2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting

Addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to standard antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving EPOCH

INTRODUCTION

Data on the optimal management of patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are lacking, particularly for multiday chemotherapy regimens. We report our institutional experience in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving multiday dose-adjusted R-EPOCH chemotherapy utilizing two CINV prophylaxis strategies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating hospitalized patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving DA-R-EPOCH (April 2016 to October 2022). All patients received prophylactic corticosteroid and 5HT3-receptor antagonist, and were categorized by the addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) or not. The primary outcome was complete response (CR, no vomiting, and no rescue medication use) over 120 h. Secondary outcomes included as-needed antiemetic use (acute, delayed, and overall phases), CR without escalating prophylactic antiemetics in cycle 2, and complete control. We performed a descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression for NK1RA use, adjusting for age and sex.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 56 (43.8%) received an NK1RA as part of their antiemetic regimen, and 72 (56.3%) did not. No patients received prophylactic olanzapine. CR was achieved in 32 (57.1%) of those who received an NK1RA and 30 (41.7%) who did not (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.96; p = 0.039). We observed trends between groups in as-needed antiemetics use (29 [51.8%] vs. 49 [68.1%]; p = 0.061), with most use in the delayed phase (22 [39.3%] vs. 37 [51.4%], p = 0.173). We found no difference in healthcare utilization between the first and second cycle.

CONCLUSION

CINV control in patients with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving DA-R-EPOCH in the hospital was suboptimal. These data support the need to optimize prophylactic antiemetic regimens for patients receiving DA-R-EPOCH.

Efficacy of Rikkunshito on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Uterine Corpus or Cervical Cancer Treated With Cisplatin-Based Regimen-Placebo-controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Confirmatory Study (JORTC-KMP03)

BACKGROUND

The current standard treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with standard antiemetics is insufficient. Rikkunshito, a Japanese traditional herbal medicine, has been shown to improve cisplatin-induced anorexia and functional dyspepsia, and our exploratory study found that rikkunshito has an additive beneficial effect on CINV in patients with uterine corpus and cervical cancer receiving cisplatin containing chemotherapy (JORTC KMP-02).

METHODS

One hundred eighty patients with uterine corpus or cervical cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with a cisplatin based regimen as initial chemotherapy were enrolled across 17 Japanese institutions. Patients were randomized with a 1:1 equal allocation ratio to the rikkunshito group or placebo groups and given oral administration on days 1 to 5 with standard antiemetics (granisetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours after cisplatin treatment). The secondary endpoints were complete control (CC; CR without significant nausea) and total control (TC; CR without nausea) rates during the overall (0-120 hours), acute (0-24 hours), and delayed phases, as well as the CR rate during the overall and acute phases, time to treatment failure, degree of nausea and appetite during the overall phase, and adherence to the intervention.

RESULTS

The CR rate in the delayed phase was similar between the rikkunshito group and control groups (50.6% vs 58.9%, P = .2631), as were the secondary endpoints: CR rates in the overall and acute phases, CC and TC rates in the overall, acute, and delayed phases, degrees of nausea and appetite, and time to treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

Rikkunshito had no additive effect on CINV prevention in patients with uterine corpus or cervical cancer who were treated with a cisplatin based regimen and standard antiemetics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://jrct.mhlw.go.jp/re/reports/detail/66957, identifier jRCT1011190007.

Auriculotherapy and acupuncture treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter clinical trial

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting complicating chemotherapy (CINV) remain side effects despite preventive and curative treatments. We hypothesize that acupuncture (ACU), auriculotherapy (AUR), and their combination (ACU-AUR), could decrease, compared to usual treatment (UT), the intensity of acute nausea in patients already treated according to the antiemetic guidelines and presenting nausea with or without vomiting in the earlier cycle.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients were treated just before chemotherapy according to randomization. ACU consisted of implanting bilaterally on each forearm, one semi-permanent needle at point P6. AUR consisted of implanting bilaterally on each pavilion of the ear, one semi-permanent needle at point O. All patients received systematic preventive drug treatment according to antiemetic guidelines. Main outcome was intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy using a numeric scale ranging from 0 (no nausea) to 10 (maximum symptoms).

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups at inclusion. Intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy, was statistically different between the groups (covariance intergroup analysis, p = 0.005) and was significantly lower for the all-treatment groups vs UT group (p = 0.007 for AUR, p = 0.008 for ACU, and p = 0.0009 for AUR-ACU). AUR-ACU also decreased intensity of delayed nausea when compared to UT (p = 0.023). AUR, ACU and AUR-ACU had no effect on acute and delayed vomiting episodes. No serious adverse event due to the studied treatments was reported in our study.

