Prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis: results of the 2004 Perugia International Antiemetic Consensus Conference

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.

Brain radiotherapy and dorsal vagal complex irradiation: A new organ at risk to decrease radiation-induced nausea and vomiting?

Purpose

Nausea is a common symptom in patients irradiated for benign brain tumors. The dorsal vagal complex (DVC) located in the brainstem (BS) has been identified as the center of nausea and vomiting. The objective of our study was to determine an association between mean dose to the DVC and nausea.

Material

Details of consecutive patients treated for benign brain tumors at the Bordeaux University Hospital using normofractionated intensity modulated radiotherapy technique, without chemotherapy, were accessed. DVC delineation was performed on MRI T1 sequences with gadolinium injection using a reference atlas.

Results

Among 102 patients, 68 were women, and median age was 61.5 years. The tumors treated were primarily meningiomas (80 %) and neurinomas (17 %). The median dose was 54 Gy [48.6-57.6 Gy]. In the overall population, 40 (39.2 %) had nausea, requiring anti-nausea treatment for 23 (57.5 %). Patients with nausea were significantly younger (45.5 versus 63.2 years, p = 0.014).For patients without and with nausea, the mean DVC dose was 8.9 Gy versus 21.6 Gy (p < 10-4), respectively, and the mean brainstem dose was 16.9 Gy versus 27.1 Gy (p < 10-3). The optimal threshold for mean DVC dose was 8.82 Gy (AUC = 0.731, p < 10-4). Patients with DVC receiving less than 8.82 Gy had a 16 % risk to have nausea versus 62 % for patients receiving more than 8.82 Gy (p < 10-4). The optimal threshold for mean brainstem dose was 24 Gy (AUC = 0.715p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The mean DVC dose is significantly associated with radiation-induced nausea. A dose constraint below 8.82 Gy to decrease the incidence of radiation-induced nausea needs to be validated by a prospective study.

The evolving landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: inspiration from cisplatin-based antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.

RESULTS

Over the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.

Ecofriendly HPLC Method for Simultaneous Determination of the Co-Prescribed Drugs in Chemotherapy Omeprazole, Ondansetron and Deflazacort in Spiked Human Plasma

Green, selective and accurate high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) chromatographic method is presented for simultaneous separation and quantitation of the co-prescribed drugs in chemotherapy omeprazole, ondansetron and deflazacort in spiked human plasma. An isocratic HPLC separation was performed on X Bridge C18 (4.6 × 250 mm) column with 5 μm particle size using mobile phase consisting of methanol: ammonium acetate buffer pH 4 adjusted by acetic acid (60: 40, v/v). The injection volume was 20μL with UV detection wavelength at 237 nm at room temperature. Flow rate of the mobile phase was adjusted to be 2.0 ml/min. Dexamethasone was used as internal standard to correct the variation during sample pretreatment. FDA guidelines were followed to validate the developed method. Successful application of the developed method was revealed by simultaneous determination of omeprazole, ondansetron and deflazacort in spiked human plasma in ranges of 1-20, 0.1-8 and 0.2-8 μg mL-1 for omeprazole, ondansetron and deflazacort, respectively. Four greenness assessment tools were used to evaluate the greenness of the developed method and the results were accepted. This method permitted the accurate simultaneous determination of the studied drugs, thus it can be used during therapeutic drug monitoring in daily clinical practice.

A simple prediction model for the risk of boron neutron capture therapy-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer patients undergoing boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) often experience BNCT-induced nausea and vomiting (BINV). This study aimed to construct a BINV risk prediction model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 237 patients were randomly divided into a training and test cohort. In the training cohort, a univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with BINV. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors and calculate coefficients for the model. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess the goodness of fit, and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to evaluate the accuracy of the model. For both the training and test cohort, the predictive model was used to generate the scores and calculate the sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

The incidence of nausea and vomiting was 50% and 18%, respectively. Female sex, younger age, non-squamous cell carcinoma, no prior chemotherapy, and beam entry from the face/lateral region were associated with the occurrence of BINV. The prediction model showed a good fit (P = 0.96) and performance (area under the curve = 0.75). The sensitivity and specificity were 83% and45 % for the training cohort (n = 193) and 86% and 59% for the test cohort (n = 44), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We developed a simple model that predicts BINV. This will enable appropriate care to be implemented based on increased risk to prevent its occurrence.

