Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

Management of Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite advances in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), clinical management remains a challenge and CINV continues to be a side effect that patients fear most. Advanced practitioners can play a major role in evidence-based interventions for prevention and management of these side effects of treatment.

A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.

RESULTS

From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11-1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported "emetic episode/event" measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., "response," "control," "success") that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.

Granisetron Extended-Release Injection: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

An extended-release (ER) subcutaneously injectable formulation of the first-generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist granisetron is now available in the USA (Sustol^®), where it is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy regimens in adults. Granisetron ER is administered as a single subcutaneous injection and uses an erosion-controlled drug-delivery system to allow prolonged granisetron release. Primary endpoint data from phase III studies after an initial cycle of chemotherapy indicate that, when used as part of an antiemetic regimen, granisetron ER injection is more effective than intravenous ondansetron in preventing delayed CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); is noninferior to intravenous palonosetron in preventing both acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC; and is similar, but not superior, to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The benefits of granisetron ER were seen in various patient subgroups, including those receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC, and (in an extension of one of the studies) over multiple MEC or HEC cycles. Granisetron ER injection is generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of ondansetron or palonosetron. Thus, granisetron ER injection expands the options for preventing both acute and delayed CINV in adults with cancer receiving MEC or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC.

A phase II randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of 6-gingerol as an anti-emetic in solid tumor patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

6-Gingerol is a natural compound extracted from ginger. Preclinical studies demonstrated that 6-gingerol has an anti-emetic activity by inhibiting neurokinin-1, serotonin, and dopamine receptors. Several clinical trials examined crude ginger powder for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but none of them was conducted with a standardized bioactive compound. Patients who received moderately to highly emetogenic adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized to receive 6-gingerol 10 mg or placebo orally twice daily for 12 weeks. Ondansetron, metoclopramide, and dexamethasone were given to all patients. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate defined as no emesis or rescue treatment at any time. Eighty-eight patients were randomized to receive 6-gingerol (N = 42) or placebo (N = 46). Most patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (93%). Overall CR rate was significantly higher in 6-gingerol group as compared with that of the placebo (77 vs. 32%; P < 0.001). The difference in means of appetite score was significant (P = 0.001) and more noticeable over time. Mean FACT-G score indicating quality of life was significantly higher (86.21) in 6-gingerol group at 64 days as compared with that of placebo group (72.36) (P < 0.001). No toxicity related to 6-gingerol was observed. Patients treated with 6-gingerol reported significantly less grade 3 fatigue (2 vs. 20%; P = 0.020). 6-Gingerol significantly improved overall CR rate in CINV, appetite and quality of life in cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. A phase III randomized study of 6-gingerol is warranted to confirm these results.

NEPA, a new fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the UK

Background

The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.

Scope

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1–5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.

Findings

In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.

Conclusion

Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.

A Prospective Observational Study on Effect of Short-Term Periodic Steroid Premedication on Bone Metabolism in Gastrointestinal Cancer (ESPRESSO-01)

BACKGROUND

A multicenter prospective observational study evaluated the effect of gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy with short-term periodic steroid premedication on bone metabolism.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-four patients undergoing chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer were studied. The primary endpoints were changes in bone mineral densities (BMDs) and metabolic bone turnover 16 weeks after initiation of chemotherapy. BMDs, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and serum cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (sNTX), and bone alkaline phosphatase (sBAP) were assessed for evaluation of bone resorption and formation, respectively.

