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

Low dose of dexamethasone combined with netupitant and palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients induced by anthracycline drugs

BACKGROUND

To study the effects of various courses of dexamethasone (DEX) combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) and NK-1 RA in suppressing high-grade nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy regimens (AC or EC) in breast cancer (BC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed with 252 BC patients who received AC between January, 2019 and June, 2022 in our hospital. Patients were randomly separated into control Group (N = 130) who received DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on day 2-4 and observation group (N = 122) treated with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4. The response was monitored. Primary study endpoint was complete resolution (CR) of patients nausea or vomiting; secondary study endpoints included acute CR and delayed CR; and complete control (CC), acute CC, delayed CC, and safety.

RESULTS

All patients underwent six rounds of chemotherapy, and no difference was found in the clinical data. CR of acute/delayed phase was (94.3%/88.5%, P > 0.05), (89.3%/90.8%, P > 0.05); total CR was (80.3%/81.5%, P > 0.05); CC was (56.6%/59.2%, P > 0.05), (64.8%/67.7%, P > 0.05); total CR was (48.4%/53.1%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The preventive antiemetic effects of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron combined with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4, can be similar to DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on days 2-4, low-dose hormone with better safety, which is beneficial.

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone sparing for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic risk antineoplastic agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects, classified according to timing and severity. Conventional agents such as dexamethasone are effective but have various side effects. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapies have been developed to minimize these side effects. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 antagonists (NK1RA) for HEC using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases. A qualitative analysis of the combined data was performed and risk differences with confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Two reviewers independently assessed the 425 records and 12 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Two studies were included in the qualitative and meta-analyses. These studies included anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens and cisplatin-based regimens, with palonosetron as the serotonin receptor antagonist. In the two studies, no difference was found in the prevention of vomiting (delayed complete response). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated in the subgroup that received cisplatin-containing regimens. Delayed complete control showed different results for nausea prevention; however, there was no significant difference in the meta-analysis. Only one report has shown non-inferiority for delayed total control. Although the strength of evidence for individual outcomes varied, there was no difference in the duration of dexamethasone administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with NK1RA and palonosetron can be used to prevent CINV in HEC, limited to AC combination therapy.

Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, several randomized controlled trials have compared single-day dexamethasone (dexamethasone-sparing) regimens to the current standard multi-day dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing regimens to standard multi-day dexamethasone, used for the prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from database inception to March 2024. Studies were included if they reported on randomized controlled trials of adult cancer patients receiving different scheduling of dexamethasone, for the endpoints of complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety was also assessed. Meta-analysis, leave-one-out meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted to generate summary effect estimates and assess the influence of single trials on the summary effect estimate.

RESULTS

Ten trials reporting on 2234 patients were included. Dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to control arm in the acute (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08), delayed (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) and overall phases (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) for complete response. There was likewise no difference for complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety profile was similar. There was no concern for bias in the published literature. No difference was found between studies reporting on anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to current multi-day regimens with respect to efficacy and safety for MEC and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Clinicians and future guidelines should strongly consider greater adoption and endorsement of dexamethasone-sparing regimens.

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Impact of reducing day 1 dexamethasone dose in anthracycline-containing regimens on acute gastrointestinal symptoms associated with breast cancer treatment

The potential of steroid sparing from day 2 onward is reported in anthracycline-containing regimens for breast cancer treatment. We evaluated whether the reduction of dexamethasone (DEX) dose from 9.9 to 6.6 mg on day 1 is possible in anthracycline-containing treatments. Patients receiving anthracycline-containing regimens were divided into control (9.9 mg DEX on day 1) and reduced (6.6 mg DEX on day 1) groups, and retrospectively evaluated. The complete response (CR) rate and the incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fatigue were evaluated. The CR rate in the acute phase (day 1) was 63.1% and 38.1% in the control and reduced groups, respectively, with significant difference (P = 0.01) between the groups. However, no difference was found in the delayed phase (days 2–7). The incidence of anorexia and vomiting during treatment was not statistically different. Severity of nausea tended to, but not statistically, worsen while anorexia significantly worsened in the reduced group. Multivariate analysis suggested that patients < 55 years, with non- or less-alcohol drinking habit (< 5 days/week), and administered reduced-DEX dosage on day 1, have a higher risk of acute nausea development. Thus, reducing day 1 DEX dose in anthracycline-containing regimens is not suitable for acute nausea management.