Assessment of the change of antiemetic prophylaxis from double to triple combination in patients with high dose carboplatin chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy.

METHODS

Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ2 test.

RESULTS

Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session.

Bibliometric and visual analysis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2004-2023)

Background

Patients undergoing chemotherapy often encounter troubling and common side effects, notably Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This side effect not only impairs the patient's quality of life but could also result in the interruption or discontinuation of the chemotherapy treatment. Consequently, research into CINV has consistently remained a focal point in the realm of clinical medicine. In this research domain, bibliometric analysis has not been conducted. The purpose of this study is to deliver a thorough summary of the knowledge framework and key areas of interest in the field of Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, using bibliometric methods. This approach aims to furnish novel concepts and pathways for investigators working in this area.

Methods

Publications focusing on Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, spanning from 2004 to 2023, were identified using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix" were employed for this bibliometric analysis.

Results

This research covers 734 publications from 61 countries, with the United States and China being the primary contributors. There has been a significant rise in the volume of papers published in the most recent decade compared to the one before it, spanning over the past twenty years. However, the annual publication rate in the last ten years has not shown a significant upward trend. The University of Toronto, Merck & Co., Sun Yat-sen University, and Helsinn Healthcare SA emerged as the principal research institutions in this field. Supportive Care in Cancer stands out as the most frequently published and cited journal in this domain. These works are contributed by 3,917 authors, with Rudolph M Navari, Matti Aapro, Shimokawa Mototsugu, and Lee Schwartzberg being among those who have published the most. Paul J. Hesketh is notably the most co-cited author. The primary focus of this research field lies in exploring the mechanisms of CINV and the therapeutic strategies for managing it. Key emerging research hotspots are represented by terms such as "Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," "nausea," "vomiting," "chemotherapy," and "antiemetics."

Conclusion

This represents the inaugural bibliometric study to thoroughly outline the research trends and advancements in the field of CINV. It highlights the latest research frontiers and trending directions, offering valuable insights for scholars engaged in studying CINV.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: Pathogenesis and current management

Chemotherapy is the most common treatment for malignant tumors. However, chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (CIGT) has been a major concern for cancer patients, which reduces their quality of life and leads to treatment intolerance and even cessation. Nevertheless, prevention and treatment for CIGT are challenging, due to the prevalence and complexity of the condition. Chemotherapeutic drugs directly damage gastrointestinal mucosa to induce CIGT, including nausea, vomiting, anorexia, gastrointestinal mucositis, and diarrhea, etc. The pathogenesis of CIGT involves multiple factors, such as gut microbiota disorders, inflammatory responses and abnormal neurotransmitter levels, that synergistically contribute to its occurrence and development. In particular, the dysbiosis of gut microbiota is usually linked to abnormal immune responses that increases inflammatory cytokines' expression, which is a common characteristic of many types of CIGT. Chemotherapy-induced intestinal neurotoxicity is also a vital concern in CIGT. Currently, modern medicine is the dominant treatment of CIGT, however, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has attracted interest as a complementary and alternative therapy that can greatly alleviate CIGT. Accordingly, this review aimed to comprehensively summarize the pathogenesis and current management of CIGT using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and proposed that future research for CIGT should focus on the gut microbiota, intestinal neurotoxicity, and promising TCM therapies, which may help to develop more effective interventions and optimize managements of CIGT.

Percutaneous absorption and Skin accumulation of Lorazepam-Diphenhydramine- Haloperidol Carbopol gel in Porcine Ear Skin

This study presents the formulation and evaluation of an ABH Carbopol gel containing lorazepam (Ativan®), diphenhydramine hydrochloride (Benadryl®), and haloperidol (Haldol®) for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hospice patients. ABH PLO gel is widely used for this purpose due to its low cost and presumed efficacy. However, previous studies, including one conducted by the authors, have reported insufficient drug absorption from the ABH PLO gel. Here we hypothesized that the ABH Carbopol gel would provide superior percutaneous absorption of the drugs. ABH Carbopol gel was characterized for pH, viscosity, thermal properties, and infrared spectroscopy. The percutaneous absorption and skin retention of the gel was evaluated across porcine ear skin using Franz diffusion cells, and the drug concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. The pH of the ABH Carbopol gel was found to be 6.80 ± 0.33, and the retention time of diphenhydramine, haloperidol, and lorazepam were 4.73, 7.11, and 18.69 minutes, respectively. The thermogram of the ABH Carbopol gel indicates the drugs were present in the dissolved state. Based on the flux data, the estimated steady-state concentration (Css) of diphenhydramine, haloperidol, and lorazepam were found to be 44.64 ng/ml, 2.58 ng/ml, and 20.1 ng/ml, respectively. These values were significantly higher than those obtained from the ABH PLO gel. In conclusion, the ABH Carbopol gel provides a promising alternative to the ABH PLO gel for treating CINV in hospice patients. Further studies are required to validate these findings in clinical settings.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Background