CONCLUSION

AUR or ACU reduce intensity of acute and delayed nausea in patients treated by optimal antiemetic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier NCT02767791, registered on May 10, 2016.

Hepatic IRE1α-XBP1 signaling promotes GDF15-mediated anorexia and body weight loss in chemotherapy

Platinum-based chemotherapy drugs can lead to the development of anorexia, a detrimental effect on the overall health of cancer patients. However, managing chemotherapy-induced anorexia and subsequent weight loss remains challenging due to limited effective therapeutic strategies. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) has recently gained significant attention in the context of chemotherapy-induced anorexia. Here, we report that hepatic GDF15 plays a crucial role in regulating body weight in response to chemo drugs cisplatin and doxorubicin. Cisplatin and doxorubicin treatments induce hepatic Gdf15 expression and elevate circulating GDF15 levels, leading to hunger suppression and subsequent weight loss. Mechanistically, selective activation by chemotherapy of hepatic IRE1α-XBP1 pathway of the unfolded protein response (UPR) upregulates Gdf15 expression. Genetic and pharmacological inactivation of IRE1α is sufficient to ameliorate chemotherapy-induced anorexia and body weight loss. These results identify hepatic IRE1α as a molecular driver of GDF15-mediated anorexia and suggest that blocking IRE1α RNase activity offers a therapeutic strategy to alleviate the adverse anorexia effects in chemotherapy.

Use of chronic medications and risk of death due to COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential association between chronic exposure to medication and death related to COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study that included all patients hospitalised due to COVID-19 from 11 March to 4 June 2020 in our centre. Chronic patient medication was classified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification; demographic and clinical data were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of death for each drug exposure; each aOR represents an independent model adjusted by clinical factors related to COVID-19 mortality.

RESULTS

The study included 978 patients with a mean (SD) age of 64.5 (17.7) years who were predominantly male (531, 54.3%). Of all 978 patients, 182 (18.61%) died during the follow-up of the study. The most common Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 0, 4.2% were smokers, 16.7% were obese, 47.4% had hypertension, and 19.4% were diabetic. Most patients (70.8%) were prescribed at least one treatment, 32.5% used >5 treatments, and 8.6% >10. Our data suggest that COVID-19 hospitalised patients taking trimethoprim and analogues, leukotriene receptor antagonists, calcineurin inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists, selective immunosuppressants, propulsives, insulins and analogues, and benzodiazepine derivatives have a higher risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the association between chronic exposure to drugs and the risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Our results have shed some light on the impact of chronic drug exposure on the risk of severe COVID-19; however, further research is needed to increase the understanding about its relevance.

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

Palonosetron for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09-1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023.

RESULTS

We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

[Prevention, Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-up of Lung Cancer - Interdisciplinary Guideline of the German Respiratory Society and the German Cancer Society - Abridged Version]

The current S3 Lung Cancer Guidelines are edited with fundamental changes to the previous edition based on the dynamic influx of information to this field:The recommendations include de novo a mandatory case presentation for all patients with lung cancer in a multidisciplinary tumor board before initiation of treatment, furthermore CT-Screening for asymptomatic patients at risk (after federal approval), recommendations for incidental lung nodule management , molecular testing of all NSCLC independent of subtypes, EGFR-mutations in resectable early stage lung cancer in relapsed or recurrent disease, adjuvant TKI-therapy in the presence of common EGFR-mutations, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in resected lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, obligatory evaluation of PD-L1-status, consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition after radiochemotherapy in patients with PD-L1-pos. tumor, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition in patients withPD-L1 ≥ 50% stage IIIA and treatment options in PD-L1 ≥ 50% tumors independent of PD-L1status and targeted therapy and treatment option immune chemotherapy in first line SCLC patients.Based on the current dynamic status of information in this field and the turnaround time required to implement new options, a transformation to a "living guideline" was proposed.

Tolerability and efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy when administered with a corticosteroid-free anti-emetic regimen

BACKGROUND

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy is commonplace. This study sought to determine whether the omission of corticosteroids from the antiemetic regimen in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy changes control of nausea and time on ICI therapy.

METHODS

This single-site, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Veteran Health Indiana, a level 1A Veterans Affairs tertiary care facility. All patients who received concurrent chemoimmunotherapy between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included. The replacement of corticosteroids with olanzapine in chemoimmunotherapy regimens occurred on March 27, 2019. Outcomes were compared in patients who received corticosteroids as part of antiemetic prophylaxis versus patients in whom corticosteroids were omitted. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving an anti-nausea complete control response (CCR) or partial control response (PCR) with antiemetic prophylaxis, and the time on ICI therapy in months.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients received a chemotherapeutic agent with a concomitant ICI during the designated time frame and were included for anti-emetogenic and ICI efficacy analysis, 36 patients received corticosteroids with chemoimmunotherapy and 36 patients did not. CCR was achieved in 55.6% of patients who received corticosteroids and in 69.4% of patients who did not. PCR was 19.4% versus 25.0%, respectively. Removal of corticosteroids from chemoimmunotherapy regimens did not result in a significant difference in nausea control or time on ICI therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest corticosteroids may be safely continued, or removed and replaced by other novel agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when administered with ICIs.