RESULTS

In 74.3% (55/74) of the patients, BMDs were significantly reduced at 16 weeks relative to baseline. The percent changes of BMD were -1.89% (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.67% to -1.11%: p < .0001) in the lumbar spine, -2.24% (95% CI, -3.59% to -0.89%: p = .002) in the total hip, and -2.05% (95% CI, -3.11% to -0.99%: p < .0001) in the femoral neck. Although there was no significant difference in sNTX levels during 16 weeks (p = .136), there was a significant increase in sBAP levels (p = .010). Decreased BMD was significantly linked to number of chemotherapy cycles (p = .02). There were no significant correlations between changes in BMDs and the primary site of malignancy, chemotherapy regimens, total cumulative steroid dose, steroid dose intensity, and additive steroid usage.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy with periodic glucocorticoid premedication was associated with reduced BMD and increased sBAP levels, which were linked to number of chemotherapy cycles but independent of primary site, chemotherapy regimen, duration, and additive steroid usage. The Oncologist 2017;22:592-600 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Bone health and the management of treatment-related bone loss are important for cancer care. The present study showed that a significant decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in serum bone alkaline phosphatase levels occurred in gastrointestinal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, which were linked to number of chemotherapy cycles but were independent of primary site, chemotherapy regimen, total steroid dose, and steroid dose intensity. Surprisingly, it seems that the decreasing BMD levels after only 16 weeks of chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer were comparable to that of 12-month adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for early-stage breast cancer patients.

A prospective, observational, multicenter study on risk factors and prophylaxis for low emetic risk chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The incidence of and the risk factors for nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing low emetic risk chemotherapy (LEC) are unclear. The aim of the study was to provide information on these topics by performing a multicenter, observational, prospective study.

METHODS

The study consisted of patients who were administered first-time LEC that was consistent or inconsistent with current guidelines. Using the visual analog scale, patients recorded their daily food intake and the occurrence and severity of nausea over a 5-day treatment period.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between patients undergoing guideline-consistent (n = 89) or guideline-inconsistent (n = 121) prophylaxis (30.3 vs. 22.3%, respectively; P = 0.19). Logistic regression analysis identified a history of nausea and LEC other than taxanes as independent risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing LEC. The mean daily visual analog scale scores for nausea severity and a decrease in food intake were <25 mm throughout the entire observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-consistent prophylaxis appeared to control nausea and vomiting effectively in patients undergoing LEC. However, patients with a history of nausea and receiving LEC other than taxanes should be carefully observed and treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms.

Differential clinical pharmacology of rolapitant in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Rolapitant is a highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, orally administered for a single dose of 180 mg before chemotherapy with granisetron D1, dexamethasone 8 mg BID on day 2-4. It has a unique pharmacological characteristic of a long plasma half-life (between 163 and 183 hours); this long half-life makes a single use sufficient to cover the delayed emesis risk period. No major drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and dexamethasone or other cytochrome P450 inducers or inhibitors were observed. The clinical efficacy of rolapitant was studied in two phase III trials in highly emetogenic chemotherapy and in one clinical trial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours after chemotherapy). In comparison to granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4 and placebo, rolapitant showed superior efficacy in the control of delayed and overall emesis. This review aims at revising the pharmacological characteristics of rolapitant, offering an updated review of the available clinical efficacy and safety data of rolapitant in different clinical settings, highlighting the place of rolapitant in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among currently available guidelines, and exploring the future directions of CINV management.

Adherence to guidelines on prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the National Cancer Institute, Sudan

<strong>Objective</strong>: To evaluate the adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and assess the outcomes of the prescribed antiemetic drugs.<br /> <strong>Methods</strong>: This prospective, observational study enrolled chemotherapy-naive cancer patients who were admitted to the National Cancer Institute between May and July 2015 for intravenous chemotherapy. Patient’s demographic data, chemotherapy protocols and types of antiemetic drugs were collected by reviewing patients’ files, chemotherapy prescription forms and interviewing the patients.<br /> <strong>Results</strong>: The data revealed that 90% of pre-chemotherapy antiemetic prescriptions did not adhere to antiemetic guidelines. The trends of non-adherence included an overuse of ondansetron (14%), under-prescribing of dexamethasone (16%) and corticosteroid duplication (14%). Regarding antiemetic use for the prevention of delayed emesis, the data showed that 90% of antiemetic prescriptions were non-adherent with ASCO guidelines, with overuse of ondansetron (20%) and metoclopramide (37%) and lack of dexamethasone prescriptions (80%) on days 2 and 3 being the most frequently reported trends. The percentage of patients with complete response (no emesis or rescue therapy) over 5 days post chemotherapy was 36%.<br /> <strong>Conclusion</strong>: The study indicated an extremely low adherence rate to ASCO guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Non-adherence included a trend of both underuse and overuse of indicated antiemetic medications.

