Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

Guideline for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients

This guideline provides an approach to the prevention of acute antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting (AINV) in children. It was developed by an international, inter-professional panel using AGREE and CAN-IMPLEMENT methods. Evidence-based interventions that provide optimal AINV control in children receiving antineoplastic agents of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenicity are recommended. Recommendations are also made regarding selection of antiemetic agents for children who are unable to receive corticosteroids for AINV control, the role of aprepitant and optimal doses of antiemetic agents. Gaps in the evidence used to support the recommendations were identified. The contribution of this guideline to AINV control in children requires prospective evaluation.

Treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Recent improvements in medical oncology include both development of anticancer and supportive therapy. Serotonin receptor antagonists were introduced in clinical practice 20 years ago. Since then, the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting allows continuing efficacious chemotherapy that earlier had to be stopped sometimes for intolerance.

AIM

This anniversary review summarises the current antiemetic arsenal focussing on the most potent antiemetic drugs such as serotonin and substance P receptor antagonists.

RESULT

Antiemetic treatment improves quality of life under chemotherapy and contributes to the survival benefit as well. In spite of the use of these new drugs, a significant number of patients still experience nausea and vomiting. Special complications like delayed emesis can be alleviated by combination therapies.

CONCLUSION

Prevention and optimal management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting should be a goal for most patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Purpose

Effective and less aggressive therapies are required for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are not eligible for or have undergone autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The present phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in this population.

Patients and Methods

Patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL treated with one to three prior chemotherapy regimens received rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) infusion on day 1 and bendamustine 120 mg/m2 by IV infusion on days 2 and 3 of each 21-day cycle for up to six cycles. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR), and the secondary end points were complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

Results

Sixty-three patients were enrolled, and 59 received BR. The median age was 67 years (range, 36 to 75 years), and 62.7% of patients were 65 years of age or older. Fifty-seven patients (96.6%) were previously treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy. The ORR was 62.7% (95% CI, 49.1% to 75.0%), with a CR rate of 37.3% (95% CI, 25.0% to 50.9%). The ORRs were comparable between patients ≥ 65 years of age and less than 65 years (62.2% and 63.6%, respectively). The median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 13.7 months). The most frequently observed grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hematologic: lymphopenia (78.0%), neutropenia (76.3%), leukopenia (72.9%), CD4 lymphopenia (66.1%), and thrombocytopenia (22.0%).

Conclusion

BR is a promising salvage regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL after rituximab-containing chemotherapy, warranting further investigation.

Pilot study on the efficacy of an ondansetron- versus palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen prior to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are among the most feared complications of chemotherapy reported by patients. The objective of this study was to establish the overall complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue medication 0-120 h after chemotherapy) with either ondansetron- or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, single-center, pilot study that enrolled patients receiving their first cycle of HEC. Patients were randomized to receive either palonosetron 0.25 mg IV (PAD) or ondansetron 24 mg orally (OAD) on day 1 prior to HEC. All patients received oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1, then 80 mg on days 2 and 3, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, then 8 mg on days 2, 3, and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 20 in each arm. All patients were female, and 39 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer. For the primary endpoint, 65 % (95 % CI, 40.8-84.6 %) of patients in the PAD arm and 40 % (95 % CI, 19.1-63.9 %) of patients in the OAD arm achieved an overall CR.

CONCLUSIONS

While CR rates for aprepitant and dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron-containing regimens have been published previously, this is the first documentation of CR rates with these regimens in the same patient population. These results may be used to design a larger, adequately powered, prospective study comparing these regimens.

Effect of netupitant, a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone

PURPOSE

Netupitant is a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being studied for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In vitro studies suggest that netupitant inhibits the cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). Because netupitant may be used with a variety of drugs, which may be substrates of CYP3A4, two studies were designed to establish the potential risk for drug-drug interaction with three different CYP3A4 substrates: midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone.

METHODS

Both trials were three-period crossover studies performed in healthy subjects. In the first study, 20 subjects received netupitant and either midazolam or erythromycin. In the second study, 25 subjects received netupitant and dexamethasone. Serial blood samples were collected over the course of the two studies and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all analytes.

