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.

A prospective observational study of real-world treatment and outcome in secondary CNS lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) confers a dismal prognosis and treatment advances are constrained by the lack of prospective studies and real-world treatment evidence.

METHODS

Patients with SCNSL of all entities were included at first diagnosis and patient characteristics, treatment data, and outcomes were prospectively collected in the Secondary CNS Lymphoma Registry (SCNSL-R) (NCT05114330).

FINDINGS

279 patients from 47 institutions were enrolled from 2011 to 2022 and 243 patients (median age: 66 years; range: 23-86) were available for analysis. Of those, 49 (20 %) patients presented with synchronous (cohort I) and 194 (80 %) with metachronous SCNSL (cohort II). The predominant histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, 68 %). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis of CNS involvement was 17·2 months (95 % CI 12-27·5), with longer OS in cohort I (60·6 months, 95 % CI 45·5-not estimable (NE)) than cohort II (11·4 months, 95 % CI 7·8-17·7, log-rank test p < 0.0001). Predominant induction regimens included R-CHOP/high-dose MTX (cohort I) and high-dose MTX/cytarabine (cohort II). Rituximab was used in 166 (68 %) of B-cell lymphoma. Undergoing consolidating high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) in partial response (PR) or better was associated with longer OS (HR adjusted 0·47 (95 % CI 0·25-0·89), p = 0·0197).

INTERPRETATION

This study is the largest prospective cohort of SCNSL patients providing a comprehensive overview of an international real-world treatment landscape and outcomes. Prognosis was better in patients with SCNSL involvement at initial diagnosis (cohort I) and consolidating HDT-ASCT was associated with favorable outcome in patients with PR or better.

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.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential.

RESULTS

Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs.

CONCLUSION

This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

2023 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy- and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide up to date optimal antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Through a comprehensive review of the literature concerning RINV and C-RINV, this manuscript aims to update the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis and rescue therapy and provide a new edition of recommendations for the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines for RINV and C-RINV.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature including data published from May 1, 2015, to January 31, 2023, was performed. All authors assessed the literature.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 343 references; 37 met criteria for full article review, and 20 were ultimately retained. Only one randomized study in chemoradiation had the impact to provide new recommendations for the antiemetic guideline. Based on expert consensus, it was decided to change the recommendation for the "low emetic risk" category from "prophylaxis or rescue" to "rescue" only, while the drugs of choice remain unchanged.

CONCLUSION

As for the previous guideline, the serotonin receptor antagonists are still the cornerstone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The guideline update provides new recommendation for the management of C-RINV for radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. To avoid overtreatment, antiemetic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the "low emetic risk" category.

Use of transcranial low-intensity focused ultrasound for targeted delivery of stem cell-derived exosomes to the brain

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) presents a significant challenge for targeted drug delivery. A proposed method to improve drug delivery across the BBB is focused ultrasound (fUS), which delivers ultrasound waves to a targeted location in the brain and is hypothesized to open the BBB. Furthermore, stem cell-derived exosomes have been suggested as a possible anti-inflammatory molecule that may have neural benefits, if able to pass the BBB. In the present study, transcranial low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU), without the use of intravenous microbubbles, was assessed for both (1) its ability to influence the BBB, as well as (2) its ability to increase the localization of intravenously administered small molecules to a specific region in the brain. In vivo rat studies were conducted with a rodent-customized 2 MHz LIFU probe (peak pressure = 1.5 MPa), and injection of labeled stem cell-derived exosomes. The results suggested that LIFU (without microbubbles) did not appear to open the BBB after exposure times of 20, 40, or 60 min; instead, there appeared to be an increase in transcytosis of the dextran tracer. Furthermore, the imaging results of the exosome study showed an increase in exosome localization in the right hippocampus following 60 min of targeted LIFU.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines

INTRODUCTION

Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies.

METHODS

A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Medical Oncology Education in Europe: Equipping Medical Oncologists to Provide the Best Care for Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND

High-quality, evidence-based, and practice-relevant education is essential to equip medical oncologists to provide high-quality care for patients with cancer. The need for medical oncology education is growing due to a rapid development of new therapies with novel mechanisms of action. Moreover, the number of patients with cancer is increasing with the rising in incidence and improved survival for some cancers. Access to medical oncology education and training opportunities, particularly in research, varies considerably in different countries and regions.