Concise review of the management of iatrogenic emesis using cannabinoids: emphasis on nabilone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent, distressing, and burdensome side effect of cancer chemotherapy. It is estimated to affect the majority of patients receiving certain anti-cancer drug regimens and can be treatment-limiting, even for life-saving medications. Despite seemingly numerous options, such as antimuscarinic anticholinergics, antihistamines, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, preventative therapies are often inadequately effective, particularly for "delayed CINV"-leaving an important unmet clinical need. Cannabinoid receptor agonists, by virtue of their unique mechanism of action and efficacy and safety data reported in clinical trials, appear to offer a useful additional option. The mechanistic value of cannabinoids has been well known for many years, but these agents may have been underutilized in the past because of the notoriety and legal status of marijuana. While botanical marijuana contains nearly 500 components, including the psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), nabilone is an established, single-entity synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist that has become the focus of renewed interest. We review the basic pharmacology and clinical trial data of nabilone for use in prophylaxis and treatment of CINV.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists.

Combination of Aprepitant, Azasetron, and Dexamethasone as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Women with Gynecologic Cancers Receiving Paclitaxel/Carboplatin Therapy

Background

Material/Methods

Results

Conclusions

The assessment and management of chemotherapy-related toxicities in patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: A scoping review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the eSMART (Electronic Symptom Management using the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) Remote Technology) study is to evaluate the use of mobile phone technology to manage chemotherapy-related toxicities (CRTs) in people with breast cancer (BC), colorectal cancer (CRC), Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)) across multiple European sites. One key objective was to review the published and grey literature on assessment and management of CRTs among patients receiving primary chemotherapy for BC, CRC, HL, and NHL to ensure that ASyMS remained evidence-based and reflected current and local practice.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched for English papers, with abstracts available from 01/01/2004-05/04/2014. For the grey literature, relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)/evidence-based resources (EBRs) from the main international cancer organisations were reviewed as were symptom management (SM) protocols from the sites.

RESULTS

After full-text screening, 27 publications were included. The majority (n = 14) addressed fatigue and focused on BC patients. Relevant CPGs/EBRs were found for fatigue (n = 4), nausea/vomiting (n = 5), mucositis (n = 4), peripheral neuropathy (n = 3), diarrhoea (n = 2), constipation (n = 2), febrile neutropenia/infection (n = 7), palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) (n = 1), and pain (n = 4). SM protocols were provided by >40% of the clinical sites.

CONCLUSIONS

A need exists for empirical research on SM for PPE, diarrhoea, and constipation. Research is needed on the efficacy of self-care strategies in patients with BC, CRC, HL, and NHL. In general, consistency exists across CPGs/EBRs and local guidelines on the assessment and management of common CRTs.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is less controlled at delayed phase in patients with esophageal cancer: a prospective registration study by the CINV Study Group of Japan

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for esophageal cancer. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, the current state of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. This multicenter prospective observational study analyzed data for 192 patents with esophageal cancer who underwent moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The patients recorded their CINV incidence and severity daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy, using visual analog scales (VAS). Of the 192 patients, 181 received HEC including cisplatin, and 11 patients received MEC including nedaplatin. Approximately 81% of HEC and 82% of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Although CINV was controlled relatively well in the early phase (days 1-4), it was not fully controlled in late phase (days 5-7) for both the HEC and MEC groups. Female sex was a major risk factor for delayed vomiting (P=0.034). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for VAS revealed that motion sickness, age, and use of other antiemetics were risk factors for delayed nausea. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed CINV in both HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will help develop personalized treatments for CINV. In the clinical setting for esophageal cancer, regimens that include nedaplatin might need to be treated as HEC.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Efficacy and Safety of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Can addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) be considered as an ideal strategy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? Researchers differ on this question.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NK1-RAs in preventing CINV. The primary end point was complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases after chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses evaluated the types of NK1-RAs, routines of administration, types of malignancies, regimens used in combination with NK1-RAs, and age of patients included in the studies. The incidences of different types of adverse events were also extracted to estimate the safety of NK1-RAs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs involving 13,923 patients were identified. The CR rate of patients receiving NK-RAs was significantly higher than patients in the control groups during overall phase (70.8% vs 56.0%, <0.001), acute phase (85.1% vs 79.6%, <0.001), and delayed phase (71.4% vs 58.2%, <0.001). There were three studies including patients of children or adolescents, the CR rate was also significantly higher in the treatment group (overall phase: OR=2.807, <0.001; acute phase: OR=2.863, P =0.012; delayed phase: OR=2.417, <0.001). For all the other outcomes, patients in the NK1-RAs groups showed improvements compared to the control groups (incidence of nausea: 45.2% vs 45.9%, <0.001; occurrence of vomiting: 22.6% vs 38.9%, <0.001; usage of rescue drugs: 23.5% vs 34.1%, <0.001). The pooled side effects from NK1-RAs did not significantly differ from previous reports and the toxicity rates in patients less than eighteen years old also did not diff between the two groups (P=0.497). However, we found that constipation and insomnia were more common in the patients of control groups, whereas diarrhea and hiccups were more frequently detected in patients receiving NK1-RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