RESULTS

Netupitant, by inhibiting the CYP3A4, increased the C max and AUCinf of midazolam by 40 and 144 %, respectively, and the C max and AUCinf of erythromycin by 30 %. Netupitant was shown to increase the exposure to dexamethasone in a dose-dependent manner with the mean increase in AUC and C max by 72 and 11 %, respectively, on day 1 and by 138 and 75 %, respectively, on day 4 when co-administered with 300 mg of netupitant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these studies suggest that netupitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and therefore, co-administration with drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 may require dose adjustments. Treatments were well tolerated in both studies.

Is a dexamethasone-sparing strategy capable of preventing acute and delayed emesis caused by combined doxorubicin and paclitaxel for breast cancer? Analysis of a phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of palonosetron without delayed dexamethasone dosing against emesis was investigated in patients scheduled to receive the corticosteroid-containing combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) for 3 cycles.

METHODS

Chemo-naïve women with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) were eligible. Patients received palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before chemotherapy, however, all patients also received a premedication consisting of prednisone (25 mg orally the evening before therapy) and hydrocortisone (250 mg intravenously just before paclitaxel). The primary end point was complete control (CC; no vomiting, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase (days 1-5) following cycle 1.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were enrolled and evaluable (median age 50 years). Fifty-six patients (74%; 95% CI 62-83%) achieved overall CC. Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) CC rates were 78 and 74%, respectively. No vomiting rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases were 85, 85 and 83%, respectively. An exploratory analysis showed only a small decrease in the probability of achieving CC between cycle 1 (74%) and cycle 3 (66%).

CONCLUSION

The dexamethasone-sparing strategy prevented emesis in more than 70% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AT chemotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Study Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant added to standard antiemetic regimens used in high-dose chemotherapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Design

Retrospective medical record review.

Setting

Hematology ward of a university hospital in Japan.

Patients

Of 88 patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by allo-HSCT, 46 received aprepitant and granisetron as antiemetic therapy (between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011), and 42 received granisetron alone (between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010).

Interventions

Patients in both groups received 3 mg of granisetron intravenously 30 minutes before the administration of anticancer drugs. In the aprepitant group, 125 mg of aprepitant was administered orally 60–90 minutes before the administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic anticancer drug. On the following days, 80 mg of aprepitant was administered orally every morning. The mean administration duration of aprepitant was 3.3 days (range 3–6 days).

Measurements and Main Results

The primary objective was to evaluate the percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR; no vomiting and none to mild nausea). The CR rate in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (48% vs 24%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that nonprophylactic use of aprepitant was associated with failure to achieve CR (odds ratio [OR] 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–7.99, p=0.03). The frequency of abdominal pain was lower in the aprepitant group (9% vs 25%, p=0.03). Rates of other frequently observed adverse drug events were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in neutrophil engraftment (median 18 vs 17 days), platelet engraftment (median 32 vs 32 days), the incidence of acute graft-versus-host-disease (63% vs 55%, p=0.52), viral infection (74% vs 67%, p=0.49), or 1-year overall survival (63% vs 62%, p=0.90) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The addition of aprepitant to granisetron increases the antiemetic effect without influencing transplantation-related toxicities in allo-HSCT.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the role of neurokinin 1 inhibitors: from guidelines to clinical practice in solid tumors

A significant proportion of cancer patients experience nausea or vomiting during the course of their disease, either because of the cancer itself or because of the treatment received. Highly or moderately emetogenic drugs are part of the standard chemotherapy regimens frequently used in patients with lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other common solid tumors. In this review, we describe the impact of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy, and the main progress achieved in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of neurokinin 1 inhibitors. The adherence to existing guidelines is particularly important to avoid suboptimal prophylaxis and maximize patients' outcome. This review is focused on lung, breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer, which are among the solid tumors characterized by a numeric and clinical relevance of the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting issue because of the wide use of highly and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

The efficacy of triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are some of the most problematic symptoms for cancer patients. Triplet therapy consisting of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and dexamethasone is a guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The efficacy and safety of triplet therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron have not yet been investigated. We performed a prospective phase II study using triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve lung cancer patients scheduled to receive HEC were enrolled. The eligible patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy consisting of the intravenous administration of 0.75 mg of palonosetron, and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone and the oral administration of 125 mg of aprepitant on day 1, followed by the oral administration of 80 mg of aprepitant on days 2-3 and the oral administration of 8 mg of dexamethasone on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (the CR rate; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h).

RESULTS

The efficacy analysis was performed in 63 patients. The CR rates during the overall, acute and delayed phases were 81.0, 96.8, and 81.0%, respectively. The no nausea and no significant nausea rate during the overall phase were 54.0 and 66.7%, respectively. The most common adverse event was grade 1 or 2 constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Triplet antiemetic therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron shows a promising antiemetic effect in preventing CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC.