SUMMARY

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European School of Oncology (ESO), and other relevant associations have developed a wide range of opportunities, resources, and measures to increase access to high-quality medical oncology education. Initiatives that are helping to achieve effective and consistent medical oncology education include the ESMO/ASCO (American Society of Medical Oncology) global curriculum in medical oncology.

KEY MESSAGES

There is great value in providing wider educational opportunities than local and national training to increase access and, potentially, quality and scope and reduce variations in medical oncology education. Pan-European and global educational initiatives open up the expertise, knowledge, and best practice on different tumour types and cross-sectional topics, such as supportive and palliative care that can be shared between medical oncologists from other countries.

Impact of novel agent therapies on immune cell subsets and infectious complications in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Introduction

Infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods

To examine the effects of modern second-generation novel agent therapy on immune cell subsets, in particular CD4+-T-cells, and infectious complications in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), we conducted a prospective cohort study in 112 RRMM patients.

Results

Substantially decreased CD4+-T-cells <200/µl before initiation of relapse therapy were detected in 27.7% of patients and were associated with a higher number of previous lines of therapy. Relapse therapy with carfilzomib or pomalidomide showed a significant further decrease of CD4+-T-cells. All novel agents led to a significant decrease of B-cell counts. Overall, infections were frequent with 21.3% of patients requiring antibacterial therapy within the first 3 months of relapse therapy, 5.6% requiring hospitalization. However, in the setting of standard antimicrobial prophylaxis in RRMM patients with very low CD4+-T-cells, no significant association of CD4+T-cell count and an increased risk of infection could be detected.

Discussion

Our findings imply that reduced CD4+-T-cell numbers and infections are common in patients with RRMM. We also demonstrate an association with the number of previous therapies and certain substances suggesting an increased need for personalized prophylaxis strategies for opportunistic infections in this patient cohort.

Aspirin use and bleeding events during thrombocytopenia after autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma

Background

In patients with cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities that necessitate antiplatelet therapy (APT), its optimal management during chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia remains elusive, as the risk of bleeding has to be balanced against the risk of CV events. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk for bleeding with APT during thrombocytopenia in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and subsequent autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) with and without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) as comedication.

Methods

We assessed patients who underwent ASCT at the Heidelberg University Hospital between 2011 and 2020 for bleeding events, management strategies for ASA intake during thrombocytopenia, transfusion requirements, and the occurrence of CV events.

Results

There were 57/1,113 patients who continued ASA until at least 1 day after ASCT; thus, a continuous platelet inhibition during thrombocytopenia was assumed. Most of the patients (41/57) continued ASA until they had a platelet count of 20-50/nl. This range reflects the kinetics of thrombocytopenia and nondaily measurements of platelets during ASCT. A tendency toward a higher risk for bleeding events in the ASA group was demonstrated (1.9% (control group) vs. 5.3% (ASA), p = 0.082). The risk factors for bleeding in multivariate analysis were the duration of thrombocytopenia < 50/nl, a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, and diarrhea. The factors predicting the duration of thrombocytopenia were age >60 years, a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation comorbidity index ≥3, and an impaired bone marrow reserve at admission. CV events occurred in three patients; none of them took ASA or had an indication for APT.

Conclusions

The intake of ASA until thrombocytopenia with a platelet count of 20-50/nl appears safe, although an elevated risk cannot be excluded. If ASA is indicated for the secondary prevention of CV events, the evaluation of risk factors for bleeding and a prolonged time of thrombocytopenia before conditioning is crucial to adapt the strategy for ASA intake during thrombocytopenia.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe

BACKGROUND

The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research.

RESULTS

We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Parainfluenza virus infections in patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplantation: Analysis of clinical characteristics, nosocomial transmission and viral shedding