Evaluation of Current Antiemetic Therapy Response in Patients Undergoing MEC or HEC Regimens in Portugal

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impact cancer patients' quality of life and treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the achievement of complete response to CINV prophylaxis during the first five days after chemotherapy in adult outpatient cancer clinics with solid malignant tumours receiving Moderate or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) in Portugal. During the study, patients completed three evaluations, and nausea severity and CINV impact on patients' daily life was assessed. A complete response (no emetic episodes, no use of rescue antiemetic medication, and no more than mild nausea) was observed in 72% of the cycles (N = 161) throughout the five days after chemotherapy. Amongst the patient population, 25% classified their CINV episodes as severe. Though more than half of the patients achieved a complete response, suggesting that a therapeutic effort is being made to minimise this side effect, the overall scenario is barely optimistic. Significantly, new CINV-control measures in MEC/HEC patients should be adopted, specifically avoiding the single use of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 and raising awareness of using NK1-RAs. Thus, it is critical to improve CINV prophylactic treatment and implement practical international antiemetic guidelines in Portuguese clinical practice, envisaging the improvement of supportive care for cancer patients.

Overestimation of the effect of (fos)aprepitant on intravenous dexamethasone pharmacokinetics requires adaptation of the guidelines for children with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects in pediatric oncology treatment. Besides 5-HT₃-antagonists, both dexamethasone and aprepitant are cornerstone drugs in controlling these side effects. Based on results of adult studies, the dexamethasone dose is reduced by 50% when combined with aprepitant, because of a drug-drug interaction, even though data on the interaction in children is lacking. The current study was developed to investigate the effect of aprepitant on dexamethasone clearance (CL) in children, in order to assess if dexamethasone dose reduction for concomitant use of aprepitant is appropriate in the current antiemetic regimen.

Methods

In total, 65 children (0.6–17.9 years), receiving intravenous or oral antiemetic therapy (dexamethasone ± aprepitant) as standard of care, were included. 305 dexamethasone plasma concentrations were determined using LC–MS/MS. An integrated dexamethasone and aprepitant pharmacokinetic model was developed using non-linear mixed effects modelling in order to investigate the effect of aprepitant administration on dexamethasone CL.

Results

In this population, dexamethasone CL in patients with concomitant administration of aprepitant was reduced by approximately 30% of the uninhibited CL (23.3 L/h (95% confidence interval 20.4–26.0)). This result is not consistent with the results of adult studies (50% reduction). This difference was not age dependent, but might be related to the route of administration of dexamethasone. Future studies are needed to assess the difference in oral/intravenous dexamethasone.

Conclusion

When dexamethasone is given intravenously as a component of triple therapy to prevent CINV in children, we advise to reduce the dexamethasone dose by 30% instead of 50%.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07423-6.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

AIM

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

RESULTS

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

CONCLUSION

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in locally advanced head and heck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial

Background

There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m² (33 mg/m²/days [d]1–3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2–5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2–5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%.

Results

A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1–94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6–97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3–84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4–75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1–2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage.

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Insights Into Acute and Delayed Cisplatin-Induced Emesis From a Microelectrode Array, Radiotelemetry and Whole-Body Plethysmography Study of Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Purpose: Cancer patients receiving cisplatin therapy often experience side-effects such as nausea and emesis, but current anti-emetic regimens are suboptimal. Thus, to enable the development of efficacious anti-emetic treatments, the mechanisms of cisplatin-induced emesis must be determined. We therefore investigated these mechanisms in Suncus murinus, an insectivore that is capable of vomiting.

Methods: We used a microelectrode array system to examine the effect of cisplatin on the spatiotemporal properties of slow waves in stomach antrum, duodenum, ileum and colon tissues isolated from S. murinus. In addition, we used a multi-wire radiotelemetry system to record conscious animals’ gastric myoelectric activity, core body temperature, blood pressure (BP) and heart rate viability over 96-h periods. Furthermore, we used whole-body plethysmography to simultaneously monitor animals’ respiratory activity. At the end of in vivo experiments, the stomach antrum was collected and immunohistochemistry was performed to identify c-Kit and cluster of differentiation 45 (CD45)-positive cells.