Efficacy of aprepitant in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of aprepitant and conventional antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer who were treated with MEC regimens at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, were included and classified into the following groups: control group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone) and aprepitant group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone + aprepitant). The presence or absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0; patients with grade 1 or above were considered positive for CINV. Food intake per day, completion of planned chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) achieved by chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

The complete suppression rate of nausea in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0043). Throughout the study, the food intake in the aprepitant group was greater than that in the control group, with the rate being significantly higher, in particular, on day 5 (p = 0.003). The completion rate of planned chemotherapy was also higher in the aprepitant group (p = 0.042). PFS did not differ significantly, but tended to be improved in the aprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant group showed significantly higher complete suppression of nausea, food intake on day 5, and completion of planned chemotherapy than the control group.

Antiemetic prophylaxis and frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in palliative first-line treatment of colorectal cancer patients: the Northern Bavarian IVOPAK I Project

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate adherence to guidelines of antiemetic prophylaxis and frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the palliative first-line treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in Northern Bavaria.

METHODS

We collected detailed information on chemotherapy and supportive drugs in 103 patients within a prospective observational study. The study was conducted to determine quality of care within an interdisciplinary context (first endpoint) and direct costs of palliative treatment for patients with CRC between 2006 and 2010 (second endpoint, Emmert et al. (Eur J Health Econ, 2012) [1]). In this paper, we evaluate adherence to Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2006 recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV during the first administration of chemotherapy as well as incidence and grade of CINV within 120 h thereafter.

RESULTS

Of the patients studied, 95 patients (92%) received moderately emetogenic (oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-containing combined chemotherapy treatment) and eight (8%) received low emetogenic chemotherapy (either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine monotherapy). Antiemetic prophylaxis could be assessed in 101 out of 103 (98%) of patients. MASCC-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis was prescribed in three patients (3%). Nonadherence was mainly caused by omission of dexamethasone. Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 18 patients (18%) within a 120-h period. All documented episodes were grade 1 or 2 according to the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. None of these patients received the recommended prophylaxis for CINV. In only one patient, antiemetic prophylaxis was intensified during the next chemotherapy application.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Integrated Health Care in the Palliative Treatment of Colorectal Carcinoma (IVOPAK) I Project, adherence to the MASCC clinical recommendations was very poor. Extent of CINV in this patient population seems to be underestimated. There is an urgent need to improve clinicians' awareness of this patient-relevant side effect.

Carboplatin (renally dosed) and Etoposide regimen for small-cell lung cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc, 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

Helping patients discuss CINV management: development of a Patient Charter

In April 2012, an Expert Group of specialist cancer nurses working in a variety of settings (e.g. chemotherapy delivery, chemotherapy service design, research, nurse leadership and patient information/advocacy) participated in telephone/web-based meetings, with the aim of sharing current experience of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management, and reaching a consensus on the development of a Patient Charter, designed to help patients understand CINV management, and setting out key questions they may wish to ask their healthcare professionals.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.

Postembolization syndrome after hepatic transarterial chemoembolization: effect of prophylactic steroids on postprocedure medication requirements

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of prophylactic use of dexamethasone and scopolamine on analgesic and antiemetic agent requirements after transarterial chemoembolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 148 patients underwent 316 rounds of chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma at a single institution over a 17-month period. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, procedural technique, and use of analgesic and antiemetic medications. Patients were grouped into three categories: group A received steroid prophylaxis before and after the procedure, group B received steroid prophylaxis before the procedure only, and group C received no steroid prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 125 patients undergoing 252 procedures. Demographics were similar among groups. Overall, 86 (68.8%) were male, and mean age was 62 years (range, 39-82 y). Ninety-one patients (75%) had Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis and 25% had Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis. Dexamethasone was not significantly associated with decreased analgesic agent use (P = .6). Group A patients used significantly fewer antiemetic agents (Δ = 0.89; P = .007) compared with group C. A transdermal scopolamine patch was not associated with reduced use of antiemetic agents (P = .3). Age was inversely associated with analgesic (P <.001) and antiemetic agent use (P = .004). Men received significantly fewer antiemetic agents than women (P = .002), whereas there was no significant difference in analgesic agent use (P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of steroids did not affect analgesic agent use and had a minor effect on antiemetic requirements. The use of a scopolamine patch was not associated with reduced antiemetic agent use.