To assess morbidity and mortality of parainfluenza virus (PIV) infections in immunocompromised patients, we analysed PIV infections in a hematology and stem cell transplantation (SCT) unit over the course of three years. Isolated PIV strains were characterized by sequence analysis and nosocomial transmission was assessed including phylogenetic analysis of viral strains. 109 cases of PIV infection were identified, 75 in the setting of SCT. PIV type 3 (n = 68) was the most frequent subtype. PIV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was observed in 47 patients (43%) with a mortality of 19%. Severe leukopenia, prior steroid therapy and presence of co-infections were significant risk factors for development of PIV-LRTI in multivariate analysis. Prolonged viral shedding was frequently observed with a median duration of 14 days and up to 79 days, especially in patients after allogeneic SCT and with LRTI. Nosocomial transmission occurred in 47 patients. Phylogenetic analysis of isolated PIV strains and combination with clinical data enabled the identification of seven separate clusters of nosocomial transmission. In conclusion, we observed significant morbidity and mortality of PIV infection in hematology and transplant patients. The clinical impact of co-infections, the possibility of long-term viral shedding and frequent nosocomial transmission should be taken into account when designing infection control strategies.

Quality of Online Information on Multiple Myeloma Available for Laypersons

Online information can increase patients’ competence and engagement. However, there are concerns regarding invalid information. Overall, 300 websites and 50 YouTube videos on multiple myeloma (MM) were evaluated. The websites did not differ between the search engines or search ranks. The median time since the last update was 9 months. The 63 unique websites showed a poor general quality (median JAMA score 2 of 4, only 18% with a valid HON certificate). The patient- (user-) focused quality was medium to poor (median sum DISCERN score 41 out of 80 points). The overall reading level was difficult requiring at least a 12th US school grade. The content level was low (median 24 out of 73 points). Sixteen percent contained misleading/wrong facts. Websites provided by foundation/advocacies showed a significantly higher general and patient- (user-) focused quality. For videos, the median time since upload was 18 months. Judged by the HON foundation score ~80% of videos showed a medium general quality. The patient- (user-) focused quality was medium to poor (median sum DISCERN score 43 points). The content level was very low (median 8 points). MM relevant websites and videos showed a medium to low general, patient- (user-) focused and content quality. Therefore, incorporation of quality indices and regular review is warranted.

Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA) in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

The Emesis Trial: Depressive Glioma Patients Are More Affected by Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

Glioma patients face a limited life expectancy and at the same time, they suffer from afflicting symptoms and undesired effects of tumor treatment. Apart from bone marrow suppression, standard chemotherapy with temozolomide causes nausea, emesis and loss of appetite. In this pilot study, we investigated how chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects the patients' levels of depression and their quality of life.

METHODS

In this prospective observational multicentre study (n = 87), nausea, emesis and loss of appetite were evaluated with an expanded MASCC questionnaire, covering 10 days during the first and the second cycle of chemotherapy. Quality of life was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BN 20 questionnaire and levels of depression with the PHQ-9 inventory before and after the first and second cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

CINV affected a minor part of patients. If present, it reached its maximum at day 3 and decreased to baseline level not before day 8. Levels of depression increased significantly after the first cycle of chemotherapy, but decreased during the further course of treatment. Patients with higher levels of depression were more severely affected by CINV and showed a lower quality of life through all time-points.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that symptoms of depression should be perceived in advance and treated in order to avoid more severe side effects of tumor treatment. Additionally, in affected patients, delayed nausea was most prominent, pointing toward an activation of the NK₁ receptor. We conclude that long acting antiemetics are necessary totreat temozolomide-induced nausea.

Validation of a proxy-reported SARC-F questionnaire for current and retrospective screening of sarcopenia-related functional impairments

BACKGROUND

The strength, assistance walking, rise from a chair, climb stairs, and falls (SARC-F) questionnaire is a well-established instrument for screening of sarcopenia and sarcopenia-related functional impairments. As it is based on self-reporting, its use precludes patients who are unable to answer the questionnaire as a consequence of severe acute diseases or cognitive impairment. Therefore, we aimed to validate a proxy-reported version of the SARC-F for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairments.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥60 years completed the SARC-F and performed the short physical performance battery (SPPB) at baseline (T1). Proxies in Cohort A gave a simultaneous assessment of the patients' functional status with the proxy-reported SARC-F at T1 and again, retrospectively, after 3 months (T2). Proxies in Cohort B only completed the SARC-F retrospectively at T2. The questionnaires' performances were assessed through sensitivity/specificity analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. For non-inferiority analyses, results of both the patient-reported and proxy-reported SARC-F were correlated with the SPPB total score as well as the results of the chair-rise test subcategory; the respective correlation coefficients were tested against each other.