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

Findings

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

Interpretation

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

Funding

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Experimentally designed electrochemical sensor for therapeutic drug monitoring of Ondansetron co-administered with chemotherapeutic drugs

The experimental design extracts valuable information about the main effects and interactions from the least number of experiments. The current work constructs a solid-state sensor for selective assay of Ondansetron (OND) in pharmaceutical dosage form and plasma samples. During optimization, the Design Expert^® statistical package constructed a custom design of 15 sensors with different recipes. We fed the software with the experimentally observed performance parameters for each sensor (slope, LOQ, correlation coefficient, and selectivity coefficient for sodium ions). The computer software analyzed the results to construct a prediction model for each response. The desirability function was adjusted to optimize the Nernstian slope, minimize the LOQ and selectivity coefficients, and maximize the correlation coefficient (r). The practical responses of the optimized sensor were close to those predicted by the model (slope = 60.23 mV/decade slope, LOQ = 9.09 × 10^–6 M, r = 0.999, sodium selectivity coefficient = 1.09 × 10⁻³). The sensor successfully recovered OND spiked to tablets and human plasma samples with mean percentage recoveries of 100.01 ± 1.082 and 98.26 ± 2.227, respectively. Results were statistically comparable to those obtained by the reference chromatographic method. The validated potentiometric method can be used for fast and direct therapeutic drug monitoring of OND co-administered with chemotherapeutic drugs in plasma samples.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)

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

Research Progress on the Antiemetic Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Against Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Review

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common side effect in antineoplastic treatment, dramatically decreases the quality of life as well as the compliance of cancer patients. Although numerous antiemetic agents have been used for CINV treatment, its adverse reactions as well as its inadequate control toward delayed emesis still limit its clinical usage. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), with more than 3,000 years of practical history in Asia, has been successfully applied to mitigate chemotherapy-induced side effects. Growing attention is drawn to the antiemetic effect of TCM against CINV due to its promising therapeutic property and higher safety recently. In this review, we summarize the classic antiemetic TCM-based treatment and its mechanisms, so as to provide a theoretical basis for further investigations of TCM against CINV in the future.

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens

PURPOSE

The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.

STUDY

Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.

RESULTS

A total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

The Management of Cancer Symptoms and Treatment-Induced Side Effects With Cannabis or Cannabinoids

Cannabis and cannabinoids are increasingly being accessed and used by patients with advanced cancer for various symptoms and general quality of life. Specific symptoms of pain, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite and cachexia, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and medical trauma are among those that have prompted patients with cancer to use cannabis. This conference report from the National Cancer Institute's "Cannabis, Cannabinoid and Cancer Research Symposium" on the topic of "Cancer Symptom/Treatment Side Effect Management" is an expert perspective of cannabis intervention for cancer and cancer treatment-related symptoms. The purpose of the symposium was to identify research gaps, describe the need for high-quality randomized prospective studies of medical cannabis for palliative care in patients with cancer, and evaluate the impact of medical cannabis on cancer survivors' quality of life. Further, education of clinicians and affiliated health-care providers in guiding cancer patients in using cannabis for cancer care would benefit patients. Together, these steps will further aid in refining the use of cannabis and cannabinoids for symptom palliation and improve safety and efficacy for patients.