NK1-RAs improved the CR rate of CINV. They are effective for both adults and children. The use of NK1-RAs might be associated with the appearance of diarrhea and hiccups, while decreasing the possibility of constipation and insomnia.

Hepatitis C virus reactivation due to antiemetic steroid therapy during treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) reactivation is relatively rare compared with hepatitis B reactivation in patients treated with immunosuppressive or anticancer drugs. Here, we present the first case of genotype 2 HCV reactivation due to antiemetic steroid therapy during chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which was verified by not only increased viral load but also pathological exacerbation of liver injury during HCV reactivation. Further chemotherapy for HCC could be continued without steroid therapy. This present case highlights the awareness of HCV reactivation and the management of complex situation.

Co-administration of dexamethasone increases severity and accelerates onset day of neutropenia in bladder cancer patients on methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin and cisplatin chemotherapy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Bladder cancer patients receiving methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin and cisplatin (MVAC) chemotherapy are co-administered with dexamethasone as an anti-emetic. We examined whether or not dexamethasone affects the severity and onset day of MVAC-induced severe neutropenia.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of bladder cancer patients treated with MVAC chemotherapy with or without dexamethasone as an antiemetic at Kanazawa University Hospital during January 2005 - December 2009. Patients were categorized into three groups; no dexamethasone use (Dex (−)), dexamethasone on day 2 (Dex 1 day), and dexamethasone on days 2, 3 and 4 (Dex multiday). We evaluated the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia and the day of onset of first severe neutropenic episode during the first course of MVAC chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to investigate whether co-administration of dexamethasone was a risk factor for severe neutropenia.

Results

Episodes of grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 3 out of 6 (50.0%), 11 out of 12 (91.7%) and 6 out of 6 (100%) patients in the Dex (−), Dex 1 day, and Dex multiday groups, respectively. The appearance day of first severe neutropenia in the Dex multiday group (13.2 ± 1.0) was significantly accelerated compared to the Dex (−) group (17.7 ± 2.1). Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that dexamethasone is a risk factor for severe neutropenia (OR 17.0; 95%CI: 1.3–223.1).

Conclusions

Co-administration of dexamethasone for anti-emesis brings forward the first appearance of neutropenia, and increases the severity of neutropenia, in bladder cancer patients receiving MVAC chemotherapy.

Pentostatin, Cyclophosphamide and Rituximab (PCR) Regimen

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, email: 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. The information presented in this review is based on published data and clinical expertise and includes information not included in the product labeling. Incorporation of such published data provides a more robust assessment of the drugs and assists pharmacists in evaluation of orders for off-label use of these agents.

Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) Regimen for Multiple Myeloma

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. The information presented in this review is based on published data and clinical expertise and includes information not included in the product labeling. Incorporation of such published data provides a more robust assessment of the drugs and assists pharmacists in evaluation of orders for off-label use of these agents.