Changes in eating habits and food preferences in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy

Change in eating habits in early breast cancer (EBC) patients during chemotherapy has been poorly studied in the literature. The primary aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate food preferences and weight change in EBC patients before and after adjuvant chemotherapy. From April 2014 to June 2018, 205 EBC patients underwent a dietary assessment according to the following timeline: baseline evaluation (one week before starting chemotherapy, T0); first follow-up (approximately 2–3 months after starting chemotherapy, T1); final follow-up (one week after chemotherapy end, T2). A statistically significant reduction of the following foods was reported after the start of chemotherapy: pasta or rice, bread, breadsticks/crackers, red meat, fat and lean salami, fresh and aged cheese, milk, yogurt, added sugar, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages (wine, beer, and schnapps), and condiments (oil and butter). Conversely, fruit consumption consistently increased. As a result of these changes, a Healthy Eating Index (HEI) specifically developed for this study and suggestive of a balanced diet, significantly increased. Body weight did not increase, despite reduction in physical activity. This prospective study shows that EBC patients tend to adopt “healthier dietary patterns” during adjuvant chemotherapy, leading to a non-change in weight, despite reduction in physical activity.

Identification of optimal contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis for doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in Chinese cancer patients: post-hoc analysis of 3 prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), corticosteroid, and dopamine antagonists. This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received (neo)adjuvant AC, in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients were included: Group 1, ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 2, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 3, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3); Group 4, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3)/olanzapine; and Group 5, netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone (D1-3). Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3, 4, and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1. In addition, emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5, and those of Groups 2 and 3, were compared.

RESULTS

When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet (5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with triplet antiemetic regimens (NK1RA/5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with/without olanzapine, complete response (CR) percentages and quality of life (QOL) in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups: Group 1 vs. 3, 41.9% vs. 38.3% (P = 0.6849); Group 1 vs. 4, 41.9% vs. 65.0% (P = 0.0107); and Group 1 vs. 5, 41.9% vs. 60.0% (P = 0.0460). Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing netupitant-based (Group 3) with aprepitant-based (Group 5) triplet antiemetics, CR percentages were 38.3% vs. 60.0%, respectively (P = 0.0176); Group 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing 1 day (Group 2) vs. 3 day (Group 3) dexamethasone, CR percentages were 46.8% and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.3459); Group 3 had a worse QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics. Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets. Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.

Efficacy of one-day versus multiple-day dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategies (one-day DEX) with palonosetron as doublet antiemetic prophylaxis have previously been studied. However, DEX-sparing regimens with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃RA, APR, and DEX on day 1 of carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

Data were pooled from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study using propensity score-matched analysis to compare the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) between one- and multiple-day DEX regimens in combination with 5-HT₃RA plus APR.

RESULTS

Incidence of delayed nausea was significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group. Incidence of nausea was also significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group on days 3-5. Kaplan-Meier curves for nausea showed a significant difference between the two groups; however, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of vomiting or the Kaplan-Meier curves of time to vomiting.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of a DEX-sparing regimen by comparing one- and multiple-day DEX combined with 5-HT₃RA and APR concerning CINV incidence in lung cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens of one-day DEX result in poor control of delayed nausea; therefore, we recommend the application of the DEX-sparing strategy only after careful patient selection while considering the development of nausea.

Adjuvant chemotherapy-associated lipid changes in breast cancer patients: A real-word retrospective analysis

Adjuvant chemotherapy may cause alterations in serum lipids in postoperative breast cancer (BC) patients, but the specific alterations caused by different chemotherapy regimens remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of serum lipids pre- and post-chemotherapy and to compare the side effects of different chemotherapy regimens on serum lipid.We retrospectively analysed the lipid profiles of 1934 consecutive postoperative BC patients who received one of the following chemotherapy regimens:The levels of triglycerides (TG), total cholesterols (TC), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) were significantly elevated in patients who received chemotherapy regimens above (P < .001). With respect to different chemotherapy regimens, FEC had less side effects on lipid profiles (TG (P = .006), high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) (P < .001), and LDL-C (P < .001)) than TC regimen and AC-T and EC-T regimen. Also, the incidence of newly diagnosed dyslipidemia after chemotherapy was lower in FEC group than TC group and AC-T and EC-T group (P < .001). Additionally, the magnitude of the alterations in lipid profiles (TG, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C) was greater in premenopausal patients than that of the postmenopausal patients (P = .004; P < .001; P = .002; P = .003, respectively). Moreover, after adjusting for multiple baseline covariates, anthracycline-plus-taxane-based regimens (AC-T and EC-T) were still statistically associated with a high level of TG (P = .004) and a low level of HDL-C (P = .033) after chemotherapy compared with FEC regimen. Also, body mass index (BMI) > 24 was associated with abnormal lipid profiles (TG, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C) post-chemotherapy compared with BMI ≤ 24 (P < .001; P = .036; P = .012; P = .048, respectively).BC patients receiving chemotherapy may have elevated lipid profiles, and anthracycline-based regimen had less side effects on lipid profiles compared with regimens containing taxane. Therefore, it is necessary to take lipid metabolism into consideration when making chemotherapy decisions and dyslipidemia prevention and corresponding interventions are indispensable during the whole chemotherapy period.

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

BACKGROUND

Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.