Efficacy of oral palonosetron compared to intravenous palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron (Aloxi(®), Onicit(®)) is a pharmacologically unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) approved as a single IV injection for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) of either moderate or highly emetogenic potential (MEC and HEC, respectively). An oral palonosetron formulation has been developed and compared to the IV formulation.

METHODS

In this multinational, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging trial, 651 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following as a single dose prior to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: oral palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg or IV palonosetron 0.25 mg. Patients were also randomized (1:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg IV or matched placebo on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue therapy) during the acute phase (0-24 h).

RESULTS

Acute CR rates were 73.5, 76.3, 74.1, and 70.4 % for all patients receiving the palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg oral doses, and for IV palonosetron 0.25 mg, respectively; delayed CR (24-120 h) rates were 59.4, 62.5, 60.1, and 65.4 %, and overall CR (0-120 h) rates were 53.5, 58.8, 53.2, and 59.3 %, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone improved emetic control (acute CR rate) by at least 15 % for all groups except oral palonosetron 0.25 mg, where the acute CR improvement was approximately 7 %. Adverse events were similar in nature, incidence, and intensity for all oral and IV palonosetron groups, and were the expected adverse events for 5-HT3 RAs (primarily headache and constipation).

CONCLUSION

Oral palonosetron has a similar efficacy and safety profile as IV palonosetron 0.25 mg and may be the preferred formulation in certain clinical situations. Among the tested oral treatments, a palonosetron 0.50-mg oral dose has been favored for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy due to a numerical gain in efficacy without a side effect disadvantage.

Supportive therapy in medical therapy of head and neck tumors

Fever during neutropenia may be a symptom of severe life threatening infection, which must be treated immediately with antibiotics. If signs of infection persist, therapy must be modified. Diagnostic measures should not delay treatment. If the risk of febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy is ≥20%, then prophylactic therapy with G-CSF is standard of care. After protocols with a risk of febrile neutropenia of 10–20%, G-CSF is necessary, in patients older than 65 years or with severe comorbidity, open wounds, reduced general condition. Anemia in cancer patients must be diagnosed carefully, even preoperatively. Transfusions of red blood cells are indicated in Hb levels below 7–8 g/dl. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) are recommended after chemotherapy only when hemoglobin levels are below 11 g/dl. The Hb-level must not be increased above 12 g/dl. Anemia with functional iron deficiency (transferrin saturation <20%) should be treated with intravenous iron, as oral iron is ineffective being not absorbed. Nausea or emesis following chemotherapy can be classified as minimal, low, moderate and high. The antiemetic prophylaxis should be escalated accordingly. In chemotherapy with low emetogenic potential steroids are sufficient, in the moderate level 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons) are added, and in the highest level Aprepitant as third drug.

The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Olanzapine has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Olanzapine may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline-directed CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin, ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin, ≥ 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, ≥ 600 mg/m2), comparing olanzapine to metoclopramide. Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre-chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post-chemotherapy were randomized to receive olanzapine, 10 mg orally daily for 3 days or metoclopramide, 10 mg orally TID for 3 days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 72 h after taking olanzapine or metoclopramide. Two hundred seventy-six patients (median age 62 years, range 38-79; 43% women; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0,1) consented to the protocol. One hundred twelve patients developed breakthrough CINV and 108 were evaluable.

RESULTS

During the 72-h observation period, 39 out of 56 (70%) patients receiving olanzapine had no emesis compared to 16 out of 52 (31%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving metoclopramide (p < 0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72-h observation period were those who took olanzapine, 68% (38 of 56), and metoclopramide, 23% (12 of 52) (p < 0.01). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine was significantly better than metoclopramide in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of single-dose fosaprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a crucial factor in ensuring that patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy can get the full benefit of therapy. Current antiemetic guidelines recommend that the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonist aprepitant should be used as part of a combination regimen with dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Fosaprepitant is a water-soluble N-phosphoryl derivative of aprepitant that, when infused, is rapidly metabolized back to an active aprepitant. The existing literature in PubMed about fosaprepitant was screened and selected in order to address the emerging data from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen. These phase III trials demonstrated that fosaprepitant given as a single intravenous dose of 150 mg was either noninferior to the conventional 3-day aprepitant or significantly superior to placebo for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. In both trials, fosaprepitant was well tolerated although more frequent infusion-site adverse events were observed with fosaprepitant. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant, therefore, would be an option for CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The clinical efficacy is consistent with the findings from a time-on-target, positron-emission tomography study evaluating the NK-1R occupancy in the central nervous system (CNS) over 5 days after a single-dose infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant in healthy participants. The single-dose regimen is capable of blocking more than 90% of the NK-1Rs in the CNS for at least 48 hours after infusion, which is sufficient to control delayed CINV for 2 to 5 days after HEC. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant can provide a simplified treatment option that maintains high protection while ensuring adherence to scheduled antiemetic medication throughout most of the 5-day period encompassing the major risk for CINV.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in triple antiemetic regimens during multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The second-generation serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron has shown improved efficacy in the prevention of both acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, there have been no randomized controlled trials supporting the preferential use of palonosetron in triple antiemetic regimens for patients receiving multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of palonosetron-based and first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based triple antiemetic regimens in cancer patients receiving multiday HEC.

