Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

A deep learning-based interpretable decision tool for predicting high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients prescribed highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a risk prediction model for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and identify the variables that have the most significant impact on prediction.

METHODS

Data from Tianjin Medical University General Hospital were collected and subjected to stepwise data preprocessing. Deep learning algorithms, including deep forest, and typical machine learning algorithms such as support vector machine (SVM), categorical boosting (CatBoost), random forest, decision tree, and neural network were used to develop the prediction model. After training the model and conducting hyperparameter optimization (HPO) through cross-validation in the training set, the performance was evaluated using the test set. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), partial dependence plot (PDP), and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) techniques were employed to explain the optimal model. Model performance was assessed using AUC, F1 score, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and Brier score.

RESULTS

The deep forest model exhibited good discrimination, outperforming typical machine learning models, with an AUC of 0.850 (95%CI, 0.780-0.919), an F1 score of 0.757, an accuracy of 0.852, a specificity of 0.863, a sensitivity of 0.784, and a Brier score of 0.082. The top five important features in the model were creatinine clearance (Ccr), age, gender, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, and antiemetic regimen. Among these, Ccr had the most significant predictive value. The risk of CINV decreased with increased Ccr and age, while it was higher in the presence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting, female gender, and non-standard antiemetic regimen.

CONCLUSION

The deep forest model demonstrated good discrimination in predicting the risk of CINV in cancer patients prescribed HEC. Kidney function, as represented by Ccr, played a crucial role in the model's prediction. The clinical application of this predictive tool can help assess individual risks and improve patient care by proactively optimizing the use of antiemetics in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Fosnetupitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Short Review and Clinical Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is often ranked by patients as one of the most distressing and feared consequences of chemotherapy. The novel neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist fosnetupitant, a phosphorylated prodrug formulation of netupitant, was approved in Japan in 2022. Fosnetupitant is one of the standard treatments for the prevention of CINV in patients who are receiving highly (any treatment where CINV occurs in more than 90% of patients) or moderately (where CINV occurs in 30-90% of patients) emetogenic chemotherapies. The aim of this commentary is to describe the mechanism of action, tolerability, and antiemetic efficacy of single-agent fosnetupitant in the prevention of CINV, and to discuss its clinical application, in order to aid optimal use.

Duration of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) as a Predictor of Recurrent CINV in Later Cycles

BACKGROUND

The relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients' recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF).

RESULTS

Among 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

Challenges in the Development of Intravenous Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists: Results of a Safety and Pharmacokinetics Dose-Finding, Phase 1 Study of Intravenous Fosnetupitant

Oral NEPA is the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK₁ RA]) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist [5-HT₃ RA]). Intravenous (IV) NEPA, containing fosnetupitant, a water-soluble N-phosphoryloxymethyl prodrug of netupitant, has been developed. Fosnetupitant does not require excipients or solubility enhancers often used to increase IV NK₁ RA water solubility, preventing the occurrence of hypersensitivity and infusion-site reactions associated with these products. In this phase 1 study, subjects received a 30-minute placebo or fosnetupitant (17.6-353 mg) infusion and an oral NEPA or placebo capsule, with 2-sequence crossover treatment for fosnetupitant 118- to 353-mg dose cohorts. IV fosnetupitant safety and pharmacokinetics were evaluated, and its equivalence to an oral netupitant 300-mg dose was defined. Overall, 158 healthy volunteers were enrolled. All adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in intensity. Doppler-identified infusion-site asymptomatic thrombosis occurred in 5.4% (fosnetupitant) and 1.2% (oral NEPA) of subjects. The frequency or number of treatment-related AEs did not increase with ascending fosnetupitant doses. The most common treatment-related AEs were headache (fosnetupitant, 8.1%; oral NEPA, 12.7%) and constipation (fosnetupitant, 1.4%; oral NEPA, 7.5%). A fosnetupitant 235-mg dose was equivalent, in terms of netupitant exposure, to 300-mg oral netupitant. The safety profile of a single fosnetupitant 235-mg infusion was similar to that of single-dose oral NEPA.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx.

METHODS

This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics.