Radiation-Induced Emesis (RIE) in Extended-Field Radiotherapy for Gynecological Malignancies: Dosimetric and Non-Dosimetric Factors

Radiation-induced emesis (RIE) is usually noted during abdominal-pelvic radiotherapy. In gynecological malignancies, it is usually noted in para-aortic but not whole-pelvic irradiation. Irradiated small bowel (SB) may be associated with RIE. The significance of SB dosimetry remains unclear. Dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors were evaluated and correlated with RIE in 45 patients with gynecological malignancies undergoing extended-field radiotherapy (EFRT) (median 45 Gy) from 2006 to 2021. Early-onset RIE (within 72 h after the first fraction of EFRT) was noted in 10 of 12 RIE patients. RIE was significantly associated with the SB mean dose. The RIE rates were 58.3% and 15.2% (p = 0.007) in patients with a low (<63%) and high (≥63%) SB mean dose. Logistic regression revealed that the SB mean dose remained the independent factor of overall RIE (p = 0.049) and early-onset RIE (p = 0.014). Therefore, constraint of the SB mean dose limited to less than 63% of the prescribed dose is suggested to decrease RIE.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Transdermal versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of transdermal granisetron versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer METHODS: Data sources were CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov , and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing transdermal versus oral granisetron in patients with CINV. For data extraction, two authors independently analyzed the methodological quality and extracted data. A random effects model was used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Three studies (1086 patients) were included. Oral granisetron is superior (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) to its transdermal form in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.40) and QTc prolongation (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.40) as adverse effects, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two routes.

CONCLUSION

Oral granisetron is better in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation and QTc prolongation as adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference between the two routes.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea in a sample of gynaecological cancer patients: assessment issues and personal risk factors evaluation

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is a relevant problem for gynaecological cancer patients. The evaluation of CIN is a key aspect in its management, along with the identification of associated risk factors. The objective of the study was to compare different measurements of nausea and to investigate personal risk factors in CIN development.

METHOD

Eighty-one women treated for gynaecological cancers took part. The presence of CIN was evaluated using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) and a patient's report to clinicians at the subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Personal risk factors were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study shows that the agreement between patients' assessment of CIN with MAT and what they referred to clinicians was only moderate for acute nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.55; p < 0.001), while good for delayed nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.68; p < 0.001). At multiple logistic regression analysis, younger age, anticipatory nausea, patient medium-high expectations of CIN, and parity emerged as risk factors for the development of acute nausea (p = 0.0087, 0.0080, 0.0122 and 0.0021, respectively). Patient medium-high expectations of CIN and being single resulted to be risk factors for delayed nausea (p = 0.0397 and 0.0024, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm that personal factors contribute to individual differences in the development of CIN; moreover, we highlight the importance of CIN evaluation by clinicians, underlining the need to use reliable instruments.

Oral versus intravenous palonosetron in Chinese cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: A non-inferiority phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

The 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (PALO) is approved (United States/Europe) as an oral formulation for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult cancer patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for the acute phase only, in the United States, or as intravenous (IV) formulation in patients undergoing MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This phase III study compares the efficacy/safety of oral versus IV PALO in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with solid tumours scheduled for MEC received oral PALO 0.50 mg or IV PALO 0.25 mg. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with complete response in the acute phase (0-24 hr post-chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Complete response rates (acute phase), evaluated in 318/320 randomised patients, were 84.6% and 85.9% for oral and IV PALO respectively. Non-inferiority was demonstrated; the two formulations showed similar efficacy/safety.

CONCLUSION

Non-inferiority of oral versus IV PALO in the acute phase was demonstrated in Chinese patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTR20140711.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Role of epigenetic mechanisms in cisplatin-induced toxicity

Cisplatin (CDDP) is a highly effective antineoplastic agent, widely used in the treatment of various malignant tumors. However, its major problems are side effects associated to toxicity. Considerable inter-individual differences have been reported for CDDP-induced toxicity due to genetic and epigenetic factors. Genetic causes are well described; however, epigenetic modifications are not fully addressed. In the last few years, many evidences were found linking microRNA to the development of CDDP-mediated toxicity, particularly nephrotoxicity. In this review, we described how genetic and epigenetic modifications can be important determinants for the development of toxicity in patients treated with CDDP, and how these alterations may be interesting biomarkers for monitoring toxicity induced by CDDP. Considering the validation in different studies, we suggest that miR-34a, -146b, -378a, -192, and -193 represent an attractive study group to evaluate potential biomarkers to detect CDDP-related nephrotoxicity.

Area postrema syndrome as frequent feature of Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis

Objective

Area postrema (AP) syndrome (defined as: nausea and/or emesis and/or singultus at onset of brainstem dysfunction) comprises complex pathophysiologic mechanisms triggered by different entities. The first objective was to assess the frequency of AP syndrome as a clinical feature in brainstem encephalitis (BE). Finding an especially high prevalence of AP syndrome in Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (BBE), we also analyzed the frequency of AP syndrome in other autoimmune diseases with anti-ganglioside antibodies (Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and its variants).