Results: Our acute in vitro studies revealed that cisplatin (1–10 μM) treatment had acute region-dependent effects on pacemaking activity along the gastrointestinal tract, such that the stomach and colon responded oppositely to the duodenum and ileum. S. murinus treated with cisplatin for 90 min had a significantly lower dominant frequency (DF) in the ileum and a longer waveform period in the ileum and colon. Our 96-h recordings showed that cisplatin inhibited food and water intake and caused weight loss during the early and delayed phases. Moreover, cisplatin decreased the DF, increased the percentage power of bradygastria, and evoked a hypothermic response during the acute and delayed phases. Reductions in BP and respiratory rate were also observed. Finally, we demonstrated that treatment with cisplatin caused inflammation in the antrum of the stomach and reduced the density of the interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC).

Conclusion: These studies indicate that cisplatin treatment of S. murinus disrupted ICC networking and viability and also affected general homeostatic mechanisms of the cardiovascular system and gastrointestinal tract. The effect on the gastrointestinal tract appeared to be region-specific. Further investigations are required to comprehensively understand these mechanistic effects of cisplatin and their relationship to emesis.

[Management of chemotherapy side effects and their long-term sequelae]

Various chemotherapies are used to treat testicular cancer. The most common therapy regimens are BEP (cisplatin, etoposide, bleomycin), carboplatin mono (AUC 7), PEI (cisplatin, etoposide, ifosfamide), TIP (cisplatin, ifosfamide, paclitaxel) and GOP (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, paclitaxel). This is accompanied by acute and late toxicities. These include general side effects such as anemia, neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis or paravasation as well as special toxicities like ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity or Raynaud's syndrome. Since young men are usually affected, the possible long-term consequences such as hypogonadism, infertility or the metabolic syndrome are very relevant. Accordingly, adequate management of the possible side effects and long-term consequences in the context of the use of chemotherapy is essential.

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.

The efficacy of aprepitant in salvage treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant and its effect on the quality of life when added to standard antiemetic therapy as salvage therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an open-label, noncomparative prospective phase II clinical trial. A total of 224 patients receiving initial moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were enrolled. Patients received standard antiemetic treatment (5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) antagonists + dexamethasone) in the first cycle. Patients failing to achieve a complete response (CR) during cycle 1 entered cycle 2 with the addition of aprepitant as salvage treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients eligible for cycle 1, 159 (71.0%, 95% CI 65.0-77.0) had a CR, and 65 patients with a noncomplete response (NCR) proceeded to cycle 2 to receive aprepitant-based salvage therapy. Then, 49 (75.4%, 95% CI 64.6-84.1) of these patients achieved a CR. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire showed that NCR patients in cycle 1 had an improved quality of life after receiving aprepitant-based salvage therapy in cycle 2 (cycle 1 and 2: 80.3 vs 114.0, P < 0.001). Failing to achieve a CR had a significant impact on the quality of life in both cycle 1 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 80.3 vs 119.7, P < 0.001) and cycle 2 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 88.3 vs 122.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant as salvage therapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer is effective and has a positive effect on quality of life.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21-81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1-5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%.

CONCLUSION

Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

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.

Patient-related Risk Factors for Nausea and Vomiting With Standard Antiemetics in Patients With Cancer Receiving Carboplatin: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer receiving carboplatin in addition to standard antiemetics, using real-world data.

METHODS

In this single-center, observational study, data from electronic medical records of consecutive patients with solid tumors who had received their first cycle of a carboplatin-based regimen and were treated with a 2- or 3-drug combination of antiemetics from January 2014 to January 2019 at Toranomon Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was the occurrence of a complete response (CR) within 5 days after the first cycle, which was defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication for CINV. A receiver operating characteristic curve, univariable, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used.

FINDINGS

A total of 314 patients were evaluated in this study. The proportion of patients who had a CR in the overall, acute, and delayed phases was 76.8% (n = 241), 98.7% (n = 310), and 77.4% (n = 243), respectively. Similar to univariable logistic regression analysis, multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥70 years and total dexamethasone dose ≥14.6 mg were significantly associated with a non-CR in the overall phase, whereas female sex, history of habitual alcohol intake, and history of smoking were not associated with a non-CR in the overall phase.

IMPLICATIONS

Our study findings suggest that a patient age of <70 years and a total dexamethasone dose of <14.6 mg are high-risk factors for carboplatin-induced CINV.

Revisiting Infectious Complications Following Total Parenteral Nutrition Use During Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Background

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is frequently used to manage caloric needs during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Previous studies in transplant patients who received TPN have reported widely discordant results with regard to infection and mortality, and risk factors for TPN-related infection remain unclear.

Method

We conducted a retrospective study of all HSCT recipients treated with TPN between 2005 to 2014 at Northwestern Memorial Hospital to determine the incidence and epidemiology of infections. Electronic records were used to identify patients treated with TPN for at least 2 days who developed infection.