Cancer Drug Delivery

Advancements in cancer drug delivery have led to the development of personalized oncology care through molecularly-driven targeted therapies. Understanding molecular and cellular mechanisms which drive tumor progression and resistance is critical in managing new treatment strategies which have shifted from empiric to biomarker-directed therapy selection. Biomarker-directed therapies have improved clinical outcomes in multiple malignancies as monotherapy and in combination with other treatment modalities, however the changing scope of treatment options presents new opportunities and challenges for research. Furthermore, pharmacogenetics may provide a rationale method of personalizing anticancer drug dosing and supportive care management for oncology patients. This chapter reviews biomarker classifications and pharmacogenetics in anticancer therapy and supportive care. Examples of biomarker-directed therapies and clinical assays, in addition to future directions of molecular profiling in oncology therapy management are discussed.

Patients' perception of chemotherapy side effects: Expectations, doctor-patient communication and impact on quality of life - An Italian survey

Chemotherapy side effects (CSE) have a strong impact on patients' quality of life (QOL). To assess patient perceptions of CSE, their impact on QOL and doctor-patient communication regarding these aspects, a survey was conducted among Italian cancer patients. Patients at least 18 years of age, who received chemotherapy, were administered a dedicated questionnaire to assess their point of view on five domains: expectations about CSE and impact on QOL; doctor-patient communication about CSE; treatments to reduce the impact of CSE; sexual life; family relationships/activities and employment. A total of 761 patients participated. CSE had a considerable impact on patient QOL. Nausea/vomiting was the most feared adverse effect before initiating chemotherapy and the one most commonly experienced during treatment. Patients generally reported good doctor-patient communication regarding information about CSE. In almost all cases, the oncologists prescribed an antiemetic treatment, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was high. Cancer and CSE severely affected sexual life, daily activities and employment. CSE had a strong negative impact on QOL. Good doctor-patient communication is essential. Improving antiemetic strategies may improve QOL. Doctors' ability to inform patients about delicate issues, such as the impact of CSE on sexual life, needs to be improved.

Short hydration regimen with magnesium supplementation prevents cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in lung cancer: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate renal function in lung cancer patients who were administered cisplatin with continuous higher-volume hydration (CH) or a short hydration (SH) regimen.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy regimens including >50 mg/m² of cisplatin between August 2007 and March 2015. Between August 2007 and December 2012, patients received a continuous higher-volume hydration regimen without magnesium (Mg) supplementation (CH group), and after May 2013, patients received a short hydration regimen with Mg supplementation (SH group). To evaluate the factors influencing serum creatinine (SCr) increase during the first course of cisplatin chemotherapy, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were evaluated, 62 patients in the CH group and 60 patients in the SH group. Grade 1 (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events; version 4.0) or higher SCr increases were more frequently observed in the CH group than in the SH group after the first cycle (P = 0.01, Fisher's exact test) and for all cycles (P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis revealed that short hydration (odds ratio (OR), 0.30; 95% confidence internal (CI) (0.11-0.75), P = 0.01) and estimated creatinine clearance (eCcr) of ≥70 mL/min (OR, 0.25; 95% CI (0.088-0.69), P = 0.008) were associated with a significantly reduced risk for cisplatin-induced grade 1 or higher SCr increase.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that a short hydration method with Mg supplementation and eCcr of ≥70 mL/min reduced the risk of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

Feasibility of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 plus carboplatin followed by single-agent maintenance therapy with S-1 for completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the Setouchi Lung Cancer Group Study 1001

BACKGROUND

This multicenter study evaluated the feasibility of novel adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 plus carboplatin followed by single-agent, long-term maintenance with S-1 in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Patients received four cycles of S-1 (80 mg/m²/day for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks rest) plus carboplatin (area under the curve 5, day 1) followed by S-1 (80 mg/m²/day for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest). Patients unable to continue S-1 plus carboplatin because of severe toxicity converted to single-agent S-1 maintenance. The duration of adjuvant chemotherapy was 10 months in both situations. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as the proportion of patients who completed four cycles of S-1 plus carboplatin and single-agent S-1 maintenance for 10 months. The treatment completion rate was determined; treatment was considered feasible if the lower 90% confidence interval (CI) was ≥50%.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were enrolled, of whom 87 were eligible and assessable. Seventy-eight patients (89.7%) completed four cycles of S-1 plus carboplatin and 55 (63.2%) completed the following S-1 maintenance therapy for a total of 10 months. The treatment completion rate was 63.2% (90% CI, 54.4-71.2%), indicating feasibility. There were no treatment-related deaths. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (13.8%), thrombocytopenia (11.5%), and anorexia (4.6%). The 2-year relapse-free survival rate was 59.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 plus carboplatin followed by single-agent maintenance therapy with S-1 is feasible and tolerable in patients with completely resected NSCLC.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000005041.