RESULTS

One hundred and four patients and 135 proxies participated. Using a SPPB score < 9 points as the reference standard, the proxy-reported SARC-F identified patients at high risk for sarcopenia-related functional impairment with a sensitivity of 0.81 (ad-hoc), 0.88 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.87 (retrospective Cohort B) as well as a specificity of 0.89 (ad-hoc), 0.78 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.64 (retrospective Cohort B). Areas under the ROC curves were ≥ 0.9 for the ad-hoc proxy-reported SARC-F and the retrospective proxy-reported SARC-F in both cohorts. The proxy-reported SARC-F showed a non-inferior correlation with the SPPB compared with the patient-reported SARC-F for ad-hoc (P = <0.001) as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairment in both Cohorts A (P = 0.007) and B (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Proxy-reported SARC-F is a valid instrument for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for sarcopenia-related functional impairment and could become the standard tool for evaluating this risk in older adults with severe acute disease, for example, in patients with quickly evolving haematological conditions.

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.

Comparison of risk factors for coronary event in people with unattributed and non-coronary chest pain: an electronic health record cohort study

Background

Patients presenting to primary care with chest pain are often not given a cause. Patients with such unattributed chest pain have an increased risk of future cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to patients with diagnosed non-coronary chest pain. It is unknown whether risk factors for CVD determined in the general population are the same for the population with unattributed or non-coronary chest pain.

Purpose

To determine if key risk factors for a coronary event in patients with unattributed chest pain are similar to those for patients with non-coronary chest pain and previously identified in the general population.

Methods

The study used primary care information from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum linked to hospital inpatient and mortality data. Patients aged ≥18 years with an incident record of unattributed or non-coronary chest pain in 2002–2018 and no diagnosis of CVD were included. We included as potential risk factors those established for CVD in the general population and non-coronary explanations for chest pain. Flexible parametric models estimated hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals (CI)) between factors and incident coronary event (defined as myocardial infarction, angina, coronary heart disease, percutaneous intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery).

Results

There were 375,240 patients with unattributed chest pain (53% female: mean age 49; 47% male: mean age 47) and 245,329 patients with non-coronary chest pain (58% female: mean age 47; 42% male: mean age 44). Median duration of follow-up was 5 years. In the unattributed chest pain group, there were 111 (95% CI: 109, 112) and 140 (138, 142) coronary events per 10,000 person-years in females and males, respectively. Lower rates of coronary event were observed in the non-coronary chest pain group (females: 73 (72, 75); males: 96 (94, 98)). Within females (Figure), in both chest pain groups the strongest risk factors were type I and type II diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension whereas no associations were observed for migraine and chronic kidney disease. Whilst alternative explanations for non-coronary chest pain also increased the risk of coronary events, associations were less strong than for established general population risk factors. Similar findings were found in males although family history of coronary event was a stronger risk factor in the non-coronary chest pain group compared to the unattributed chest pain group.

Conclusions

The pool of factors found to increase the risk of coronary events in patients presenting with recorded unattributed or non-coronary chest pain are similar but not identical to those identified for the general population. Further research is needed to develop prognostic models to identify patients at the most risk of a coronary event as models developed in the general population are unlikely to be applicable given the increased underlying risk of coronary events in these populations.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Study funded by the British Heart Foundation, reference PG/19/46/34307. KJ also supported by matched funding awarded to the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (West Midlands). Risk factors for coronary event

1263 Does Multimorbidity Influence the Likelihood of Receiving A Total Hip Replacement for Osteoarthritis?

Introduction

Limited data are available on the influence of multimorbidity on the outcomes of total hip replacement for patients with hip osteoarthritis. Thus, patients with multimorbidity and their clinicians across the UK are making decisions on whether or not to proceed with total hip replacement without clear information available on the potential risks and benefits. It is not known how such patients are currently managed. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of multimorbidity on the likelihood of receiving total hip replacement in patients with hip osteoarthritis in the UK.

Method

A cohort study was performed, with cohort comprised of all patients over 65 years with a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis recorded in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Severity of multimorbidity burden was measured using four different scores (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Electronic Frailty Index, count of drugs prescribed, count of primary care interactions). The outcome was total hip replacement, evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival and competing-risk analyses.

