility to offer generalizable results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study in patients planned to receive ≥2 chemotherapy cycles with high dose (>50 mg/m2) cisplatin. Patients received ginger 160 mg/day (with standardized dose of bioactive compounds) or placebo in addition to the standard antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, starting from the day after cisplatin administration. CINV was assessed through daily visual-analogue scale and Functional Living Index Emesis questionnaires. The main objective was protection from delayed nausea; secondary end points included intercycle nausea and nausea anticipatory symptoms.

RESULTS

In total, 121 patients received ginger and 123 placebo. Lung (49%) and head and neck cancer (HNC; 35%) were the most represented tumors. No differences were reported in terms of safety profile or compliance. The incidence of delayed, intercycle and anticipatory nausea did not differ between the two arms in the first cycle and second cycle. A benefit of ginger over placebo in Functional Living Index Emesis nausea score differences (day 6-day 1) was identified for females (P = 0.048) and HNC patients (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with high-dose cisplatin, the daily addition of ginger, even if safe, did not result in a protective effect on CINV. The favorable effect observed on nausea in subgroups at particular risk of nausea (females; HNC) deserves specific investigation.

A review of oral cannabinoids and medical marijuana for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a focus on pharmacokinetic variability and pharmacodynamics

Purpose

Oral cannabinoids (i.e., dronabinol, nabilone) containing the active component of marijuana, delta(Δ)9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are available for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer who have failed to adequately respond to conventional antiemetic therapy. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of oral cannabinoids for patients with CINV.

Methods

A PubMed search of the English-language literature available through 4 January 2017 was conducted to identify relevant articles for inclusion in the review.

Results

Oral cannabinoids have been shown to have similar or improved efficacy compared with conventional antiemetics for the resolution of nausea and/or vomiting in patients with cancer. However, oral THC has high PK variability, with variability in oral dronabinol peak plasma concentrations (C_max) estimated between 150 and 200%. A new oral dronabinol solution has decreased intraindividual variability (area under the curve) vs oral dronabinol capsules. Further, oral THC has a slower time to C_max compared with THC administered intravenously (IV) or by smoking, and a lower systemic availability than IV or smoked THC. The PD profile (e.g., “high”) of oral THC differs from that of IV or smoked THC in healthy individuals. Oral cannabinoids are associated with greater incidence of adverse effects compared with conventional antiemetic therapy or placebo (e.g., dizziness, hypotension, and dysphoria or depression).

Conclusions

A new formulation of oral cannabinoids (i.e., dronabinol oral solution) minimized the PK/PD variability currently observed with capsule formulations.

New options and controversies in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

An expanding array of options for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including regimens containing olanzapine or recently approved neurokinin 1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists, are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Up to 80% of patients receiving chemotherapy have CINV. Current practice guidelines recommend that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy also receive a 3-drug antiemetic regimen initiated on the day of and continued for 3 days after chemotherapy administration, with the most commonly used 3-drug regimen consisting of an NK₁ receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Developments in the area of CINV management in recent years include the use of olanzapine in combination with a 5-HT₃ antagonist and dexamethasone; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant, which provides a longer duration of effect than aprepitant; FDA approval of a combination product containing palonosetron and the NK₁ receptor antagonist netupitant; and revisions of U.S. practice guidelines ending palonosetron's status as the preferred 5-HT₃ antagonist for prevention of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Newer therapeutic options for the management of CINV are equivalent to standard-of-care regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity. While the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant and a product combining palonosetron and netupitant have potential advantages over standard therapy in terms of convenience or pharmacologic properties, their relatively high costs must be considered.