Preventing and Managing Toxicities of High-Dose Methotrexate

: High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX), defined as a dose higher than 500 mg/m2, is used to treat a range of adult and childhood cancers. Although HDMTX is safely administered to most patients, it can cause significant toxicity, including acute kidney injury (AKI) in 2%-12% of patients. Nephrotoxicity results from crystallization of methotrexate in the renal tubular lumen, leading to tubular toxicity. AKI and other toxicities of high-dose methotrexate can lead to significant morbidity, treatment delays, and diminished renal function. Risk factors for methotrexate-associated toxicity include a history of renal dysfunction, volume depletion, acidic urine, and drug interactions. Renal toxicity leads to impaired methotrexate clearance and prolonged exposure to toxic concentrations, which further worsen renal function and exacerbate nonrenal adverse events, including myelosuppression, mucositis, dermatologic toxicity, and hepatotoxicity. Serum creatinine, urine output, and serum methotrexate concentration are monitored to assess renal clearance, with concurrent hydration, urinary alkalinization, and leucovorin rescue to prevent and mitigate AKI and subsequent toxicity. When delayed methotrexate excretion or AKI occurs despite preventive strategies, increased hydration, high-dose leucovorin, and glucarpidase are usually sufficient to allow renal recovery without the need for dialysis. Prompt recognition and effective treatment of AKI and associated toxicities mitigate further toxicity, facilitate renal recovery, and permit patients to receive other chemotherapy or resume HDMTX therapy when additional courses are indicated.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX), defined as a dose higher than 500 mg/m2, is used for a range of cancers. Although HDMTX is safely administered to most patients, it can cause significant toxicity, including acute kidney injury (AKI), attributable to crystallization of methotrexate in the renal tubular lumen, leading to tubular toxicity. When AKI occurs despite preventive strategies, increased hydration, high-dose leucovorin, and glucarpidase allow renal recovery without the need for dialysis. This article, based on a review of the current associated literature, provides comprehensive recommendations for prevention of toxicity and, when necessary, detailed treatment guidance to mitigate AKI and subsequent toxicity.

Rolapitant for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting over initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan in autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A phase II study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant side effect in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving high-dose melphalan treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a triple antiemetic combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone in 24 MM patients who received melphalan conditioning (100 mg/m² on days 1-2) before ASCT (on day 4). Intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-4), and intravenous dexamethasone (6.6 mg on days 1-4) were administered for prevention of CINV. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic) and complete control (no emesis, no rescue antiemetic, and no more than mild nausea) rates were 75 and 68% during the overall phase (0-120 h), while they were 88 and 86% in the acute phase (0-48 h), 75 and 68% in the delayed phase (48-120 h), and 67 and 59% in the extended phase (120-168 h), respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, the three-antiemetic regimen consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was safe and effective for controlling CINV due to high-dose melphalan treatment, especially during the delayed phase.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the first cycle of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in Korean patients with a broad range of tumor types

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a 3-day aprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the first cycle of non-anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) based on government guidelines in Korean patients.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase IV trial (NCT01636947) enrolled adult South Korean patients with a broad range of tumor types who were scheduled to receive a single dose of ≥1 MEC agent. Patients were randomized to a 3-day regimen of aprepitant (aprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen) on top of ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of subjects who achieved no vomiting and complete response (CR) during the overall phase.

RESULTS

Of the 494 randomized subjects, 480 were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. Response rates for no vomiting and CR in the overall phase were numerically higher for the aprepitant regimen compared with the control regimen groups, but failed to reach statistical significance (no vomiting 77.2 vs 72.0%; p = 0.191; CR 73.4 vs 70.4%; p = 0.458). Both the aprepitant and control regimens were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

A 3-day aprepitant regimen was numerically better but not statistically superior to a control regimen with respect to the achievement of no vomiting or CR during the overall phase in a non-AC MEC Korean population based on government reimbursement guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01636947 ( https://clinicaltrials.Gov/ct2/show/NCT01636947 ).