Results

28,025 patients were included. 10,948 patients underwent total hip replacement. Increased multimorbidity burden was associated with decreased likelihood of undergoing surgery, irrespective of the method of scoring multimorbidity. Electronic Frailty Index had the largest difference between categories. Adjusted hazard ratio (‘severe multimorbidity versus ‘fit’) was 0.34 (95% CI 0.22, 0.51).

Conclusions

Patients with hip osteoarthritis and concurrent multimorbidity were up to two thirds less likely to undergo total hip replacement. Whether this difference in healthcare management is appropriate depends on to what extent multimorbidity influences the outcomes of total hip replacement.

1279 Does Multimorbidity Influence the Outcomes of Total Hip Replacement for Osteoarthritis?

Introduction

Limited data are available on the influence of multimorbidity on the outcomes of total hip replacement for patients with hip osteoarthritis, including the rate of complications and degree of functional benefit. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of multimorbidity on the outcomes of total hip replacement in the UK.

Method

A cohort study was performed, with cohort comprised of all patients over 65 years with a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis recorded in Clinical Practice Research Datalink and receipt of primary total hip replacement recorded in Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care. Severity of multimorbidity burden was measured using four different scores (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Electronic Frailty Index, count of drugs prescribed, count of primary care interactions). The outcomes were (i) the risks of total hip replacement, assessed by serious post-operative complications within 90 days (analysed with logistic regression), and (ii) the benefits of surgery, assessed by post-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and EQ-5D quality of life score (analysed with linear regression).

Results

6,682 patients were included. The rate of complications was 3.2%. Patients with severe multimorbidity burden were at 1.5 to 2.5 times increased risk of complications than patients without multimorbidity. There was no clinically meaningful difference in the benefits of surgery between patients with and without multimorbidity, irrespective of the method of scoring multimorbidity.

Conclusions

Even for patients with severe multimorbidity burden, the potential benefits of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis remain substantial, while the increase in risk is relatively small.

ANÁLISE DO PERFIL EPIDEMIOLOGICO TRANSFUSIONAL DE HEMOCOMPONENTES ANTES E DEPOIS DO INÍCIO DA PANDEMIA DE COVID-19 EM UM HOSPITAL TERCIÁRIO DE GRANDE PORTE NA CIDADE DE SÃO PAULO

Introdução

A pandemia trouxe inúmeros desafios aos serviços de saúde e isso não foi diferente nos serviços de hemoterapia. O novo cenário exigiu constantes modificações nas rotinas de trabalho de acordo com o que se descobria a respeito da doença e seus impactos na transfusão de sangue. Novas estratégias de captação de doadores, manejo ainda mais criterioso dos estoques de hemocomponentes e adequação da infraestrutura às medidas sanitárias são alguns exemplos das adaptações que ocorreram. Concomitantemente ocorreu uma importante alteração do perfil de pacientes atendidos nos hospitais em geral com redução significativa de pacientes cirúrgicos e elevação do número de atendimentos clínicos, em especial em ambientes de terapia intensiva.

Objetivo

Avaliar o volume de transfusões por tipo de hemocomponente antes e depois do início do cenário de pandemia de COVID-19 em uma instituição privada da região sul da cidade de São Paulo.

Métodos

Foi realizado estudo descritivo e comparativo através de análise de dados obtidos no sistema informatizado de gerenciamento da agência transfusional. Foram incluídos os dados referentes às transfusões que ocorreram no período abril/2019 a março/2021 classificando-as de acordo com o tipo de hemocomponente diferenciando-se entre componentes eritrocitários, componentes plaquetários e componentes plasmáticos (plasma e crioprecipitado).

Resultados

Nos 12 meses que antecederam o início da pandemia foram realizadas 5.613 transfusões, sendo 2.553 concentrados de hemácias (45%), 1.407 concentrados de plaquetas (25%), 1.453 plasmas frescos congelados (26%) e 200 crioprecipitados (4%). Já no período de abril/2020 a março/2021, foram realizadas 6.091 transfusões, sendo 2.599 concentrados de hemácias (43%), 2.614 concentrados de plaquetas (43%), 598 plasmas frescos congelados (10%)  e 280 crioprecipitado (4%). Observou-se que no período houve um crescimento do número total de transfusões de 8% em relação ao período pré pandemia, além de uma alteração do perfil de consumo dos hemocomponentes, com expressivo crescimento absoluto e relativo do número de transfusões de componentes plaquetários (25% versus 43%).