Late chronotypes are associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, that is, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery, has been commonly used for locally advanced breast cancer to improve the surgical outcomes and increase the opportunity for breast-conserving therapy. Women with breast cancer often receive an anthracycline-based regimen as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with a high risk of emesis. Despite the development of novel antiemetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as a major adverse effect, affecting the quality of life of the patients. However, the factors predicting CINV in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. In this single-institution, prospective, observational study conducted at an outpatient cancer centre in the Republic of Korea from November 2013 to March 2016, we analysed women with breast cancer who planned to be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CINV was assessed after chemotherapy by using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool. Of a total of 143 participants, 7 patients were lost to follow-up and 2 patients were excluded due to changes in their treatment plan; thus, 134 patients were finally included in the analyses. Overall, 48.5% of the participants experienced CINV, with delayed CINV prevalence (42.5%) being more common than acute (39.6%). In the univariate analyses, overall CINV was significantly associated with late chronotypes (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-8.87; p = 0.009), a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10-4.37; p = 0.026) and anxiety (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.81; p = 0.036). In the multivariate analyses, late chronotypes (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.27-9.79; p = 0.015) and a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.31-6.13; p = 0.008) remained significantly associated with CINV. In conclusion, in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, late chronotypes were found to have an increased risk of CINV; these data suggest that clinicians need to assess and consider the chronotype in the management of CINV.

Sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets various receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Sunitinib received approval in 2006 and became a standard treatment option in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) after a phase III trial showed superiority compared with interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sunitinib has also shown activity in second-line treatment in several trials. Most of the combination trials with sunitinib with various agents have led to considerable toxicity without improving efficacy. Sunitinib alone causes significant side effects and has a distinct profile with diarrhoea, hypertension, skin effects hypothyroidism, fatigue and nausea of special interest. The recommended dose of sunitinib in mRCC is 50 mg orally daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment (4/2 schedule). An alternative 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule (2/1 schedule) seems to be of similar efficacy and better tolerability and could be more widely used in the future. An intermittent treatment strategy with a stop in remission and re-induction after progression showed efficacy in smaller trials and is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Direct comparison of sunitinib with pazopanib in first-line treatment showed a similar efficacy for both TKIs with a distinct toxicity profile. Data from two phase II trials showed that sunitinib has also activity in non-clear cell cancer and is an option due to a lack of better alternatives. Currently, after immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown very promising results in the second-line treatment of RCC, they are being tested in a number of phase III trials in the first-line setting. The future will show the position of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of RCC in the era of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Primary treatment of stage IV gestational trophoblastic neoplasia with floxuridine, dactinomycin, etoposide and vincristine (FAEV): A report based on our 10-year clinical experiences

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity profile of floxuridine, dactinomycin, etoposide and vincristine (FAEV) regimen as primary treatment in stage IV gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).

METHODS

From 2004 to 2014, FAEV was given to 30 stage IV GTNs as the primary treatment (at least two cycles) in Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Remission/resistance/recurrence rate, the cause of treatment failure, and the toxicity profile were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 190cycles of FAEV were administered to 30 patients; the median number of the cycles was 6 (range 3-11). The median follow up was 52.3months (range 8-120). Of all the patients received FAEV primarily, 24 achieved complete remission after only received FAEV, with no recurrence; 6 patients later switched to EMA-CO treatment due to FAEV resistance. Among the 6 patients, 2 died of progressive disease after multiple lines of chemotherapy, the other 4 achieved complete remission after second-line or third-line chemotherapy and 1 of them relapsed 15months later. FAEV was well tolerated. No one died from toxicity. Severe grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were noted in 8 (26.7%) and 2 (6.7%) cases. No secondary malignancy was observed with follow-ups from 8 to120 months. Patients treated with FAEV showed good reproductive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

FAEV regimen might be considered as an alternative to other chemotherapy regimen in the primary treatment of stage IV GTN, where it had a high rate of remission and a tolerable toxicity.

Prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced delayed nausea and vomiting using triple antiemetic regimens: a mixed treatment comparison

A variety of triple antiemetic regimens are being used to prevent cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced delayed emesis and nausea in cancer patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the different regimens. Electronic searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, and data were analyzed using JAGS, Stata 14.0 and R project. The primary outcome was a complete response (CR). The secondary outcomes were no vomiting (NV) and no nausea (NN). Among the 398 studies identified, 10 were eligible and included, providing data on nine regimens. In the CR analysis, the absolute rank of netupitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone (NEPA) was 0.8579. In the NV and NN analyses, NEPA's absolute ranks were 0.8631 and 0.7902, respectively. The compliance of patients treated with rolapitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (RGD) was the best due to a low incidence of adverse events, and good compliance was also observed with NEPA. It was difficult to achieve good compliance with aprepitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (AGD). Overall, NEPA was the best regimen, and aprepitant + ondansetron + dexamethasone (AOD) is also worthy of recommendation because of its low cost and good effect. For patients with severe constipation, hiccups, asthenia and/or delayed nausea, RGD is worthy of consideration.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting incidence and prevalence

Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is recognized as having been an important problem during the initial introduction of chemotherapy into the antineoplastic armamentarium, the assumption that this problem has already been solved can restrict optimal management and further advances. Underestimation of nausea and vomiting may have many causes. If these toxicities are assumed to be necessary properties of chemotherapy, then their incidence may be taken for granted. If nausea and vomiting appear after discharge from the clinic several days after chemotherapy, these toxicities may not be reported because of poor recall or because of efforts by patients to avoid unnecessary complaints. Physician education may be compromised if physicians see nausea and vomiting as population problems but not problems for their own patients. Failure to recognize nausea and vomiting as two distinct entities that may appear independently of each other can also limit understanding of the prevalence of these problems and efforts at effective management. Continued attention to the impact of nausea and vomiting on the patient experience will be necessary to insure optimal maintenance of quality of life.

Phase II randomized, controlled trial of 1 day versus 3 days of dexamethasone combined with palonosetron and aprepitant to prevent nausea and vomiting in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone, plus a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist are recommended for controlling the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Several days of dexamethasone are effective for CINV; however, dexamethasone also has side effects. The purpose of this trial was to investigate whether the use of a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist could allow a reduced dose of dexamethasone for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Eighty breast cancer patients who received an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination regimen were enrolled. The patients were randomized to arm A (dexamethasone days 1-3) and arm B (dexamethasone day 1). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). The secondary endpoints were the CR during the delayed phase (days 2-5), complete control (CC) (no emetic episodes, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase, and the safety of this antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of CR and CC between arm A and B as follows: CR overall phase--arm A: 82.9%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-90.5% vs arm B: 82.1%, 90% CI 70.0-90.0%; p = 1.00; CR delayed phase--arm A: 87.8%, 90% CI 77.0-93.9% vs arm B: 94.9%, 90% CI 85.6-98.3%; p = 0.43; CC overall phase--arm A: 48.8%, 90% CI 36.4-61.3% vs arm B: 61.5%, 90% CI 48.4-73.2%; p = 0.27. There were very few adverse events and no severe adverse events associated with this antiemetic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the antiemetic effect provided by dexamethasone administered for 3 days can be obtained by dexamethasone administered for 1 day.

Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Oral Anticancer Therapies for Solid Tumors

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a common and debilitating side effect despite recent advances in its prevention and treatment. The intrinsic emetogenicity of chemotherapy agents allowed grouping into four risk groups (high, moderate, low, and minimal risk of emetogenicity). The prevention of acute and delayed CINV for intravenous agents and one day regimens is well studied, although, there are few data about management of CINV induced by oral cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies, usually administered in extended regimens of daily oral use. Until now treatment of nausea and vomiting caused by oral antineoplastic agents remains largely empirical. The level of evidence of prophylactic antiemetics recommended for these agents is low. There are differences in the classification of emetogenic potential of oral antineoplastic agents between the international guidelines and different recommendations for prophylactic antiemetic regimens. Herein we review the evidence for antiemetic regimens for the most used oral antineoplastic agents for solid tumors and propose antiemetic regimens for high to moderate risk and low to minimal risk of emetogenicity.