METHODS

This was a review and analysis of medical record data. A total of 115 patients who had received multiday HEC were included and grouped into a palonosetron-based antiemetic group (n = 73) or a first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based antiemetic group (n = 42). Data on CINV were collected in 24-hour intervals for 120 hours after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Complete response rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups during any of the 3 phases: acute (0-24 hours), p = 0.877; overlap (24-120 hours), p = 0.997; and overall (0-120 hours), p = 0.723. The proportion of patients with complete control was similar between the groups during each phase: acute, p = 0.862; overlap, p = 0.838; and overall, p = 0.828. There was also no significant difference in other end points between the 2 groups. Among all patients, females experienced significantly more acute nausea (p = 0.040) and vomiting (p = 0.046) than males. Compared with nondrinkers, patients who consumed alcohol had a lower overall incidence of vomiting (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a triple antiemetic regimen, a palonosetron-based antiemetic regimen was not significantly different from regimens based on first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists in preventing CINV during multiday HEC.

Cisplatin, Epirubicin, Levoleucovorin (or Leucovorin), and Fluorouracil (PELF) Regimen for Gastric Cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in combination with intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone.

Patients and methods

Patients receiving chemotherapy including cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²) were eligible. A total of 347 patients (21% had received cisplatin with vomiting) were enrolled in this trial to receive the fosaprepitant regimen (fosaprepitant 150 mg, intravenous, on day 1 in combination with granisetron, 40 μg/kg, intravenous, on day 1 and dexamethasone, intravenous, on days 1–3) or the control regimen (placebo plus intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone). The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over the entire treatment course (0–120 h).

Results

The percentage of patients with a complete response was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group (64% versus 47%, P = 0.0015). The fosaprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen in both the acute (0–24 h postchemotherapy) phase (94% versus 81%, P = 0.0006) and the delayed (24–120 h postchemotherapy) phase (65% versus 49%, P = 0.0025).

Conclusions

Single-dose fosaprepitant used in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone was well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy, including high-dose cisplatin.

Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types

Chemotherapy regimens differ according to the tumor type being treated and are associated with varying degrees of emetogenic potential. Since the distribution of risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting differs across tumor types, it is important to understand the efficacy of antiemetic regimens in multiple patient populations. To characterize treatment response in patients with various malignancies (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and lung) treated with either highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 4 large randomized trials was performed (N=2813). Patients receiving an antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone were compared with patients receiving an active-control antiemetic regimen containing ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In all tumor types analyzed, complete responses were observed in a higher proportion of HEC-treated patients receiving aprepitant compared with active-control patients (genitourinary [61.5% vs 40.6%, P<0.001], gastrointestinal [68.2% vs 44.7%, P=0.013], and lung cancers [73.5% vs 52.8%, P<0.001]). For MEC-treated patients, complete response rates were also higher for aprepitant patients than active-control patients for all tumor types, with a significant difference noted among patients with breast cancer (54.9% vs 43.9%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with no vomiting was higher in both HEC- and MEC-treated patients. While results of previous studies provide support for the use of antiemetic regimens that include aprepitant, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone, this analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens.

