Prediction of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting from patient-reported and genetic risk factors

Factors influencing the hope of patients with advanced cancer while receiving cancer pharmacotherapy

AIM

This study aims to clarify the factors influencing hope in patients with advanced cancer undergoing cancer pharmacotherapy, as influential factors have not been explored in previous studies.

METHODS

Participants were patients with advanced lung, colorectal, and breast cancer who were undergoing outpatient pharmacotherapy. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the Herth Hope Index, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale with some additional questions. Data were obtained and analyzed using SPSS version 29.0, with descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred valid responses (91.7%) were collected. The average age of the participants was 65.4 years. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that hope had significant standardized partial regression coefficients with gender (β = -0.137, p = .022), social support (β = -0.246, p = .008), relationship with significant others (β = -0.224, p = .015), sleepiness (β = -0.141, p = .025), nausea (β = -0.159, p = .011), occupation (β = -0.140, p = .021), and economic status (β = -0.124, p = .038) (adjusted R2 = 0.341).

CONCLUSIONS

Social support, physical symptoms, and economic and occupational status influence the hope of patients with advanced cancer undergoing cancer pharmacotherapy. Assessing the impact of medication and physical symptoms associated with cancer progression on patients' lives, economic impact of long-term medication, and extent of relationship with people available through work and family may lead to early intervention by identifying individuals who are more likely to experience lower levels of hope.

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in low, moderate, and highly emetogenic schemes between sexes

PURPOSE

Sex influences chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, in clinical practice, males and females receive the same antiemetic prophylaxis. We compared CINV between sexes in patients with different emetic risk schemes and evaluated the predisposing factors and main adverse effects caused by antiemetics.

METHODS

Prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital from February 2023 to May 2024 in patients starting chemotherapy or a new treatment line. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (< 24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ2 test or Fisher's exact test. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate, defined as no CINV and no use of rescue medication. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify patient-related risk factors associated with non-CR.

RESULTS

A total of 176 completed questionnaires (CQ): 94 for males and 82 for females were collected. The proportion of males who remained emesis-free was superior to females in the acute phase (100% versus 92.7%, p = 0.009). Likewise, a higher proportion of males remained nausea-free in the acute (91.5% versus 79.3%, p = 0.021) and delayed phase (90.4% versus 79.3%, p = 0.037). In females, young age (< 60 years) and previous nausea and vomiting during pregnancy may contribute to non-CR. A high proportion of patients reported adverse events like constipation and insomnia. Females suffered more constipation than males (52.4% versus 37.2%, p = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

Females experienced more CINV than males, with the consequences that entail. Antiemetic prophylaxis should be personalized, considering sex and age and not only the chemotherapy emetic potential.

Risk factors of nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy: A retrospective study

Chemotherapy is one of the main treatments for breast cancer patients. However, chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting can significantly reduce patients' quality of life and lead to electrolyte disturbance and metabolic imbalance in severe cases. Therefore, to identify the risk factors for nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy in these patients is very important. This retrospective study included 113 patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy and used antiemetic drugs hospitalized in First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College between January 1, 2021, and January 1, 2023. Of these, 26 (23.01%) patients developed nausea and vomiting. The univariate and multivariate logistics regression analyses showed that patients combined with diabetes, hypertension, chronic hepatitis B, >65 years of age, >8 cycles of chemotherapy, and had a history of nausea and vomiting are the risk factors for nausea and vomiting. However, due to the limited sample size and some risk factor data missing from this study, further prospective studies are needed to improve and verify.

Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

Cancer stage and consideration of cannabis use among adult cancer survivors in Southern California

BACKGROUND

The benefits of cannabis in symptom management among cancer survivors are widely acknowledged; however, patterns of cannabis use by cancer stage at diagnosis are unknown.

METHODS

Here, we examined the association between cancer stage at diagnosis and consideration of cannabis use since diagnosis. We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from 954 cancer survivors, weighted to be representative of a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center's patient population. We used survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between cancer stage at diagnosis (advanced [III/IV] versus non-advanced [I/II]) and consideration of cannabis use (yes versus no) since diagnosis.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of the population was diagnosed with non-advanced stages of cancer, and 42% had considered using cannabis since diagnosis. The odds of consideration of cannabis use were 63% higher (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 2.49) among cancer survivors diagnosed at stages III/IV than among those diagnosed at stages I/II.

CONCLUSION

Cancer stage may be a predictor of consideration of cannabis use after diagnosis.