RESULTS

Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of - 4% (range, - 1% to - 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Prospective Analysis of Food Consumption and Nutritional Status and the Impact on the Dietary Inflammatory Index in Women with Breast Cancer during Chemotherapy

Considering the implications of adverse effects of chemotherapy (CT) and the potential impact of diet on patients' recovery, this study aimed to prospectively evaluate the association between the consumption of food groups, patients' Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®) scores, and their nutritional status. Anthropometric and dietary assessments of 55 women with breast cancer (BC) were performed at three time points. T0 is the time point after the first CT cycle, T1 is the time point after the intermediate CT cycle, and T2 is the time point after the last CT cycle. We identified a significant increase in weight, body mass index, and waist circumference during CT. Consumption of poultry and eggs was higher in T1 when compared to T2, while consumption of total fruit and total vegetables was higher at T0 compared to T1 and T2. The diet became more pro-inflammatory over the course of treatment (X2(2) = 61.127), and was related to higher abdominal adiposity. Total fruit (T0: R2 = 0.208, T1: R2 = 0.095, T2: R2 = 0.120) and total vegetable consumption (T0: R2 = 0.284, T1: R2 = 0.365, T2: R2 = 0.580) predicted DII® change at the three-time points. Meanwhile, consumption of total grains was significantly associated only with T1 (R2 = 0.084) and T2 (R2 = 0.118), and consumption of simple sugars was significantly associated only with T0 (R2 = 0.137) and T1 (R2 = 0.126). Changes in food consumption led to an increase in the inflammatory profile of the diet, suggesting the necessity to improve the guidelines during and after CT. These results reinforce the need to promote healthier eating practices in concert with maintaining a healthy nutritional status in women with BC treated with CT.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimen is an effective and safe alternative in overall antiemetic protection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analyisis to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance dexamethasone against acute or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetic risk chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data comparing maintenance dexamethasone with single-dose dexamethasone during the acute, delayed, and overall phase of CINV were extracted. Overall risk ratio (RR) was used to estimate the efficacy and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. In delayed phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.14), complete response (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11), complete control (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16), and total control (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23). In overall phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11), complete response (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 -1.09), complete control (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13), total control (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23), and no rescue medication (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19). Maintenance dexamethasone was only superior to single-dose dexamethasone for no rescue medication during delayed phase (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21, P = .034). The incidence of hiccup was observed higher in maintenance dexamethasone group (RR = 3.16, 95% CI, 1.12-8.92).

CONCLUSION

The single-dose dexamethasone regimen offers high and similar overall control of symptoms as the maintenance dexamethasone regimen in this population. Multiple-day dexamethasone was suitable for patients who used rescue medication during the delayed phase.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone in Combination with Palonosetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data-Based Meta-Analysis

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects associated with the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs. This article evaluates differences in complete response rates and other antiemetic outcomes in dexamethasone‐spacing regimens.

Background.

A dexamethasone‐sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta‐analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).

Materials and Methods.

We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2–3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy‐naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)‐containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5‐day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at −8.0% (d1 arm−d3 arm).

Results.

Five studies (n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate − 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −7.1 to 4.0%, I² = 0%; in complete control rate − 2.4%, 95% CI −7.7 to 2.9%, I² = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption).

Conclusion.

This IPD meta‐analysis indicates that the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC‐containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV.

Implications for Practice.

Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual‐patient‐data meta‐analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone‐related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Impact of chemotherapy on perceptions related to food intake in women with breast cancer: A prospective study

Breast cancer (BC) treatment includes mostly chemotherapy (CT), which can cause side effects like nausea, taste changes, early satiety, slow gastric emptying and xerostomia. In this way, the individual's relationship with food may change during the treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy on perceptions related to food intake of women with BC. Fifty-five women with BC were followed, and data were collected at three periods during first-line CT: beginning (T0), intermediate (T1) and end (T2). A visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 10 cm) for hunger, appetite for various food categories and meal enjoyment was investigated. The frequency and intensity of side effects were evaluated using a 4 cm scale. The results showed a higher prevalence of taste changes in T1 (p = 0.044) and more nausea in T1 and T2 (p = 0.018). Furthermore, the intensity of nausea was higher in T2 (p = 0.01) than in the other periods. We observed moderate hunger in T0, T1 and T2 (p = 0.113), but the overall appetite increased between T0 and T2 (p = 0.003). Meal enjoyment was reduced from T0 to T1and returned back to the initial value in T2 (p = 0.021). The appetite for salty (p = 0.004) and spicy (p = 0.03) foods was increased in T1. There was an increase of body weight (p = 0.008), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.009) and waist circumference (WC) (p = 0.03) during CT. CT changes food hedonism, increasing the overall appetite and the appetite for salty and spicy foods. Moreover, we observed the negative impact of CT on meal enjoyment and an increase in side effects and anthropometric parameters.