Assessment of adherence to the guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

Objective:

To assess adherence of the prescribing physicians in a private cancer care center to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetic prophylaxis, in the first cycle of antineoplastic chemotherapy.

Methods:

A total of 139 chemotherapy regimens, of 105 patients, were evaluated retrospectively from 2011 to 2013.

Results:

We observed 78% of non-adherence to the guideline rate. The main disagreements with the directive were the prescription of higher doses of dexamethasone and excessive use of 5-HT3 antagonist for low risk emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. On univariate analysis, hematological malignancies (p=0.005), the use of two or more chemotherapy (p=0.05) and high emetogenic risk regimes (p=0.012) were factors statistically associated with greater adherence to guidelines. Treatment based on paclitaxel was the only significant risk factor for non-adherence (p=0.02). By multivariate analysis, the chemotherapy of high emetogenic risk most correlated with adherence to guideline (p=0.05).

Conclusion:

We concluded that the adherence to guidelines is greater if the chemotherapy regime has high emetogenic risk. Educational efforts should focus more intensely on the management of chemotherapy regimens with low and moderate emetogenic potential. Perhaps the development of a computer generated reminder may improve the adherence to guidelines.

Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.

Impact of CINV in earlier cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles in Asia Pacific clinical practice

PURPOSE

We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles.

METHODS

Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen.

RESULTS

There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.

Efficacy and safety of NEPA, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized dose-ranging pivotal study

BACKGROUND

NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase.

RESULTS

All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND.

Health-related quality of life after treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma in young adults

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and to identify supportive care services used after treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in young adults.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, repeated-measures study design was used to test the feasibility of data collection at the conclusion of treatment for HL and at one, three, and six months post-treatment.

SETTING

Participants were identified from two large comprehensive cancer centers in New England.

SAMPLE

40 young adults with newly diagnosed HL were enrolled in the study prior to the completion of chemotherapy or radiation.

METHODS

Data were collected by interviews, standardized questionnaires, and medical record reviews.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

HRQOL variables defined as symptom distress, functional status, emotional distress, and intimate relationships; use of specific supportive care services; and baseline demographic and disease-related information.

FINDINGS

Results indicate that symptom distress improved at one month post-treatment and remained low at three and six months. Similarly, functional status improved at one month post-treatment. Only 13% of the sample had significant emotional distress at baseline, and this decreased to 8% over time. Patients placed high value on their intimate relationships (i.e., family and friends or sexual partners). A variety of supportive care services were used after treatment, the most common of which were related to economic issues. However, by six months post-treatment, services shifted toward enhancing nutrition and fitness.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study suggest that HRQOL in young adults with HL improved one-month post-treatment and that interest in using supportive care services was high.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Facilitating the use of supportive care services at the end of cancer treatment appears to be an important part of helping young adults transition to survivorship.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION

Supportive care services appear to be a vital component of the transition to survivorship and often change over time from an emphasis on economic issues to enhancing wellness through nutrition and fitness programs.

International antiemetic guidelines on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): content and implementation in daily routine practice

Over the past decades major improvements in the management of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were obtained. With the correct use of antiemetic drugs, CINV can be prevented in almost 70%, and even up to, 80% of patients. Treatment guidelines enable physicians to integrate the latest clinical research into their daily practice. The large volume of rapidly evolving clinical data has been summarised and incorporated into treatment recommendations by well-known and reliable institutions. These organisations include the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, despite the availability of these guidelines, there is an emerging evidence that adherence to, and implementation of, treatment recommendations is less than optimal. This review will especially focus on the content of the current antiemetic guidelines and will address the important question of how these guidelines are implemented in routine practice.

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Purpose

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT₃ RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.

Results

CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT₃ RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98–1.34), 1.62 (1.40–1.88), and 1.56 (1.34–1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT₃ RAs (27.5 %).

Conclusions

Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT₃ RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.