Results

Among 198 patients treated with TPN, 30% developed documented infection. Total parenteral nutrition treatment duration (13 vs. 7 days; p < .0001) and the timing of TPN initiation (> day 9 post HSCT; p < .0001) were significantly higher in patients who received TPN and developed infection. Receipt of an allogeneic transplant was associated with increased risk for infection (p < .0138), and day 60 mortality was significantly higher in TPN-treated patients with infection (p < .0001).

Conclusion

Stem cell recipients who receive TPN, especially from an allogeneic donor, have high rates of infection and mortality. Minimizing TPN exposure may reduce the chance for infection.

Nausea and vomiting during post-transplantation cyclophosphamide administration

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is a new method to prevent graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Although the use of dexamethasone is recommended as prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients who receive high-dose cyclophosphamide, corticosteroids cannot be used during PTCy administration to exploit depletion of alloreactive T cells. Thus, CINV may not be adequately controlled in this situation. We retrospectively examined antiemetic efficacy of the combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃ RA) and a NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁ RA) in 36 patients who received PTCy, and compared this efficacy with that of the same combination together with dexamethasone in 27 patients conditioned with cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (CY/TBI). The proportion of patients who had no vomiting during the acute phase of PTCy administration was 81%, and was lower than 100% in the CY/TBI group (p = 0.02). Our results suggest that prevention of CINV using 5-HT₃ RA and NK₁ RA during PTCy administration is suboptimal and that addition of antiemetic is necessary in patients who receive PTCy.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing.

Methods

In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d⁻¹) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration.

Results

During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03143-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Supportive care during pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: beyond infectious diseases. A report from workshops on supportive care of the Pediatric Diseases Working Party (PDWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT)

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the standard of care for many malignant and nonmalignant blood diseases. As several treatment-emerging acute toxicities are expected, optimal supportive measurements critically affect HSCT outcomes. The paucity of good clinical studies in supportive practices gives rise to the establishment of heterogeneous guidelines across the different centers, which hampers direct clinical comparison in multicentric studies. Aiming to harmonize the supportive care provided during the pediatric HSCT in Europe, the Pediatric Diseases Working Party (PDWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) promoted dedicated workshops during the years 2017 and 2018. The present paper describes the resulting consensus on the management of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome, mucositis, enteral and parenteral nutrition, iron overload, and emesis during HSCT.

Prophylactic Antiemetics for Haematological Malignancies: Prospective Nationwide Survey Subset Analysis in Japan

BACKGROUND/AIM

Although neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are approved chemotherapy drugs in Japan, no nationwide surveys have been performed to validate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) guidelines in clinical practice. This study evaluated CINV in patients with haematological malignancies starting first-time chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A nationwide CINV survey on patients with haematological malignancies was conducted at 118 institutions. Patients undergoing moderately emetic chemotherapy (n=17) and highly emetic chemotherapy (HEC; n=180) were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients undergoing HEC received triple antiemetics. Female gender and young age were risk factors for early-phase nausea, while female gender remained a risk factor for late-phase nausea and vomiting. Among 125 patients receiving CHOP (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)-like regimens, complete response and complete control were increased in patients receiving triple antiemetics, compared to those with double antiemetics.

CONCLUSION

Guideline compliance was very low. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for reduced CINV and improved disease control for triple versus double antiemetics, suggesting that triple antiemetics should be considered for HEC, especially in young female patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP-like regimens.

Prognostic significance of hyponatremia induced by systemic chemotherapy in a hospital-based propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

During chemotherapy, hyponatremia is one of the most frequently encountered adverse effects. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of hyponatremia induced by systemic chemotherapy (HIC) using a propensity matching method in cumulative pooled data.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and July 2017, 2129 patients were administered systemic chemotherapy for malignancy in various organs at Nagoya City University Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: a grade 0-1 group (control group) and a grade 3-4 group (severe group) according to the severity of HIC appearing within 30 days after starting treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival and recurrence analyses using a propensity case-matched analysis.

RESULT

The number of severe HIC patients was 93 (4.4%). In platinum-containing regimens, HIC appeared at higher frequencies. In the 21.2 months median follow-up period, the median OS (mOS) in the severe group was 49.1 months, which was significantly worse than the mOS in the control group; the OS in the control group did not reach the median. Univariate and multivariate analyses of associated factors in patients with grade 3-4 HIC revealed that renal dysfunction, cisplatin-containing regimen, and infusion of more than 5000 mL fluid was associated with HIC.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that severe HIC in the first treatment cycle affects survival time. Chemotherapy patients receiving extensive hydration should be required to undergo frequent monitoring of serum sodium levels, especially patients receiving platinum-containing regimens.