RESULTS

In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

A phase 3 safety study of fosnetupitant as an antiemetic in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide: CONSOLE-BC

BACKGROUND

Fosnetupitant (FosNTP), an intravenous neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a potentially low risk of injection site reactions (ISRs) and promising antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving cisplatin‐based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in a previous phase 2 study. We conducted a randomized, double‐blind safety study to evaluate the safety profile of FosNTP, including ISRs, in patients receiving doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide or epirubicin‐cyclophosphamide (AC/EC) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive AC/EC were randomized 1:1 to receive 235 mg of FosNTP or 150 mg of fosaprepitant (FosAPR), both in combination with 0.75 mg of intravenous palonosetron and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone on day 1. The stratification factors were age category (<55 vs ≥55 years) and study site. The primary end point was the incidence of treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) with FosNTP.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients were randomized to FosNTP (n = 52) or FosAPR (n = 50), and all were treated with the study drug and evaluated for safety. The primary end point, the incidence of TRAEs, was similar with FosNTP (21.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1%‐34.7%) and FosAPR (22.0%; 95% CI, 11.5%‐36.0%), with any‐cause ISRs observed in 5.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively, and treatment‐related ISRs observed in 0% and 10.0%, respectively. The overall (0‐120 hour) complete response (defined as no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, standardized by age category in the full analysis set, was 45.9% (23 of 51 patients) with FosNTP and 51.3% (25 of 49 patients) with FosAPR.

CONCLUSIONS

FosNTP demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a very low risk of ISRs in the AC/EC setting.

Fosnetupitant shows a favorable safety profile in patients receiving doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide or epirubicin‐cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. As an intravenous neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist with a low risk of causing injection site reactions, fosnetupitant may be used for protecting patients with cancer from experiencing chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: CONSOLE

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, to show the noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR (noninferiority margin, -10% for the difference in the overall CR rate).

RESULTS

Overall, 795 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 785 received the study drug (FosNTP [N = 392] v FosAPR [N = 393]) and were evaluated for efficacy and safety. The overall CR rate was 75.2% versus 71.0%, respectively (Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), demonstrating noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR. The CR rates in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and beyond delayed (120-168 hours) phases, and at 0-168 hours were 93.9% versus 92.6%, 76.8% versus 72.8%, 86.5% versus 81.4%, and 73.2% versus 66.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events with FosNTP versus FosAPR were 22.2% versus 25.4%, whereas adverse events or treatment-related adverse events relevant to injection site reactions were 11.0% versus 20.6% (P < .001) and 0.3% versus 3.6% (P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

FosNTP demonstrated noninferiority to FosAPR, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for injection site reactions. Thus, FosNTP is valuable in the prophylaxis of acute, delayed, and beyond delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Pivalopril improves anti-cancer efficiency of cDDP in breast cancer through inhibiting proliferation, angiogenesis and metastasis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer type among female worldwide. Cisplatin (cDDP) is one of the most effective chemotherapies for the treatment of breast cancer. Nevertheless, there is an urgent requirement to reduce its systemic side effects and chemoresistance. In this present study, pivalopril (PP), a clinically used antihypertensive drug, has been verified as a chemosensitizer that extremely improves the sensitivity of breast cancer cells to cDDP. PP treatment markedly promoted the capacity of cDDP to reduce the proliferation of breast cancer cells. The combination of PP and cDDP significantly induced apoptosis and inhibited vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression in breast cancer cells, accompanied with reduced angiogenesis. Furthermore, PP plus cDDP effectively reduced the cell migration and invasion in breast cancer cells. The in vivo studies confirmed that the anti-metastatic effect of cDDP was further improved by PP, as evidenced by the markedly decreased number of metastatic nodules in lungs. Moreover, we confirmed that PP combined with cDDP cooperatively suppressed tumor growth in breast cancer xenograft mouse models without extra toxicity. Together, the present study provided the first evidence that PP greatly sensitized breast cancer cells to cDDP without additional toxicity, and the synergistic effect may be mainly through cooperatively inhibiting proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, and inducing apoptotic cell death.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.

METHODS

Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.