Methods

We systematically evaluated the prevalence of AP syndrome in BE in all patients treated at our university hospital during a 15-year period. In a second step, BBE patients were compared to GBS and Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) patients as clinical subtypes of a disease continuum without brainstem dysfunction.

Results

We found AP syndrome in 8 of 21 BE patients, including 3 of 7 BBE and in 4 of 112 GBS/MFS patients. AP syndrome was as a frequent but under-recognized feature of BE with a significant impact on patients' well being.

Interpretation

Manifestation of AP syndrome in BBE but also in GBS and its subtypes point toward a role of autoimmune antibodies that should be investigated in future studies. Considerable misdiagnosis or nonrecognition complicates diagnostic and therapeutic management. Therefore, AP syndrome should be considered in any episode of otherwise unexplained nausea, emesis, or singultus.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

Psycho-oncology: History, Current Status, and Future Directions in Japan

One of the most relevant risk factors for cancer is aging; thus, the number of patients who develop cancer and die is increasing in Japan. Cancer has been a leading cause of death since 1981, and more than one-fourth of Japanese people die of cancer. More than 1,000,000 and 37,000 Japanese people develop cancer and die every year, respectively, making it a major health problem in Japan.

Psycho-oncology is a relatively new medical field that was established in the 1970s in Western countries and introduced in Japan in the 1980s. Psycho-oncology was developed for investigating two issues neglected in previous medical research: the impact of behavioral and psychosocial factors on cancer morbidity and mortality and the psychological influence of cancer on patients, their families, and medical staff.

Because of progress made in cancer treatment, cancer diagnosis is not necessarily equivalent to a death sentence. However, approximately half of patients with cancer die, and many patients with cancer and their families need appropriate care for psychological distress. The most common psychiatric problems patients with cancer experience are adjustment disorders, major depression, and/or delirium. In addition, the suicide rate in Japan for individuals within 1 year of a cancer diagnosis is more than 20 times higher than that for individuals without cancer. Physical symptoms, such as pain and nausea/vomiting, can be closely associated with psychological function. Mental health professionals, particularly psycho-oncologists, are expected to work with other cancer professionals to manage patients' distress.

The present review focuses on patients with cancer' psychological distress and physical symptoms that are closely associated with psychological function and provides an overview of the current status of psycho-oncology in Japan. The future perspective of psycho-oncology is also discussed.

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.

A retrospective review of treatment patterns of antiemetic agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Objectives:

To evaluate the treatment pattern of antiemetic agents used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

Over a period of 7 weeks, all new chemotherapy order sheets were collected and evaluated for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management. We compared each antiemetic regimen used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis with three international antiemetic guidelines by the following organizations: the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for the clinician.

Results:

A total of 152 cancer patients were included in the study, for whom 289 chemotherapy physician orders included antiemetic regimens. Approximately 17.3% of the chemotherapy protocols had total minimal emetogenicity risk, 22.5% had low risk, 37.02% had moderate risk, and 23.18% had high risk. For acute emesis, 27.57% of the antiemetic regimens followed at least one of the three reference guidelines. For delayed emesis, only 20.16% of the antiemetic regimens adhered to at least one of the three reference guidelines.

Conclusion:

Adherence to treatment recommendations and antiemetics prescribing for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was suboptimal at this hospital. However, institutional antiemetic guidelines and oncology pharmacists could play an important role in better assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

A phase II randomised study to evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron for preventing delayed-phase CINV associated with TC therapy in gynaecological cancer

AIM

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequently encountered side effects of cancer treatment. Severe CINV can lead patients to refuse chemotherapy, which ultimately affects cancer outcomes. The development of fairly new antiemetic agents, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists and aprepitant has reduced the risk and incidence of CINV. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron against palonosetron for CINV in patients receiving moderately emetic cancer chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin combination [TC] therapy).

METHODS

Between November 2010 and March 2014, 78 patients with gynecological cancer treated with TC therapy were randomized into two groups: an aprepitant group (administered aprepitant, dexamethasone and palonosetron) and a control group (administered dexamethasone and palonosetron). The primary study endpoint was complete response, defined as the complete absence of emetic events in the delayed phase.