Conclusões

A pandemia alterou significativamente o perfil de paciente atendido nos hospitais de todo o mundo e isso não foi diferente no hospital estudado. Os pacientes com quadros graves de COVID-19 apresentavam frequentemente quadros de insuficiência respiratória hipoxêmica com necessidade de circulação extracorpórea com membrana de oxigenação (ECMO) além distúrbios de coagulação o que resultou no aumento do consumo de concentrados de plaquetas.

Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Followed by Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplant with or without Maintenance for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Salvage high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDCT/ASCT) is a treatment option for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). No data are available on salvage HDCT/ASCT following re-induction treatment with state-of-the-art triplet regimens. We retrospectively report on 44 patients receiving salvage HDCT/ASCT following re-induction with carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd). All patients received frontline HDCT/ASCT with median time to progression (TTP1) of 2.9 (1.2-13.5) years, enabling paired comparison of frontline and salvage HDCT/ASCT. After re-induction and before salvage transplant, 25/44 patients (57%) attained ≥ very good partial response (VGPR), which increased to 34/44 (77%) at best response after salvage HDCT/ASCT. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 23.3 months from salvage HDCT/ASCT. Patients with ≥ VGPR at the time of salvage HDCT/ASCT and those receiving maintenance treatment post salvage HDCT/ASCT had significantly superior PFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.19, p = 0.001 and HR 0.20, p = 0.009). In patients achieving at least an equal depth of response before salvage HDCT/ASCT as before frontline HDCT/ASCT, PFS after salvage HDCT/ASCT was comparable to the frontline situation (p = 0.3). This is the first report of state-of-the-art triplet re-induction and salvage HDCT/ASCT for RRMM after frontline transplantation. Deep remissions achieved with KRd translate into prolonged PFS following salvage HDCT/ASCT and are enhanced by maintenance treatment.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis or Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Support in Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

We compare, in this manuscript, antibiotic prophylaxis versus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support as anti-infective strategies, in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), undergoing high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). At our institution, antibiotic prophylaxis after HDT/ASCT in MM was stopped in January 2017 and replaced by G-CSF support in March 2017. Consecutive MM patients who received HDT/ASCT between March 2016 and July 2018 were included in this single-center retrospective analysis. In total, 298 patients and 353 individual cases of HDT/ASCT were evaluated. In multivariate analyses, G-CSF support was associated with a significantly shortened duration of severe leukopenia < 1/nL (p < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) = 16.22), and hospitalization (estimate = -0.19, p < 0.001) compared to antibiotic prophylaxis. Rates of febrile neutropenia, need of antimicrobial therapy, transfer to intensive care unit, and death, were similar between the two groups. Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly increased risk for the development of multidrug resistant bacteria especially vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium compared to G-CSF support (odds ratio (OR) = 17.38, p = 0.01). Stop of antibiotic prophylaxis as an anti-infective strategy was associated with a reduction in overall resistance rates of bacterial isolates. These results indicate that G-CSF support should be the preferred option in MM patients undergoing HDT/ASCT.

Local Radiation Therapy Before and During Induction Delays Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients

In multiple myeloma, local radiation therapy (RT) of osseous lesions before peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization is assumed to impair the PBSC mobilization and collection. However, the results of previously published studies are inconsistent and do not evaluate detailed metrics of RT and PBSC outcome parameters. In total, 352 patients undergoing PBSC mobilizations and RT in first-line treatment were evaluated. Patients were grouped into RT (n = 283) and no RT (n = 69) before PBSC mobilization. Except for the International Staging System score, both groups were homogeneous regarding the first diagnosis characteristics, first-line treatments, and response parameters. RT metrics (RT yes versus no, volume of irradiated hematopoietic bone marrow [BM], biologically equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions [EQD2]) were analyzed for the following PBSC outcome parameters: achievement of the PBSC collection goal, CD34+ cell collection yield, duration of the mobilization phase, and number of leukapheresis (LP) sessions to reach the collection goal. No statistically significant differences in the percentage of collection failures to reach at least 3 sufficient PBSC transplants were identified comparing patients with (n = 32 [11%]) and without RT (n = 4 [6%]) before PBSC mobilization (P = .265). However, patients with RT before PBSC mobilization showed a significant prolongation of the PBSC mobilization (median 1 day, P =.026) and required a higher number of LP sessions to reach the collection goal (median 1 LP, P < .001) compared with patients who received RT after PBSC mobilization. Moreover, patients with RT before PBSC mobilization reached a significantly lower CD34+ cell collection result (mean 8.94 versus 9.81 × 10⁶/kg body weight [bw], P = .002). No correlation was identified between the overall CD34+ cell yield and the volume of irradiated hematopoietic BM or EQD2, respectively. In the RT before PBSC mobilization group, patients who required more than 1 LP session to reach the PBSC collection goal after RT had a significantly higher percentage of radiated hematopoietic BM compared to those who required only 1 LP session (mean 9.7% versus 7.2%, P = .002). Overall, our study indicates a negative impact of RT on PBSC mobilization and collection. Apart from emergency settings, it might be beneficial to postpone RT to a post-PBSC collection time point. © 2021 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

