A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study Comparing the Impact of Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant on Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Treated for Gynecologic Cancer

Extravasation associated with cancer drug therapy: multidisciplinary guideline of the Japanese Society of Cancer Nursing, Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, and Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Extravasation (EV), or the leakage of anticancer drugs into perivascular and subcutaneous tissues during intravenous administration, can cause serious conditions that may require surgical intervention. Therefore, updated guidelines for EV based on systematic review are needed. Additionally, classifications for anticancer drugs that cause EV are not standardized across the current guidelines, and some novel drugs have not been classified. Therefore, this study aimed to formulate guidelines using evidence-based information for shared decision making on prevention, early detection, treatment, and care for EV in Japan and provide additional classification for tissue injury based on systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The members of the Japanese Society of Cancer Nursing (JSCN), Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO), and Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Oncology (JASPO) were surveyed about significant clinical challenges related to EV, and 17 clinical questions (CQs) were formulated. PubMed and ICHUSHI Web were searched using the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes terms listed in each CQ as key words. For the classification of new drugs, articles published through February 2021 were selected using the search terms 'extravasation', 'injection-site reaction', 'adverse events', and the names of individual drugs as key words.

RESULTS

Recommendations based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were made with regard to the selection of central venous (CV) devices (CQ2, CQ3a, CQ3b, and CQ3c), regular replacement of peripheral venous catheters (CQ5), and use of fosaprepitant (CQ7). These CQs are novel and were not mentioned in previous guidelines. Warm compression monotherapy (CQ10b) and local injection of steroids (CQ12) are discouraged for the management of EV. Ten new drugs were classified for EV tissue injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EV, which can be used to help health care providers and patients and their families practice better EV management.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Adding aprepitant to palonosetron does not decrease carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, aprepitant has been recommended in carboplatin-based regimens, but there are limited reports on the efficacy of administering aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (DEX) in carboplatin-containing regimens. Moreover, because aprepitant is an expensive drug, confirming its effectiveness is very important from the medical cost perspective. In this study, we examined the efficacy of prophylactically administered aprepitant, palonosetron and DEX, in paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with gynecologic cancer who were treated with paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, AUC = 5-6) combination chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The complete response (CR) rate, severity of nausea, and incidence of anorexia in the first course were compared between patients who did not receive aprepitant (control group) and those who received (aprepitant group).

RESULTS

The 106 patients were divided into two groups, consisting of 52 and 54 the control and aprepitant groups, respectively, and the patient background showed no significant difference between both groups. The CR rate of the overall phase between the control and aprepitant groups was 73.1 vs. 74.1%, that in the acute phase was 98.1 vs. 100%, and in the delayed phase was 75.0 vs. 74.1%, respectively, without any significant difference. The severity of nausea and incidence of anorexia were also not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study suggest that adding aprepitant to palonosetron and DEX does not prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic cancer patients. Therefore, adding aprepitant to palonosetron does not decrease carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer.

Symptom relief and palliative care in gynecologic oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with gynecologic malignancies experience varied and often difficult-to-manage symptoms through their disease course, along with decisions surrounding preferences for advance care planning. This review focuses on evidence-based symptom management for these patients and offers a framework for conversations regarding goals of therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is increasing literature on palliative care specifically in gynecologic oncology, including barriers and possible solutions for early palliative care use, along with updated guidelines on postoperative pain management and tools for communication.

SUMMARY

Integration of early palliative care and focus on symptom management is an important and multidisciplinary approach to help patients with gynecologic malignancies.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Preexposure of MCF-7 breast cancer cell line to dexamethasone alters the cytotoxic effect of paclitaxel but not 5-fluorouracil or epirubicin chemotherapy

Purpose

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often administered prior to any chemotherapeutics to prevent the secondary effects of anticancer agents. Glucocorticoid receptors (GRs) are expressed in several types of cancer cells, particularly in several histological types of breast cancer. Activation of GRs is not associated with any specific cellular response. Both proapoptotic and antiapoptotic responses have been observed, depending on the study or the type of breast cancer cells. Therefore, it is of relevance to investigate the possible modulation of apoptotic effect of chemotherapeutic agents when cancerous cells have previously been exposed to GCs.

Methods

In vitro cell growth was assayed by counting MCF-7 cells upon exposure to epirubicin (25 nM), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (15 µM), and paclitaxel (15 nM), either with or without prior exposure to the GC dexamethasone (Dex) (100 nM).

Results

Following preexposure to Dex, the antiapoptotic activity of paclitaxel was significantly reduced by 8.5% (p<0.05), but the activities of epirubicin and 5-FU remained unaltered.

Conclusion

In light of the finding that the response of MCF-7 cells pretreated with Dex was significantly reduced, we recommend that the function of GCs should be defined more precisely if they are to be used in conjunction with chemotherapy.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]duplex/triple = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (ORduplex/triple = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

Fosaprepitant dimeglumine for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: patient selection and perspectives

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of antineoplastic agents. Several treatment regimens are used to address this problem. Fosaprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker used in the prevention and treatment of CINV, especially for moderately and severely emetogenic chemotherapy. It is highly effective in the treatment of delayed CINV. Data from previous studies show that fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant in the management of CINV. Fosaprepitant is given as a single-dose intravenous infusion, thus offering better patient compliance. The dose-limiting side effect of fosaprepitant is an infusion-related reaction, ranging from pain at the infusion site to thrombophlebitis. This side effect has been reported with coadministration of anthracycline agents.