RESULTS

The complete response rate in the delayed phase differed significantly between the two groups, with 82% in the aprepitant group and 97% in the control group (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

The combination of aprepitant and palonosetron appears to be of greater efficacy than palonosetron alone for the prevention of delayed-phase CINV induced by TC therapy.

Evaluation of a Neurokinin-1 Antagonist in Preventing Multiple-day Cisplatin-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

To perform a prospective non-randomized comparison of the effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment with the standard multiple-day cisplatin regimen for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

Patients being administered 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) who had never received aprepitant were given either the standard regimen (tropisetron and dexamethasone) or the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus tropisetron and dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP, 0–120 h) between the combined aprepitant triple regimen group and the standard group. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP, 0–24 h) and delay phase (DP, 25–120 h) between the two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

A CR was achieved by 80.0% in the aprepitant group compared with 56.0% in the standard group during the OP (P =0.018)as well as during the DP. However, during the AP, the aprepitant and standard therapy groups achieved identical CR rates (98.0%, P =1.000). A longer time to first emesis was documented for the aprepitant group than for the standard group. No effect of CINV on quality of life as assessed by FLIE was reported by 44.7% of aprepitant therapy patients and 24.0% of standard therapy patients (P=0.035). The main aprepitant-related AEs were fatigue and constipation, but there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Combined aprepitant therapy is recommended for the prevention of multiple-day CINV because of its improved CINV control rate and safety.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antiemetic prophylaxis for adult highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A network meta-analysis of 143 randomized controlled trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the commonest side-effects among cancer patients. However, there is lacking of hierarchical evidences comparing different antiemetics against highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative efficacy and tolerability. Randomized controlled trials that compared different antiemetic categories for adult highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included after searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central. Acute-phase no emesis and no nausea were identified as primary endpoints. We made pairwise and hierarchical calculations by random-effects model. Effect sizes were presented by odds ratio and 95% confidential interval. Subgroup analysis was additionally performed. 143 randomized trials were included into pooled analysis, containing 22,776 patients and 18 antiemetic categories. 5-HT3 RA plus corticosteroid plus NK-1 RA plus other (5CNO) displayed best protection against both acute emesis (SUCRA: 99.7%) and nausea (95.6%). 5CNO (99.7%) and 5-HT3 RA plus corticosteroid plus other (5CO, 85.3%) topped subgroup hierarchies for no-naivety and anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based studies. On the other hand, 5-HT3 RA plus dopamine RA plus other (5DO) may be best fit for delayed emesis (92.0%) and nausea (92.7%). Subgroups featuring no-naivety and AC-based trials preferred 5DO (91.9%) and 5CN (88.6%), respectively. In addition, dopamine RA plus other (DO) had the lowest incidence of TRAE in most circumstances, except for AC-based subgroup where corticosteroid plus dopamine RA plus other (CDO) preponderated (69.2%). 5CNO and 5DO should be considered as first-line regimens against highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced acute and delayed CINV, respectively.

Single-dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in breast and colorectal cancer patients

Aims and background

Palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has been demonstrated to control emesis related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron followed by a single dose of dexamethasone in patients with breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

Methods and study design

Chemotherapy-naive BC and CRC patients were given MEC as adjuvant or first-line treatment. Palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) and dexamethasone (8 mg IV) were administered before chemotherapy on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall study period (days 1–5). The antiemetic response was evaluated during the acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2–5) phases.

Results

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 61 years, 56 females; BC = 40, CRC = 28). CR was observed in 46 of 68 patients (67.6%), while CR during the acute and delayed phases was 75.0% in each cancer group. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.

Conclusions

A single administration of palonosetron and dexamethasone on day 1 in BC and CRC patients adequately controls CINV during the entire period of emetic risk.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

The Effect of a Standardized Ginger Extract on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled Trial