Evaluation of Sex Differences in the Potential of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol, Cannabidiolic Acid, and Oleoyl Alanine to Reduce Nausea-Induced Conditioned Gaping Reactions in Sprague-Dawley Rats

Introduction: Cancer patients report nausea as a side effect of their chemotherapy treatment. Using the pre-clinical rodent model of acute nausea-lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced conditioned gaping-our group has demonstrated that exogenous cannabinoids may have antinausea potential. Materials and Methods: With the goal of evaluating the role of sex as a factor in pre-clinical research, we first compared the conditioned gaping reactions produced by varying doses of LiCl in male and female rats using the taste reactivity test (Experiment 1). Results: LiCl produced dose-dependent conditioned gaping similarly in male and female rats with the highest dose (127.2 mg/kg) producing robust conditioned gaping, with this dose used in subsequent experiments. Next, we examined the antinausea potential of THC (Experiment 2), CBD (Experiment 3), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA; Experiment 4) and oleoyl alanine (OlAla; Experiment 5) in both male and female rats. THC, CBD, CBDA, and OlAla dose dependently reduced conditioned gaping in both male and female rats in a similar manner. Conclusions: These results suggest that cannabinoids may be equally effective in treating nausea in both males and females.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care.

METHODS

A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380.

DISCUSSION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them includes specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care.

METHODS

A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical-Trials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian, or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380.

DISCUSSION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them include specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life.

Metagenomics and chemotherapy-induced nausea: A roadmap for future research

Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can reduce patients' quality of life and may result in premature discontinuation of chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting are commonly grouped together, research has shown that antiemetics are clinically effective against chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) but less so against chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). Nausea remains a problem for up to 68% of patients who are prescribed guideline-consistent antiemetics. Despite the high prevalence of CIN, relatively little is known regarding its etiology independent of CIV. This review summarizes a metagenomics approach to the study and treatment of CIN with the goal of encouraging future research. Metagenomics focuses on genetic risk factors and encompasses both human (ie, host) and gut microbial genetic variation. Little work to date has focused on metagenomics as a putative biological mechanism of CIN. Metagenomics has the potential to be a powerful tool in advancing scientific understanding of CIN by identifying new biological pathways and intervention targets. The investigation of metagenomics in the context of well-established demographic, clinical, and patient-reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk and facilitate the prevention and management of CIN.

A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Effect of Ginger Tea on Preventing Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Gynecological Cancers Receiving Cisplatin-Based Regimens

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy experience acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. These side effects obligate the patients to use pharmacological and nonpharmacological methods. The effect of ginger tea as an antiemetic modality on preventing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting has not been confirmed in previous studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of ginger tea, when given together with the standard antiemetic regimen, on preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological cancers receiving cisplatin-based regimens.

METHODS

This study used a quasi-experimental research design with 2 groups (control and intervention groups, 50 participants each). A sociodemographic and medical survey and the Modified Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching were used to collect the data. Descriptive analyses, t test, and χ2 test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The total mean Modified Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching scores were lower in the intervention group in all measurements compared with the control group, and the differences between the total mean scores for symptom experience, development, and distress between the groups were statistically significant in the third (P < .05), fourth (P < .01), and fifth (P < .05) measurements. No ginger-related side effects were noted in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger tea reduced the experience, development, and distress of nausea, vomiting, and retching in the intervention group. The use of ginger tea may be recommended for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based regimens.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology nurses can lead the implementation of ginger tea intervention to prevent chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

An Update in Our Understanding of the Relationships Between Gene Polymorphisms and Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The occurrence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are influenced by many factors; this includes therapeutic factors, such as the dose, administration mode, and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenicity, as well as patient-related risk factors, such as the gender, age, alcohol consumption history, and anxiety level. However, these factors cannot fully explain the individual CINV differences. In recent years, the correlation between gene polymorphism and CINV has been a hot research topic; the present paper reviews current research on CINV-related gene polymorphisms, and the results indicate that the use of gene polymorphism for the optimization of CINV efficacy is of important clinical significance.

Single daily dosing versus divided dosing intravenous ondansetron to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among children: A comparative randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common complication in cancer treatment. Ondansetron is an effective antiemetic drug widely used to prevent CINV; however, the effective administrative dosing strategies among pediatrics remain unclear. The study aimed to investigate clinical effectiveness of single daily dosing versus divided dosing ondansetron.