Contrary regulation of bladder cancer cell proliferation and invasion by dexamethasone-mediated glucocorticoid receptor signals

In patients with advanced bladder cancer, glucocorticoids are frequently given to reduce acute toxicity, particularly hyperemesis, during chemotherapy, as well as to improve cachectic conditions. However, it remains unclear whether glucocorticoids directly affect the development and progression of bladder cancer through the glucocorticoid receptor pathway. Glucocorticoid receptor expression was first investigated in human bladder cancer lines and tissue microarrays. Then, the effects of dexamethasone on glucocorticoid receptor transcription, cell proliferation, apoptosis/cell cycle, and invasion were examined in bladder cancer lines. Finally, mouse xenograft models for bladder cancer were used to assess the efficacy of dexamethasone on tumor progression. All the cell lines and tissues examined were found to express glucocorticoid receptor. Dexamethasone increased glucocorticoid receptor-mediated reporter activity and cell proliferation, and inhibited apoptosis in the presence or absence of cisplatin. In contrast, dexamethasone suppressed cell invasion, the expression of its related genes [MMP-2/MMP-9, interleukin (IL)-6, VEGF], and the activity of MMP-2/MMP-9, and also induced mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition. In addition, dexamethasone increased IκBα protein levels and cytosolic accumulation of NF-κB. In xenograft-bearing mice, dexamethasone slightly augmented the growth of the inoculated tumors but completely prevented the development of bloody ascites, suggestive of peritoneal dissemination of tumor cells, and actual metastasis. In all these assays, dexamethasone effects were abolished by a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist or glucocorticoid receptor knockdown via RNA interference. Thus, glucocorticoid receptor activation resulted in promotion of cell proliferation via inhibiting apoptosis yet repression of cell invasion and metastasis. These results may provide a basis of developing improved chemotherapy regimens, including or excluding glucocorticoid receptor agonists/antagonists, for urothelial carcinoma.

Aprepitant for prevention of nausea and vomiting secondary to high-dose cyclophosphamide administered to patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cells mobilization: a phase II trial

This is a phase II trial evaluating efficacy and safety of aprepitant (AP) in combination with 5-HT3 antagonist and adjusted dose dexamethasone in patients receiving high-dose cyclophosphamide (CY) and filgrastim for stem cell mobilization. We used Simon's optimal two-stage design constrained to fewer than 40 patients with 10% type I error and 85% statistical power. The first stage of the study required accrual of 18 response-evaluable patients. The primary endpoint was the control of vomiting without the use of any rescue anti-emetics at 24 h after the administration of high dose CY (4 g/m(2)). If emesis was controlled in ≥9 patients, an additional cohort of 17 patients would be enrolled. The null hypothesis would be rejected if there were ≥20 responses among 35 patients. Forty patients were enrolled, five of whom were not evaluable for response. Eighteen evaluable patients were enrolled in the first stage. Acute emesis was controlled in 10 patients; therefore, enrollment proceeded to stage 2. An additional 17 patients were enrolled; 20/35 response-evaluable patients (57%) did not develop acute vomiting or require rescue anti-emetics, thus achieving the goal of the study. A total of 22/35 response-evaluable patients (63%) met the secondary endpoint of delayed emesis control (days 2-5). Thirty-three out of 35 patients underwent successful stem cell mobilization. No ≥ grade 3 AP-related adverse events were noted. The AP regimen can effectively control acute and delayed emesis in the majority patients receiving high-dose CY.

Optimizing treatment outcomes in patients at risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is crucial in maximizing patients' quality of life and optimizing outcomes of cancer therapy, and can be done more effectively than ever before. Appropriate antiemetic therapy combined with targeted patient education, clear communication, and management of patient expectations results in optimal emetogenic control. Oncology nurses play a critical role in the prevention and management of CINV. This column reviews the history and pathophysiology of treatments for CINV, as well as patient- and chemotherapy-specific risk factors that should be considered to optimize treatment outcomes in patients with CINV.

Pilot study of aprepitant for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients: a phase II randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial

CONTEXT

Animal studies have demonstrated a role for substance P binding to neurokinin-1 receptor in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) at preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial at a single academic medical center.

INTERVENTION

Patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis received either placebo or oral aprepitant administered 4 hours prior to ERCP, 80 mg 24 hours after the first dose, and then 80 mg 24 hours after the second dose.

PATIENTS

Thirty-four patients received aprepitant and 39 patients received placebo.

STATISTICS

Fisher's exact test was used to compare incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the two groups.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Incidence of acute pancreatitis was 7 in the aprepitant group and 7 in the placebo group. Hospitalization within 7 days post-procedure for abdominal pain that did not meet criteria for acute pancreatitis occurred in 6 and 9 patients in the aprepitant and placebo groups respectively (P=0.772).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant did not lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in this preliminary human study. Larger studies potentially using the recently available intravenous formulation are necessary to conclusively clarify the efficacy of aprepitant in this setting.  