Ginger supplementation could be an effective adjuvant treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). The aim of this clinical trial was to address significant methodological limitations in previous trials. Patients (N = 51) were randomly allocated to receive either 1.2 g of standardised ginger extract or placebo per day, in addition to standard anti-emetic therapy, during the first three cycles of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was CIN-related quality of life (QoL) measured with the Functional Living Index- Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included acute and delayed nausea, vomiting, and retching as well as cancer-related fatigue, nutritional status, and CIN and vomiting-specific prognostic factors. Over three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, nausea was more prevalent than vomiting (47% vs. 12%). In chemotherapy Cycle 1, intervention participants reported significantly better QoL related to CIN (p = 0.029), chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related QoL (p = 0.043), global QoL (p = 0.015) and less fatigue (p = 0.006) than placebo participants. There were no significant results in Cycle 2. In Cycle 3, global QoL (p = 0.040) and fatigue (p = 0.013) were significantly better in the intervention group compared to placebo. This trial suggests adjuvant ginger supplementation is associated with better chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life and less cancer-related fatigue, with no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women With Gynecological Cancer: A Preliminary Single-Center Study Investigating Medical and Psychosocial Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice for many gynecological tumors, but cytotoxic drugs lead to a wide range of stressful side effects; nausea and vomiting are 2 of the most common and distressing consequences of many chemotherapy regimens.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate various risk factors that could influence the experience of nausea and vomiting after the first chemotherapeutic infusion.

METHODS

Women treated for various gynecological cancers (n = 94) took part in the study. Pharmacological and personal risk factors in the development of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were assessed with the use of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire. Regression analyses (both univariate and multiple) were performed to establish risk factors associated with CINV.

RESULTS

The study highlights the importance of working status (being involved in a working activity during treatment) as a protective factor for developing chemotherapy-induced nausea. Furthermore, younger age, levels of state anxiety, chemotherapy-induced nausea in previous treatments, and alcohol intake were found to have an effect on CINV, increasing its risk. Emetogenic potential was associated only with the presence of delayed vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this is a preliminary study into the risk factors of CINV in gynecological tumors, these findings offer support that personal risk factors contribute to individual differences in the frequency and severity of CINV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Personal factors should be taken into consideration by the multidisciplinary treating team in gynecology.

Efficacy of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin and carboplatin in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer

AIM

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the difference in effects of the oral neurokinin-1(NK-1) receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer receiving highly emetogenic (cisplatin) and moderately emetogenic (carboplatin) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Aprepitant was added during the second course of chemotherapy in Japanese patients with grade ≥ 2 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) nausea and vomiting during the first course despite receiving antiemetic therapy (a first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone), and in patients who requested stronger antiemetic therapy despite only having grade 1 nausea and vomiting. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was compared between the first and second courses in each group.

RESULTS

Ninety-six (55.5%) out of 173 patients received add-on therapy with aprepitant. There was a significant increase in the complete response (CR: no vomiting or salvage therapy) rate in the patients receiving aprepitant, with marked improvement being confirmed for delayed CINV. Stratified analysis showed that patients with delayed CINV treated with carboplatin had a significantly higher CR rate, while patients with both acute and delayed CINV treated with cisplatin had significantly higher CR rates. There was a positive correlation between the incidence of nausea and the incidence of vomiting in the patients treated with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

The oral NK-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant could be effective for both acute and delayed CINV with cisplatin and for delayed CINV with carboplatin in Japanese gynecological cancer patients.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery)

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 190 colorectal cancer patients: a prospective registration study by the CINV study group of Japan

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for colorectal cancer both in the adjuvant and metastatic setting. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, many aspects of CINV in patients with colorectal cancer remain unclear.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed the data of 190 colorectal cancer patients scheduled for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

All 190 patients received MEC and 99% of patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute CINV was well controlled. 13 (6.8%) patients suffered from acute nausea and 4 (2.1%) experienced acute vomiting, whereas the prevalence of delayed CINV was relatively high. Delayed nausea occurred in 71 (37.4%) patients and delayed vomiting in 24 (12.6%). History of motion sickness was a significant independent risk factor for delayed nausea (Odd ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval 1.49-10.19, p = 0.0056).

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance with CINV guidelines in colorectal cancer chemotherapy was quite high and led to good control of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in Japan. However, the incidence of delayed nausea remained high in patients receiving MEC.