METHODS

In all, 194 children undergoing chemotherapy were randomized to receive either single daily dosing (0.3 mg/kg/dose) or divided dosing (0.15 mg/kg/dose every 8 hours) intravenous ondansetron for 24 hours. Clinical parameters including number of emesis episodes, nausea scores, appetite levels, parent's satisfaction, and adverse effects within 24 hours were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two dosing strategies concerning number of emesis episodes and parent's satisfaction. However, nonleukemic hematologic malignancies and concurrent administration of intrathecal methotrexate-hydrocortisone-cytarabine (IT-MHA) were associated with increased risk of acute-phase vomiting. Interestingly, none of the patients aged under 7 years, receiving divided dosing ondansetron, presented nausea symptoms compared with those receiving single daily dosing (p-value .034). No significant differences regarding headache were observed between the two dosing strategies and none of the patients experienced QTc prolongation.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron administered as divided dosing should be considered among children aged under 7 years to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and among patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy to maintain their appetite. Both administrative dosing strategies were well tolerated with no significant adverse effects.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy in cancer centers in Sichuan, China

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are the most painful and feared side effects for patients during chemotherapy. Currently, most studies focus on the occurrence of CINV during the risk phase. We initiated this real-world study to understand the actual occurrence of CINV throughout all phases, to provide a basis to prevent CINV in patients during chemotherapy and improve their quality of life.

METHODS

This prospective real-world study was conducted at 17 major cancer centers in Sichuan, China. Cancer patients who were about to receive moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the study. Occurrences of nausea and vomiting were recorded using patient diaries, and physicians are responsible for recording patient clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 1,139 patients were included in this study between August 2018 and April 2019. In this study, the incidence of acute CINV was 55.3%, delayed CINV was 62.3%, and CINV beyond the risk period was 36%. All phases overall, the overall complete control (CC) rate of CINV was 30.1 and 32.1% for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, respectively. The median CC time for CINV was 7 days, but only 21.5% of these patients used antiemetic regimens according to the NCCN guideline.

CONCLUSION

In the real world, the incidence of CINV is high in patients receiving chemotherapy, and nausea and vomiting may occur beyond the risk period; the low level of standardized antiemetic treatment in compliance with the guideline might have been the main reason for unsatisfactory prevention and control of CINV in this study.

Risk factors associated with antineoplastic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence and to evaluate risk factors for antineoplastic nausea and vomiting with high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy in adult patients in the first treatment cycle.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study with follow-up of 269 adults during the first cycle of antineoplastic chemotherapy. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was evaluated in the acute phase (0-24 hours), in the late phase (24 hours-5th day) and in the total phase (0-5th day).

RESULTS

In total, 152 patients underwent high emetogenic chemotherapy and 117 moderate emetogenic chemotherapy. The relative frequency of nausea was higher when compared with vomiting in the acute phase (p < 0.001) and in the late phase (p < 0.001). The risk factors identified were: age group ≤ 49 years (odds ratio = 0.47; 95%CI 0.23-0.95) and 50-64 years (odds ratio = 0.45; 95%CI 0.23-0.87), tobacco use (odds ratio = 0.35; 95%CI 0.14-0.88), and high emetogenic chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.55; 95%CI 0.31-0.95).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of nausea was higher than that of vomiting, and adverse effects were more frequent in the late phase. The results suggest the risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are tobacco, age (young adults), and high emetogenic chemotherapy.

Pharmacogenetics of antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A substantial proportion of cancer patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) despite the use of antiemetic drugs. Prevalent genetic polymorphisms involved in antiemetic drug metabolism, drug transport and receptor pathways likely affect the effectiveness of antiemetics. Knowledge on which polymorphisms to integrate into individualised clinical care is needed. We did a systematic review evaluating the association between polymorphisms and effectiveness of antiemetics in cancer patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Twenty studies n = 2331 evaluated eight polymorphisms in five candidate genes involved in 5-HT₃ antagonist pathways. HTR3C C1214G increased the risk of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in the dominant model (odds ratio (OR) = 2.67, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.08-6.63). ABCB1 C3435T reduced the risk of acute CINV in the recessive model (OR = 0.60, 95 % CI: 0.44-0.81). Future studies should evaluate candidate genes that affect pharmacogenetics of other antiemetics beside 5-HT₃ antagonists.

A randomized study of olanzapine-containing versus standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of "Complete Response" than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of "No significant nausea" and "No nausea" during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted.