Acupuncture with different acupoint combinations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture is beneficial for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, the effect of different acupoint combinations on controlling CINV remains unknown. This study aims to compare the effects of distal-proximal point association and local distribution point association on controlling CINV.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a single-center, randomized controlled trial. A total of 240 participants will be randomly divided into four groups. The control group will receive standard antiemetic only, whereas three acupuncture groups will receive four electro-acupuncture treatments once a day with the standard antiemetic. Acupuncture group I and II will receive distal-proximal point association ("Neiguan (PC6) and Zhongwan (CV12)", and "Zusanli (ST36) and CV12", respectively); Acupuncture group III will receive local distribution point association ("Shangwan (CV13) and CV12"). The primary outcome measures are the frequency and distress of nausea and vomiting. The secondary outcome measures are the grade of constipation and diarrhea, electrogastrogram, quality of life, etc. Assessment is scheduled from the day before chemotherapy to the fifth day of chemotherapy. Follow-ups are performed from the sixth day to the twenty-first day of chemotherapy.

DISCUSSION

Results of this trial will help in evaluating the efficacy and safety of electro-acupuncture with different acupoint combinations in the management of CINV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02478047 .

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

State of the Art Antiemetic Therapy for Cancer Patients

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

An Overview of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is common occurrence in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. When radiation is prescribed to certain sites, it can lead to retching, vomiting, and nausea that can lead to impairments on quality of life and even effect adherence to treatment regimes. The present study reports select literature examining RINV phenomena and reviews mechanisms of RINV as well as current management strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using search strategies such as "radiation-induced nausea vomiting," "RINV," and "radiation and antiemetics." The search was limited to articles published from January 2000 to April 2016 and those that involved humans and were published in English. Information regarding emetic risk of each treatment and management strategies used were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this select review. The current evidence regarding the standard antiemetics for RIINV are discussed, as well as upcoming therapies and future potential endeavors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients treated with emetogenic radiotherapy are at risk of experiencing RINV. RINV has the potential to impact patient quality of life and treatment delivery and optimal prophylactic strategies should be implemented, particularly in radiation naïve patients. More awareness on these topics is warranted, so that standard antiemetic regimens can be used in both the prophylactic and rescue settings.

Combination of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone Effectively Controls Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Treated with Concomitant Temozolomide and Radiotherapy: Results of a Prospective Study

Concomitant use of temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy, which is the standard therapy for patients with high-grade glioma, involves a unique regimen with multiple-day, long-term administration. In a previous study, we showed not only higher incidence rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the overall study period, but also substantially higher incidence rates of moderate/severe nausea and particularly severe appetite suppression during the late phase of the treatment. Here, we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for CINV in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. Twenty-one consecutive patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma were enrolled. CINV was recorded using a daily diary and included nausea assessment, emetic episodes, degree of appetite suppression, and use of antiemetic medication. The percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall period was 76.2%. The percentages of patients with no moderate/severe nausea were 90.5, 100, and 90.5% in the early phase, late phase, and overall period, respectively. Severe appetite suppression throughout the overall period completely disappeared. The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. This combination of antiemetic therapy focused on delayed as well as acute CINV and may have the potential to overcome CINV associated with a multiple-day, long-term chemotherapy regimen.

Role of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on platinum-based chemotherapy patients: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Even with the use of modern antiemetic drugs, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a cause of great distress to the patients. Olanzapine, primarily marketed as an antipsychotic, was found to reduce nausea and vomiting in some chemotherapy patients. But it was never tested in Indian population with a diverse genetic background. The present study aims to evaluate the role of olanzapine in CINV in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded study on 100 chemotherapy-naïve consenting patients receiving any one from cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin. The control group (n = 50) received palonosetron and dexamethasone in the approved therapeutic dose from the day 1 of chemotherapy. The test group (n = 50) received additional olanzapine 10 mg/day from day 1 for five consecutive days. CINV and quality of life (QoL) were assessed.