Effect of acupuncture in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and distressing side effects in patients with cancer. The introduction and development of antiemetic drugs have significantly improved the ability of clinicians to control CINV, but it is not easy to translate to practical application, owing to financial issues, provider-related barriers, and patient factors. Nondrug therapies are needed to alleviate the symptoms of CINV. Acupuncture is an appropriate adjunctive treatment for CINV, but additional evidence is needed.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled prospective clinical trial. A total of 136 participants will be randomly allocated into the intervention group (verum acupuncture) or the control group (sham acupuncture) in a 1:1 ratio. All treatment will be given for 5 days. Participants in both groups will receive acupuncture sessions twice on the first day of chemotherapy and once consecutively on the following 4 days. Each session takes approximately 30 minutes. The primary outcome measure will be the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to assess CINV. The secondary outcome measures will be the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Safety will be assessed at each visit.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial will provide clinical evidence for the effect and safety of acupuncture for CINV.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ISRCTN Registry identifier: ISRCTN13287728 ). Registered on 28 February 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02369107 . Registered on 17 February 2015.

Examining racial variation in antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy health care utilization for nausea and vomiting among breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Racial minority cancer patients may experience underuse of antiemetic medications to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In addition to its adverse implications for quality of life, antiemetic underuse may contribute to observed disparities in acute illness during chemotherapy. To understand the potential contribution of CINV prophylaxis to breast cancer disparities, we assessed racial variation in potent antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy utilization related to CINV and the relationship between the two.

METHODS

We used SEER-Medicare data to evaluate the health care utilization in the 14 days following chemotherapy initiation among black and white women receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for breast cancer. We used modified Poisson regression to assess the relationship between (1) race and CINV-related utilization and (2) NK1 use and CINV-related utilization, overall and stratified by race. We report adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The study included 1130 women. Black women were 11 % less likely than white women to use neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1s) for CINV prophylaxis (p = 0.02); however, they experienced fewer CINV-related encounters following chemotherapy (unadjusted RR = 0.63, 95 %CI = 0.40-0.99; p = 0.05). After adjustment for clinical covariates, estimates were similar but no longer statistically significant (p = 0.07). Among white women, NK1 use was associated with increased CINV-related utilization (aRR NK1 users vs. non-users: 1.35, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.69, p = 0.01), likely resulting from unmeasured confounders.

CONCLUSION

Black women were less likely to use NK1s- and CINV-related services. Racial variation in CINV-related services use may be partly explained by differential symptom reporting or access to care.

Investigating racial disparities in use of NK1 receptor antagonists to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among women with breast cancer

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major concern for cancer patients and, if uncontrolled, can seriously compromise quality of life (QOL) and other treatment outcomes. Because of the expense of antiemetic medications used to prevent CINV (particularly oral medications filled through Medicare Part D), disparities in their use may exist. We used 2006-2012 SEER-Medicare data to evaluate the use of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1s), a potent class of antiemetics, among black and white women initiating highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. We used modified Poisson regression to assess the relationship between race and (1) any NK1 use, (2) oral NK1 (aprepitant) use, and (3) intravenous NK1 (fosaprepitant) use. We report adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). The study included 1130 women. We observed racial disparities in use of any NK1 (aRR: 0.68, 95 % CI 0.51-0.91) and in use of oral aprepitant specifically (aRR: 0.54, 95 % CI 0.35-0.83). We did not observe disparities in intravenous fosaprepitant use. After controlling for variables related to socioeconomic status, disparities in NK1 and aprepitant use were reduced but not eliminated. We found racial disparities in women's use of oral NK1s for the prevention of CINV. These disparities may be partly explained by racial differences in socioeconomic status, which may translate into differential ability to afford the medication.

Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines 2010 for antiemesis in oncology: executive summary

The purpose of this article is to disseminate the standard of antiemetic therapy for Japanese clinical oncologists. On the basis of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, which reflects evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, a working group of the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) reviewed clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis and performed a systematic review of evidence-based domestic practice guidelines for antiemetic therapy in Japan. In addition, because health-insurance systems in Japan are different from those in other countries, a consensus was reached regarding standard treatments for chemotherapy that induce nausea and vomiting. Current evidence was collected by use of MEDLINE, from materials from meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and from European Society of Medical Oncology/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer guidelines for antiemesis. Initially, 21 clinical questions (CQ) were selected on the basis of CQs from other guidelines. Patients treated with highly emetic agents should receive a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist. For patients with moderate emetic risk, 5HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone were recommended, whereas for those receiving chemotherapy with low emetic risk dexamethasone only is recommended. Patients receiving high-emetic-risk radiation therapy should also receive a 5HT3 receptor antagonist. In this paper the 2010 JSCO clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis are presented in English; they reveal high concordance of Japanese medical circumstances with other antiemetic guidelines that are similarly based on evidence.