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial of the impact on quality of life of continuing dexamethasone beyond 24 h following adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

Uncertainty remains about the optimal anti-emetic regimen for control of delayed nausea and vomiting after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Many patients receive dexamethasone but complain of insomnia, anxiety/agitation, and indigestion. The aim was to determine if patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer prefer treatment with dexamethasone or placebo for prophylaxis against delayed nausea and vomiting, and to compare quality of life (QOL) between the two treatments. In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial, we compared oral dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily for 2 days) versus placebo for chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer. All patients received intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone pre-chemotherapy and oral granisetron on day 2. Primary endpoints were: (i) patient preference; (ii) difference between cycles in change of QOL from days 1 to 8. Median age of the 94 women was 51 years (range 27-76): 79 received fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and 15 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Thirteen withdrew pre-cycle 2 with no differences between arms. Of 80 patients stating a preference, 31 preferred placebo (39 %, 95 % CI: 28-50 %) and 37 (46 %, 95 % CI: 35-58 %) preferred dexamethasone; 12 had no preference. There were no differences in intensity of vomiting, nausea, or time to onset of vomiting. There was greater decrease in global QOL (p = 0.06) when patients received dexamethasone. No other symptom/QOL domains differed significantly. In conclusion, no significant difference was found in patient preference, QOL, or symptoms regardless of whether dexamethasone or placebo was used after adjuvant chemotherapy.

Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil (CEF) Regimen for Breast Cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Difference in the emetic control among highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: Implementation for appropriate use of aprepitant

Although antiemetic medication based on the emetogenicity of the cancer chemotherapy regimen is recommended, emetic control varies even among highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In the present study, we retrospectively investigated the rates of emetic control by a combination of granisetron, 5-HT₃ antagonist and dexamethasone in various HEC regimens, including 5 single-day chemotherapy regimens such as gemcitabine/cisplatin (GEM/CDDP), epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EPI/CPA), pemetrexed or vinorelbine/cisplatin (PEM or VNR/CDDP), doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine (ABVd) and rituximab/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/prendisolone (R-CHOP21), and 2 multiple-day chemotherapy regimens such as 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin (5-FU/CDDP) and bleomycin/etoposide/cisplatin (BEP). Complete response (no emesis, no rescue treatment) during the overall period (days 1-5) was assessed as the primary endpoint. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was well-controlled (complete response >70%) in GEM/CDDP and R-CHOP21, but not in other regimens. The effect of a triple antiemetic medication including aprepitant (APR) was subsequently examined in patients receiving EPI/CPA and 5-FU/CDDP. Complete response was significantly improved in patients receiving 5-FU/CDDP but not in those receiving EPI/CPA, although the complete protection from vomiting significantly increased in both cases. Of note, the administration of APR for 5 days, but not for 3 days, was required to completely block the incidence of vomiting during the 7 days of the observation period in patients receiving 5-FU/CDDP. These findings suggest that APR should be used appropriately based on the emetogenicity of HEC regimens.

Evolving treatment paradigms for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most debilitating toxicities associated with cancer treatment. Although effective antiemetic agents are available, their use in practice often is suboptimal.

METHODS

The author reviews the pathophysiology of CINV as well as the drug classes and cost considerations that should be incorporated into treatment planning.

RESULTS

Several drug classes, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids, are effective, especially when used in combination. Older antiemetic agents, such as prochlorperazine and metoclopramide, as well as olanzapine may provide reasonable alternatives in certain settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions for CINV should include standard-of-care antiemetics combined with corticosteroids. The cost of using older, less expensive antiemetics may be outweighed by the expenditures to rescue patients after suboptimal prophylaxis, as well as the indirect costs of missed work and lost productivity.

Patient-centered management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Oncology providers frequently underestimate the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and patients often are reluctant to report symptoms. Inadequate patient-provider communication is a significant barrier to optimal management of this debilitating toxicity.

METHODS

The author reviews relevant published data and methods to optimize the clinical care of patients receiving chemotherapy with moderate-to-high emetogenic potential.

RESULTS

Patient reticence plus physician expectations that patients will report symptoms accurately lead to lapses in communication and suboptimal clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication strategies should serve to encourage patients to share the responsibility for establishing goals of therapy and understanding the risks and benefits of their selected antiemetic regimen, thereby becoming active participants in their own cancer care.

Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy: meta-analysis of individual patient data examining the effect of age on outcome in two phase III trials

Purpose

Data from two randomized trials, evaluating a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone against emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were assessed for the impact of age on outcome in a pooled sample of women receiving anthracycline and/or cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy.

Methods

Chemo-naïve breast cancer patients randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy (n = 200), or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone (8 mg) on days 2 and 3 (n = 205), were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) in the 5-day study period. The effect of the 1-day regimen and age (<50 and ≥50 years) was investigated by a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Results

Younger patients comprised 43 % and 49 % of the 1-day and 3-day regimen groups, respectively; 94 % of the pooled sample received the AC combination. There were no between-treatment differences in CR rate according to age during all observation periods. In the 1-day regimen group, 55.2 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 54 % of older patients. In the 3-day regimen group, 51.5 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 58.7 % of older patients. In the adjusted analysis, younger age was not associated with overall CR to treatment (risk difference, −3.1 %; 95 % CI, −13.0 to 6.7 %; P = 0.533).

Conclusions

These results provide evidence that, irrespective of age, the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall anti-emetic protection in women undergoing AC-containing chemotherapy.

Cabazitaxel (jevtana): a novel agent for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This article presents current clinical evidence supporting the use of cabazitaxel (Jevtana) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a literature search using abstracts from MEDLINE and PubMed (from January 1966 to December 2011) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (from January 2000 to December 2011). The search included clinical studies and abstracts in the English language that described the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical activity, and safety of cabazitaxel in mCRPC.

RESULTS

Cabazitaxel, a semisynthetic microtubule inhibitor that induces cell death by microtubule stabilization, was approved in combination with prednisone for the treatment of mCRPC in patients who had been treated with a docetaxel-(Taxotere)-containing regimen. The approval of this taxane derivative was based primarily on the results of a randomized, open-label trial in patients with mCRPC who were treated with either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) or mitoxantrone (Novantrone) 12 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks, both in combination with prednisone 10 mg/day. The median survival period was 15.1 months with cabazitaxel and 12.7 months with mitoxantrone. Neither group experienced complete responses. Cabazitaxel has also shown activity in breast cancer and other malignancies. In clinical trials, common grade 3 or grade 4 adverse reactions were myelosuppression, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and asthenia. Other adverse effects included abdominal pain, back pain, arthralgia, and peripheral neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

Cabazitaxel appeared to be an effective second-line agent in patients with mCRPC refractory to a docetaxel-containing regimen. Studies comparing cabazitaxel with existing first-line regimens for mCRPC are under way. Until the results of these head-to-head trials are published, it remains uncertain whether cabazitaxel is more effective or more tolerable than the currently available first-line regimens.

Combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in lung cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Introduction:  With repeated courses of chemotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) becomes progressively more difficult to control. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone could be sustained for up to six cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m(2) ). Methods:  Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v. and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o. 1 h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg/p.o. were administered on days 2-3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR, no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), over 5 days following HEC in up to six cycles. Secondary endpoints were emesis-free and nausea-free rates. Safety was also evaluated. Results:  One hundred and fifty six lung cancer patients were included in the study; the median age was 64 years and 76.9% were men. The minimum cisplatin dosage was 75 mg/m(2) , and in most patients was combined with another drug (87.4%). CR ranged from 74.4% (first cycle) to 82% (sixth cycle). More than 90% and 60% of patients were emesis-free and nausea-free during all chemotherapy cycles. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation and headache. Conclusions:  The triple combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone enhanced not only the antiemetic protection during the first cycle, but its efficacy was also sustained for up to six cycles of cisplatin-based HEC in lung cancer patients.

The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER)

BACKGROUND

While guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are widely available, clinical uptake of guidelines remains low. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive adults initiating single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer. Patients completed 6-day daily diaries beginning with cycle 1 for up to three chemotherapy cycles. The primary study end point, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue therapy) during 120 h after cycle 1 chemotherapy, was compared between GCCP and guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) cohorts using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

In cycle 1 (N=991), use of GCCP was 55% and 46% during acute and delayed phases, respectively, and 29 % for the overall study period (acute plus delayed phases). Complete response was recorded by 172/287 (59.9%) and 357/704 (50.7%) patients in GCCP and GICP cohorts, respectively (P=0.008). The adjusted odds ratio for complete response was 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.97; P=0.027) for patients receiving GCCP versus GICP.

CONCLUSION

GCCP reduces the incidence of CINV after single-day HEC and MEC.