Efficacy, safety and feasibility of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy - results of a non-interventional observation study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) belong among the most burdensome side effects in hemato-oncology. Mostly, a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is used as antiemetic prophylaxis in pediatric patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. However, dexamethasone is prohibited in different pediatric chemotherapy protocols. Currently, data on the use of ondansetron with the new antiemetic agent fosaprepitant without dexamethasone is not available for pediatric patients.

METHODS

In this non-interventional observation study, 79 pediatric patients with a median age of 8.0 years (range 0.5-17.9 years) who received a CINV prophylaxis regimen with either fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; maximum 150 mg) and ondansetron (as 24-h continuous infusion) (n = 40; fosaprepitant group/FG) or ondansetron only (n = 39; control group/CG) during moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were analyzed. The groups were analyzed and compared for frequency of vomiting, administered doses of on-demand antiemetic dimenhydrinate and adverse events during the acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration) and delayed (> 24 h-120 h) CINV phases.

RESULTS

A total of 112 and 116 chemotherapy blocks were analyzed in the fosaprepitant and the control group, respectively. The emetogenic potential of the administered chemotherapy did not significantly differ (p = 0.8812) between the two cohorts. In the acute CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting (n = 26 patients) and the vomiting events were significantly higher (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 26 patients (66.7%); 88 events) compared with the FG (n = 10 patients (25.0%); 37 events). In the delayed CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting and the vomiting events were also significantly higher (p = 0.0017 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 31 patients (79.5%); 164 events) compared with the FG (n = 17 patients (42.5%); 103 events). Additionally, significantly more dimenhydrinate doses were administered in the CG compared with the FG patients (n = 322/n = 198; p < 0.0001). The occurrence of adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant (4.0 mg/kg) in addition to ondansetron, without application of dexamethasone, was well tolerated, safe, effective and superior to ondansetron only as CINV prophylaxis in pediatric patients during moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Efficacy, Safety And Feasibility Of Antiemetic Prophylaxis With Fosaprepitant, Granisetron And Dexamethasone In Pediatric Patients With Hemato-Oncological Malignancies

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT₃R-antagonists and NK₁R-antagonists. The NK₁R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.

Methods

This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2-17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30-90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups' results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24-120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.

Results

Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).

Conclusion

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.

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.

The latest consensus on antiemetics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review summarizes and discuss the most recent updated antiemetic consensus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two new neurokinin (NK)1-receptor antagonists, netupitant and rolapitant, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and incorporated in the latest versions of the MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines. Guidelines all recommend a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with the addition of the multireceptor targeting agent, olanzapine, as an option in cisplatin or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. A combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist is also recommended in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy, although based on a lower level of evidence. In spite of the development of new antiemetics, nausea has remained a significant adverse effect. Olanzapine is an effective antinausea agent, but sedation can be a problem. Therefore, the effect and tolerability of multitargeting, nonsedative agents like amisulpride, should be explored.

SUMMARY

Guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1-receptor antagonist in HEC and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The addition of olanzapine can be useful in cisplatin-based and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in particular if the main problem is nausea.

Toll-like receptor/interleukin-1 domain innate immune signalling pathway genetic variants are candidate predictors for severe gastrointestinal toxicity risk following 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity is a common adverse effect following 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy treatment. The presence of severe GI toxicity leads to treatment revisions, sub-optimal therapy outcomes, and decreases to patients' quality of life. There are no adequate predictors for 5-FU-induced severe GI toxicity risk. The Toll-like receptor/interleukin-1 (TIR) domain innate immune signalling pathway is known to be a mediating pathway in the development of GI toxicity. Hence, genetic variability in this signalling pathway may alter the pathophysiology of GI toxicity and, therefore, be predictive of risk. However, little research has investigated the effects of TIR domain innate immune signalling pathway single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) on the risk and development of severe GI toxicity.

METHODS

This critical review surveyed the literature and reported on the in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo effects, as well as the genetic association, of selected TIR domain innate immune signalling pathway SNPs on disease susceptibility and gene functioning.

RESULTS

Of the TIR domain innate immune signalling pathway SNPs reviewed, evidence suggests interleukin-1 beta (IL1B) and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF) SNPs have the greatest potential as predictors for severe GI toxicity risk. These results warrant further research into the effect of IL1B and TNF SNPs on the risk and development of severe GI toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

SNPs of the TIR domain innate immune signalling pathway have profound effects on disease susceptibility and gene functioning, making them candidate predictors for severe GI toxicity risk. The identification of a predictor for 5-FU-induced severe GI toxicity will allow the personalization of supportive care measures.

Patient-related Risk Factors for Nausea and Vomiting with Standard Antiemetics in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Observational Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify a high-risk or low-risk population for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast cancer treated with a current standard 3-drug antiemetic regimen and receiving anthracycline.

METHODS

We analyzed data from chemotherapy-naive Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received the first cycle of anthracycline-based regimen and were treated with a 3-drug combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. This study was carried out at Ehime University Hospital (Toon, Japan) using electronic medical records from May 2011 to June 2017. The primary end point was complete response (CR), which was defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication.

FINDINGS

A total of 103 patients were included in this study. The percentages of patients who had a CR in the overall, acute, and delayed phases were 35.0%, 40.8%, and 50.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <55 years and body mass index <27.5 kg/m² were significantly associated with an increased risk for CR failure in the overall and acute phases. In contrast, a history of alcohol habit was significantly associated with a decreased risk for CR failure in overall phase.

IMPLICATIONS

The present findings suggest that, among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, patients younger than 55 years and having a body mass index <27.5 kg/m² are high-risk populations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, whereas those with a history of habitual alcohol consumption is a low-risk one.

Olanzapine plus aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline: A retrospective study

This study aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a four-drug combination with those of a standard three-drug combination in Japanese patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline. We retrospectively analyzed data from Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received their first cycle of anthracycline and were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with or without olanzapine. This retrospective observational study was performed at Ehime University Hospital using the electronic medical records. Multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses were performed to compare the onset of complete response (CR) failure between the groups. One-hundred and thirty patients were included in this study and the four- and three-drug group had 22 and 108 patients, respectively. Similar to multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed that the four-drug group was markedly associated with a decreased odds of CR failure in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.73; OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76; and OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.57, respectively). Additionally, treatment-related adverse events were well tolerated in both the groups. These findings suggest that the antiemetic efficacy of the four-drug combination is superior to that of the standard three-drug combination.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone With or Without Aprepitant to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Full-dose Single-day Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

A unique schedule of palonosetron, ondansetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy

Myeloablative chemotherapy administered prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with a significant amount of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We conducted a phase II trial to assess the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life when palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg combined with dexamethasone were given on the final or only day of myeloablative chemotherapy for auto-SCT. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of achieving a delayed CINV complete response defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medications during the 24-120 h period post chemotherapy. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study and received PAL. A delayed CINV complete response was achieved in 15% of patients. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no associated differences between age, gender, diagnosis, or regimen. By day 5 after PAL, the mean nausea severity was 0.91 ± 2.45 vs. 0.09 ± 1.58 at baseline (p = 0.012). Quality of life measurements demonstrated similar quality of life between baseline and day 3. By day 6 however, nausea alone had a statistically significant impact on quality of life. In our study, PAL controlled nausea severity and sustained quality of life, but further strategies are needed to control delayed CINV associated with the auto-SCT process.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Fosaprepitant, Ondansetron, Dexamethasone (FOND) Versus FOND Plus Olanzapine (FOND-O) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Regimens: The FOND-O Trial

Evidence supports olanzapine for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) for highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, most studies focus on solid malignancies and single-day regimens. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to compare the addition of olanzapine to triplet therapy (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOND-O]) versus triplet therapy alone (FOND) in preventing CINV in hematology patients receiving single-day and multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) regimens (NCT02635984). The primary objective of this study was to compare complete response (CR; no emesis and minimal nausea, <25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) during the overall assessment period (chemotherapy days plus 5 days after). Secondary objectives were the number of emesis, number of rescue medications, percent achieving minimal nausea, and percent achieving complete protection (CP; no emesis, rescue antiemetic, or significant nausea), all of which are reported as acute (chemotherapy days), delayed (5 days after chemotherapy), and overall phases. Olanzapine 10 mg or matching placebo were given on each chemotherapy day and 3 days after. Adults with hematologic malignancy receiving HCT regimens of melphalan, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan), busulfan (Bu)/cyclophosphamide (Cy), Bu/fludarabine (Flu), Bu/melphalan, FluCy, FluCy-total body irradiation (TBI), etoposide-TBI, and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) or 7+3 chemotherapy regimens were included. An estimated 98 patients were required using alpha = .05 and 80% power. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between FOND-O (n = 51) and FOND (n = 50) arms. Mean duration of olanzapine was 7.7 days (range, 4 to 11). Discontinuation for possible adverse events occurred in 3 placebo and 0 olanzapine patients. CR was significantly higher for FOND-O in overall (55% versus 26%, P = .003) and delayed (60.8% versus 30%, P = .001) but not acute (P = .13) phases. Significantly more patients receiving FOND-O achieved no more than minimal nausea in overall (P = .001) and delayed phases (P = .0002), as well as fewer overall mean emesis counts (P = .005). CP rates were not different in any assessment phase (P ≥ .05 each). Within the HCT subgroup (n = 64), the CR, CP, and no significant nausea rates were significantly better for FONDO-O in overall and delayed phases (all P < .05). Analysis within the HCT subgroup revealed significant improvement in outcomes in delayed and overall phases with FOND-O in the autologous but not allogeneic cohort. Addition of olanzapine to an NK-1-based triplet antiemetic regimen significantly improved clinically relevant outcomes in the HCT population.