Patient-reported outcomes following pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum in patients with previously untreated, metastatic, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-189): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum led to superior overall survival and progression-free survival, and a higher proportion of patients with a confirmed complete or partial response over placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum in the KEYNOTE-189 study. We aimed to evaluate prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients in KEYNOTE-189.

METHODS

In the multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study done at 126 cancer centres in 16 countries, eligible patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without sensitising EGFR or ALK alterations, measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg) or saline placebo every 3 weeks for up to 2 years (35 cycles); all patients received four cycles of intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) with carboplatin (5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (75 mg/m²; investigator's choice) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pemetrexed maintenance therapy every 3 weeks. Permuted block randomisation (block size six) was done with an interactive voice-response system and stratified by PD-L1 expression, choice of platinum, and smoking status. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel were unaware of treatment assignment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) were administered at cycles 1-5, every three cycles thereafter during year 1, and every four cycles during years 2-3. The primary endpoints (overall survival and progression-free survival) have been published previously. Key PRO endpoints were change from baseline to week 12 (during chemotherapy) and week 21 (following chemotherapy) in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) score, and time to deterioration in cough, chest pain, or dyspnoea. PROs were analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study medication and who completed at least one PRO assessment, and the results are provided with two-sided, nominal p values. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02578680.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 26, 2016, and March 6, 2017, 616 patients were enrolled; median follow-up was 10·5 months (range 0·2-20·4) as of data cutoff on Nov 8, 2017. 402 (99%) of 405 patients in the pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum group and 200 (99%) of 202 patients in the placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum-treated group completed at least one PRO assessment. At baseline, 359 (89%) of 402 patients in the pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum group and 180 (90%) of 200 in the placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum group were compliant with QLQ-C30; at week 12, 319 (90%) of 354 and 149 (89%) of 167 patients were compliant, respectively; and at week 21, 249 (76%) of 326 and 91 (64%) of 143 patients were compliant, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/QOL scores were maintained with both pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (least-squares mean change: 1·0 point [95% CI -1·3 to 3·2] increase) and placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum (-2·6 points [-5·8 to 0·5] decrease; between-group difference: 3·6 points [-0·1 to 7·2]; p=0·053). From baseline to week 21, GHS/QOL scores were better maintained with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (least-squares mean change: 1·3 points [95% CI -1·2 to 3·6] increase) than with placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum (-4·0 points [-7·7 to -0·3] decrease; between-group difference: 5·3 points [1·1 to 9·5]; p=0·014). Median time to deterioration in cough, chest pain, or dyspnoea was not reached (95% CI 10·2 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum, and was 7·0 months (4·8 months to not reached) with placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum (hazard ratio 0·81 [95% CI 0·60-1·09], p=0·16).

INTERPRETATION

The addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy maintained GHS/QOL, with improved GHS/QOL scores at week 21 in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group compared with the placebo plus chemotherapy group. These data further support use of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK₁RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

RESULT

In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK₁RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Efficacy of the combination use of aprepitant and palonosetron for improving nausea in various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Nausea is more difficult to control than vomiting in chemotherapy. We therefore analyzed the efficacy of a strong supportive treatment with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone against nausea for various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

A total of 312 cases treated by palonosetron with or without aprepitant receiving MEC regimens using oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and irinotecan from 2014 to 2016 in our outpatient center for digestive organ cancers, lung cancers, and gynecological cancers were analyzed. Through propensity score matching analysis, cases were divided into 97 cases receiving 2 drugs (palonosetron+dexamethasone) and 97 receiving 3 drugs (aprepitant+palonosetron+dexamethasone). We examined the control rates of nausea for the first two consecutive courses in the both groups. Additionally, risk factors for acute and delayed nausea were analyzed using a multivariate analysis among overall 312 cases.

RESULTS

The control rates of nausea in the two- and the three-drug groups were as follows: acute, 92.8 and 95.9% (p = 0.35); and delayed, 83.5 and 81.4% (p = 0.85), although the control rates of vomiting exceeded 95% in both groups. A multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors for acute nausea (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) were elevation of serum creatinine (12.601, 2.437-65.157), general fatigue (3.728, 1.098-12.661), and performance status (PS) 2 (19.829, 3.200-122.865). The significant risk factors for delayed nausea were elevation of alanine aminotransferase (2.397, 1.153-4.984), general fatigue (2.652, 1.380-5.097), and PS 2 (5.748, 1.392-23.740).

CONCLUSIONS

The control for nausea in MEC was insufficient even with palonosetron and aprepitant, and we should pay attention to risk factors for preventing nausea.