POS0293 TRheuMa REGISTRY PROVIDES FIRST EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENT COURSE OF RHEUMATIC IMMUNE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS AND TUMOUR RESPONSE RATES DEPENDING ON THE TUMOUR ENTITY

Background:

Rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAE) are associated with a better tumour response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In contrast to other irAEs, their potentially chronic course may require long-term immunosuppressive treatment.

Objectives:

Our registry-based study analyses real-world data on the characteristics and outcome of rheumatic irAEs and underlying malignancy. Herein, we present first evidence that these parameters and the optimal clinical management may differ depending on the tumour entity.

Methods:

The TRheuMa registry is a prospective long-term observational study of a patient cohort suffering from rheumatic side effects of cancer therapies with focus on ICI. It is part of the MalheuR project initiated in July 2018 at the University Hospital Heidelberg to explore interrelations of malignancies and RMDs.

Results:

64 patients were recruited due to a rheumatic irAE under ICI treatment (nivolumab n=30, pembrolizumab n=33, ipilimumab n=12, PD-L1i n=5, ipi/nivo n=10) with a follow-up of up to 30 months. Of these, 47% had NSCLC and 41% melanoma. In local cohorts of patients receiving ICI, 4% of NSCLC (n total=888) and 13% of melanoma (n total=195) developed a rheumatic irAE. 7% of NSCLC and 23% of melanoma patients experienced a flare of a pre-existing RMD. De novo irAE mostly resembled phenotypes of spondyloarthritis both in NSCLC (43%) as well as in melanoma patients (33%). CRP levels were increased in 83% of NSCLC and 71% of melanoma patients. Almost all irAE patients showed autoantibody negativity and signs of inflammation in ultrasound examination (96%). Comparison of best responses to treatment in patients with and without rheumatic irAE in melanoma and without any irAE in NSCLC patients were as following: Complete remission (CR) in 48% vs. 4% of melanoma patients and partial remission (PR) in 68% vs. 41% of NSCLC patients. In accordance with our severity-based treatment algorithm, 25% of the melanoma patients in CR and 16% of the NSCLC patients in PR needed add-on DMARDs for sufficient irAE-treatment. ICI-treatment was discontinued in 7 cases (17% NSCLC, 8% melanoma)

Conclusion:

Prospective real-world data from the TRheuMa-registry provide first evidence that rheumatic irAE have distinct characteristics depending on the underlying malignancy. Oncological outcome was better with rheumatic irAE than in their absence and this effect was more pronounced in melanoma patients despite a larger use of immunosuppressants for irAE-treatment.

Disclosure of Interests:

Leonore Diekmann: None declared, Lea Daniello: None declared, Julia Kunz: None declared, Jan Leipe Consultant of: Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Abbvie; Astra Zeneca; BMS; Celgene; Hospira; Janssen-Cilag; Gilead; LEO Pharma; Lilly; MSD; Roche; Sanofi; UCB., Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Hanns-Martin Lorenz Consultant of: Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly, Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (institution): Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly; Research grant/Funding (institution): Baxter; SOBI; Biogen; Actelion; Mundipharma; Bayer Vital; Octapharm; Sanofi; Hexal; Thermo Fischer; Shire., Jessica Hassel Consultant of: MDS; Honoraria (self): Roche; Novartis; Pierre Fabre., Grant/research support from: BMS; Honoraria (self), Karin Jordan Consultant of: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Merck; MSD; Riemser; Helsinn; Tesaro; Kreussler; Voluntis; Pfizer; Pomme-med; Hexal., Petros Christopoulos Consultant of: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda., Grant/research support from: research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Karolina Benesova Grant/research support from: Foundations and Awards” commission of the University of Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg; AbbVie; Novartis; Rheumaliga Baden-Württemberg e.V

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type

Background

Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25–120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers).