Effects of a histamine H4 receptor antagonist on cisplatin-induced anorexia in mice

Cancer chemotherapy often induces gastrointestinal symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. Antiemetic agents are effective in inhibiting nausea and vomiting, but patients still experience anorexia. We previously reported that chemotherapeutic agent-induced anorexia is associated with an increase of inflammatory cytokines. Other studies also reported that antagonism of the histamine H₄ receptor is anti-inflammatory. In this study, we investigated the involvement of the H₄ receptor in the development of chemotherapy-induced anorexia in mice. Cisplatin-induced anorexia occurred within 24 h of its administration and continued for 3 days. The early phase (day 1), but not the delayed phase (days 2 and 3), of anorexia was inhibited by the daily injection of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (granisetron). However, a corticosteroid (dexamethasone) or selective H₄ receptor antagonist (JNJ7777120) abolished the delayed phases of anorexia. Cisplatin significantly increased TNF-α mRNA expression in the hypothalamus and spleen, and the period of expression increase paralleled the onset period of anorexia. In addition, pretreatment with JNJ7777120 completely inhibited the increased expression. These results suggest that TNF-α mRNA expression via H₄ receptors may contribute to the development of cisplatin-induced anorexia, and that H₄ receptor antagonists are potentially useful treatments.

CINV: still troubling patients after all these years

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared side effects experienced by patients with cancer. The precise physiologic mechanisms responsible for acute and delayed CINV continue to be elucidated and have provided an opportunity to develop antiemetic therapies targeting these pathways. The emergence of receptor antagonists targeting serotonin and neurokinin-1 have revolutionized the prevention of CINV, significantly reducing the impact of this side effect and improving patient quality of life. However, several areas of unmet need remain, including adequate prevention of nausea, rather than just vomiting, in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. Prevention of delayed CINV and anticipatory CINV, as well as management of breakthrough CINV, also continues to challenge patients and clinicians. Ongoing research continues to address these areas to improve antiemetic therapies and guidelines.

Getting it right the first time: recent progress in optimizing antiemetic usage

Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), allowing patients to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimens without compromising quality of life. This reduction in the incidence of CINV can be primarily attributed to the emergence of effective, well-tolerated antiemetic therapies, including serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT3) receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, and the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. While 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are highly effective in the prevention of acute CINV, NK-1 receptor antagonists and olanzapine have demonstrated considerable activity against both acute and delayed CINV. Various combinations of these three types of agents, along with dexamethasone and dopamine receptor antagonists, are now becoming the standard of care for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Optimal use of these therapies requires careful assessment of the unique characteristics of each agent and currently available clinical trial data.

Diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal complications in adult cancer patients: 2017 updated evidence-based guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Cancer patients frequently suffer from gastrointestinal complications. In this manuscript, we update our 2013 guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal complications in adult cancer patients by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). An expert group was put together by the AGIHO to update the existing guideline. For each sub-topic, a literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases, and strengths of recommendation and the quality of the published evidence for major therapeutic strategies were categorized using the 2015 European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) criteria. Final recommendations were approved by the AGIHO plenary conference. Recommendations were made with respect to non-infectious and infectious gastrointestinal complications. Strengths of recommendation and levels of evidence are presented. A multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal complications in cancer patients is mandatory. Evidence-based recommendations are provided in this updated guideline.

A Comparison of Fosaprepitant and Ondansetron for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High Risk Patients: A Retrospective Database Analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occur in 30–50% of patients undergoing general anesthesia and in 70–80% of high PONV risk patients. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist, compared to ondansetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in moderate to high PONV risk patients from our previous randomized controlled trials. Patients (171 patients from 4 pooled studies) with the Apfel simplified score ≥ 2 and undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg (NK1 group, n = 82) and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (ONS group, n = 89) before induction of anesthesia. Incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the NK1 group compared to the ONS group 0–2, 0–24, and 0–48 hours after surgery (2 versus 17%, 2 versus 28%, and 2 versus 29%, resp.). However, no significant differences in PONV, complete response, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea score were observed between groups 0–48 hours after surgery. In moderate to high PONV risk patients, fosaprepitant decreased the incidence of vomiting and was superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting 0–48 hours after surgery.