RESULTS

Vomiting was significantly less among the olanzapine-treated patients. Control of delayed emesis was significantly better in this group (complete response among 96 vs. 42 % in the control group, p value <0.0001). Incidence and severity of nausea was significantly less in this group. Failure of anti-CINV measure was 4 % in this group compared to 26 % of the patients of the control group during overall days 1-5. Though sedation was more in these olanzapine-treated patients, there was no dose-limiting adverse event. Quality of life was also better among the olanzapine-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine was found to be effective as add-on in the control of CINV.

Arsenic Trioxide and Tretinoin (AsO/ATRA) for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL)

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.

Efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 2 open-label, randomized comparative trial

We performed a prospective study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen. All patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and prednisone), or a control regimen (ondansetron and prednisone) treatment group. For the complete response, the aprepitant group was statistically superior to the control group in the overall study period (76.5% vs. 56.0%; p = .03), as well as in separate analyses of the acute phase (92.2% vs. 78.0%; p = .045), and even more notably in the delayed phase (82.4% vs. 64.0%; p = .037). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the two treatment groups (p > .05). The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP regimen and was generally well tolerated.

Comparative effectiveness of ramosetron for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

An electronic search of CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, KoreaMed, KISS, KMbase, and DBpia was performed. Published RCTs comparing ramosetron treatment and other 5-HT3RAs to prevent CINV were included, and studies reporting at least one clinical outcome about efficacy were included. Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction of the included studies was conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included, with nine studies reporting nausea and 13 reporting vomiting. In the acute phase, ramosetron significantly reduced nausea compared to other 5-HT3RAs (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.22, P = 0.03), as well as acute vomiting (RR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01 to 1.08, P = 0.02). In the delayed phase, there was no difference in the complete response of nausea between ramosetron and other 5-HT3RAs, whereas ramosetron significantly decreased emesis compared to other 5-HT3RAs. Also, there were no significant differences between ramosetron versus other 5-HT3RAs for common adverse reactions such as headache, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's findings suggest that ramosetron for CINV is as effective and tolerable as other 5-HT3RAs, based on the currently available evidence from RCTs. However, owing to methodological flaws in the current RCTs, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of ramosetron on acute or delayed CINV in cancer patients.

Supportive Care in Older Adults with Cancer: Across the Continuum

Supportive care is an essential component of anticancer treatment regardless of age or treatment intent. As the number of older adults with cancer increases, and supportive care strategies enable more patients to undergo treatment, greater numbers of older patients will become cancer survivors. These patients may have lingering adverse effects from treatment and will need continued supportive care interventions. Older adults with cancer benefit from geriatric assessment (GA)-guided supportive care interventions. This can occur at any stage across the cancer treatment continuum. As a GA commonly uncovers issues potentially unrelated to anticancer treatment, it could be argued that the assessment is essentially a supportive care strategy. Key aspects of a GA include identification of comorbidities, assessing for polypharmacy, screening for cognitive impairment and delirium, assessing functional status, and screening for psychosocial issues. Treatment-related issues of particular importance in older adults include recognition of increased bone marrow toxicity, management of nausea and vomiting, identification of anemia, and prevention of neurotoxicity. The role of physical therapy and cancer rehabilitation as a supportive care strategy in older adults is important regardless of treatment stage or intent.

Co-Managing Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Cancer

The life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes is improving and now approaches that of those without diabetes. As this population ages, a growing number will be diagnosed with and treated for cancer. Cancer treatments can drastically affect insulin requirement and glycemic control through multiple mechanisms including high doses of glucocorticoids and targeted therapies that directly interfere with cellular pathways involved in the action of insulin. Patients with cancer frequently also have alterations in gastrointestinal motility or appetite and require supplemental enteral or parenteral nutrition. Few studies have evaluated these patients directly, but data on patients with and without diabetes suggest that glycemic control may play a larger role in cancer outcomes than is often recognized. Collaboration between the treating oncologist and diabetologist allows people with diabetes to receive the most effective therapies for their cancers without undue risk of hypoglycemia or adverse outcomes due to hyperglycemia.