Methods

Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)–based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0–120 h and 0–24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

Results

CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2–22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups.

Conclusions

This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01594749, registered May 9, 2012.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and impact on in-hospital cardio-obstetric outcomes

Introduction

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are a major cause of maternal morbidity. However, short-term outcomes of HDP subgroups remain unknown.

Methods

Using the United States National Inpatient Sample database, all delivery hospitalizations between 2004 and 2014 with or without HDP (preeclampsia/eclampsia, chronic hypertension, superimposed preeclampsia on chronic hypertension and gestational hypertension) were analysed to examine the association between HDP and adverse in-hospital outcomes.

Results

We identified &gt;44 million delivery hospitalizations, within which the prevalence of HDP increased from 8% to 11% over a decade with increasing comorbidity burden. Women with chronic hypertension have higher risks of myocardial infarction, peripartum cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia and stillbirth compared to women with preeclampsia. Out of all HDP subgroups, the superimposed preeclampsia population had the highest risk of stroke (OR 7.83, 95% CI 6.25, 9.80), myocardial infarction (OR 5.20, 95% CI 3.11, 8.69), peripartum cardiomyopathy (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.64, 5.26), preterm birth (OR 4.65, 95% CI 4.48, 4.83), placental abruption (OR 2.22, 95% CI 2.09, 2.36), and stillbirth (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.66, 1.92) compared to women without HDP. In conclusion, we are the first to evaluate chronic SH without superimposed preeclampsia as a distinct subgroup in HDP and show that women with chronic SH are at even higher risk of some adverse outcomes compared to women with preeclampsia.

Conclusion

The chronic hypertension population, with and without superimposed preeclampsia, is a particularly high risk group and may benefit from increased antenatal surveillance and the use of a prognostic risk assessment model incorporating HDP to stratify intrapartum care.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): NIHR

Side-effect management of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells directed against the B-cell marker CD19 are currently changing the landscape for treatment of patients with refractory and/or relapsed B-cell malignancies. Due to the nature of CAR T cells as living drugs, they display a unique toxicity profile. As CAR T-cell therapy is extending towards other diseases and being more broadly employed in hematology and oncology, optimal management strategies of side-effects associated with CAR T-cell therapy are of high relevance. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and cytopenias constitute challenges in the treatment of patients with CAR T cells. This review summarizes the current understanding of CAR T-cell toxicity and its management.

Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Digital health provides solutions that capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and allows symptom monitoring and patient management. Digital therapeutics is the provision to patients of evidence-based therapeutic interventions through software applications aimed at prevention, monitoring, management, and treatment of symptoms and diseases or for treatment optimization. The digital health solutions collecting PROs address many unmet needs, including access to care and reassurance, increase in adherence and treatment efficacy, and decrease in hospitalizations. With current developments in oncology including increased availability of oral drugs and reduced availability of healthcare professionals, these solutions offer an innovative approach to optimize healthcare resource utilization.

DESIGN

This scoping review clarifies the role and impact of the digital health solutions in oncology supportive care, with a view of the current segmentation according to their technical features (connection to sensors, PRO collection, remote monitoring, self-management in real time…), and identifies evidence from clinical studies published about their benefits and limitations and drivers and barriers to adoption. A qualitative summary is presented.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies were identified and included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies supported the use of 38 digital health solutions collecting ePROs and allowing remote monitoring, with benefits to patients regarding symptom reporting and management, reduction in symptom distress, decrease in unplanned hospitalizations and related costs and improved quality of life and survival. Among those 38 solutions 21 provided patient self-management with impactful symptom support, improvement of QoL, usefulness and reassurance. Principal challenges are in developing and implementing digital solutions to suit most patients, while ensuring patient compliance and adaptability for use in different healthcare systems and living environments.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing evidence that digital health collecting ePROs provide benefits to patients related to clinical and health economic endpoints. These digital solutions can be integrated into routine supportive care in oncology practice to provide improved patient-centered care.

Managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO multidisciplinary expert consensus

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non–small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor–containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .