Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology

Antiemetic care for patients with breast cancer: focus on drug interactions and safety concerns

PURPOSE

The drug interactions and adverse events that should be considered when individualizing antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer are reviewed.

SUMMARY

A variety of antiemetic agents are available, including antihistamines, dopamine-receptor antagonists, serotonin-receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-receptor antagonists. To ensure optimal symptom control for each patient without unnecessarily prolonging treatment, patient- and treatment-specific risk factors must be considered. Neurokinin-receptor antagonists, the newest class of antiemetics, are effective in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but must be used in combination with a serotonin-receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid. The serotonin-receptor antagonists have become the mainstay of antiemetic therapy, but current guidelines do not distinguish among the different agents in this class. However, there are distinct pharmacologic differences that may affect the potential for drug interactions and, ultimately, patient outcomes and the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, the potential for drug interactions must be considered when selecting an antiemetic, particularly for patients who are taking multiple concomitant medications. Further, because a number of breast cancer therapies and some antiemetic agents carry cardiovascular warnings or precautions and since breast cancer patients may already be suffering from cardiovascular complications, the possible cardiotoxic effects of the antiemetic or chemotherapy agents or the combinations of these agents should be considered.

CONCLUSION

Antiemetic treatment is essential for patients with breast cancer who are undergoing moderately to highly emetogenic cytotoxic treatment. When selecting an antiemetic, clinicians must select an agent that provides optimal protection against nausea and vomiting while avoiding drug-drug interactions and additional adverse events.

Evaluating health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials: the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group experience

INTRODUCTION

The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group (CTG) Quality of Life (QOL) Committee was initiated in 1986.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to describe the evolution of the Committee's work and to highlight key developments such as the formulation of a policy regarding health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) assessment, the provision of guidelines to ensure completion of HRQOL data within the protocol requirements, the rationale behind the choice of HRQOL instruments, the timing of assessments and the development of data analytic methods. These developments are illustrated with examples from CTG studies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There is a lack of concordance between conventional toxicity data and HRQOL data and comparative studies designed to elucidate these differences are to be encouraged. Also, more studies are required to compare different analytic strategies and to determine how much missing data is acceptable, particularly in oncology studies where attrition is inevitable.

[Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology: a review of the literature]

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology aims to improve both the quality of care and the control of costs.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A Medline search of the literature allowed analysis of the published studies of the evaluation of clinical practice. They showed that though 82-95% of patients with small cell bronchial carcinoma were treated with a combination of etoposide and cisplatin, less than half of the patients with non-small cell cancer received treatment.

VIEWPOINT

Various factors such as age, comorbidity, race, socio-economic status and gender affect the treatment decisions. There is also a discrepancy between the trial data and clinical practice that could be explained by two factors. On one hand advances are not always adopted by doctors and on the other hand the patient populations treated may sometimes be different from those in the trials.

CONCLUSION

Though the number of published studies is still low an increase is to be expected on account of the publication of new regulations concerning the evaluation of clinical practice and the appropriate use of drugs.

A prospective observational study of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in routine practice in a UK cancer centre

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess levels of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in routine practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was an observational prospective evaluation using patient self-reports. One hundred and two patients with cancer in a single cancer centre in UK receiving their first chemotherapy treatment participated in the study and were followed up over four cycles, providing a total of 272 assessments of nausea and vomiting. Data was collected with the use of the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT), which is an eight-item short clinical scale assessing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Results indicated that acute vomiting was experienced by 15.7% of the patients in cycle 1 and delayed vomiting by 14.7%, while acute nausea was present in 37.3% of the patients and delayed nausea in 47.1%, increasing over the subsequent cycles. Moderately emetogenic and highly emetogenic chemotherapy had the highest incidence of CINV, whereas patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy showed significant levels of delayed nausea. Acute symptoms were more easily controlled than delayed symptoms.

DISCUSSION

The data suggest that, while vomiting is well controlled, nausea remains a significant problem in practice, and optimal management of CINV is yet to be achieved. Understanding more clearly the biological basis of nausea will assist in managing this complex symptom more effectively in practice.

Is there a need to identify new anti-emetic drugs?

Nausea and vomiting occur in a large number of disease conditions and as side effects of many drug treatments, including use of analgesics and anesthesia in surgery and chemotherapy in cancer treatment. Current anti-emetics provide relief from only some sources of vomiting, with more limited benefits for the control of nausea. Elucidation of forebrain pathways that generate nausea and brainstem circuitry controlling emesis are significant obstacles for the development of effective universal anti-nausea and anti-emetic treatments.

New antiemetic drugs

BACKGROUND

Important progress in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis has been achieved but some fundamental needs still remain that requires new, efficacious antiemetic drugs.

METHODS

A critical review of the results of published studies of aprepitant, a new NK1 receptor antagonist, and of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life.

RESULTS

Aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist significantly increased the control of acute emesis with respect to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist alone after cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For cisplatin nausea, aprepitant combined with dexamethasone significantly increased the control of delayed emesis with respect to dexamethasone alone, while for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy aprepitant is superior to a 5-HT3 antagonist in the control of delayed emesis. Palonosetron showed superior or similar efficacy to ondansetron and dolasetron in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and similar efficacy to ondansetron in patients submitted to cisplatin.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are necessary comparing aprepitant alone or combined with dexamethasone with respect to the recommended antiemetic drugs for the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as for palonosetron combined with dexamethasone with respect to other 5-HT3 antagonists combined with dexamethasone.

Longitudinal patterns of weight gain after breast cancer diagnosis: observations beyond the first year

Many, but not all patients experience weight gain 1 year after a breast cancer diagnosis; clearly defined, clinically relevant groups at risk of weight gain have yet to be described. We set out to determine the factors associated with weight gain over time in patients with invasive breast cancer during a period of predominantly anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and to identify groups with differing weight gain risks. Breast cancer patients (stage I-IIIB) were identified in a retrospective chart review. Evaluated parameters included weight at diagnosis and 1, 2, and 3 years later, height, body mass index (BMI), age, menopausal and change in menopausal status, as well as therapy and pathologic stage. Regression models identified significant independent predictors of weight change. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was employed to divide the dataset into relevant and significant groups. In 185 identified patients, regression models and RPA demonstrated that weight gain at 1 year was associated with younger age, adjuvant chemotherapy, and lower BMI. Weight gain at 2 years (n = 176) was greater than at year 1, and in addition to weight gain at year 1, was associated with younger age and adjuvant chemotherapy in regression analysis; RPA found that anthracycline therapy, age, and BMI were important. Weights at 3 years were similar to those seen at 2 years. Early-stage breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy continue to gain weight 2 years after diagnosis, and this weight gain appears to be persistent at year 3. Observation beyond 1 year is needed to adequately evaluate weight gain in early-stage breast cancer patients, particularly for those receiving contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy.

Putting evidence into practice: evidence-based interventions to prevent, manage, and treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to have a considerable effect on the physical and psychological well-being of patients with cancer, despite significant advances in antiemetic drugs since the 1990s. This article reviews and summarizes past and current empirical evidence related to interventions for CINV. A resource that summarizes evidence-based interventions for CINV is critical for effective management of this distressing symptom. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions are appraised. Finally, gaps in the literature and opportunities for research, education, and practice changes are discussed.

Symptoms after breast cancer treatment: are they influenced by patient characteristics?

PURPOSE

This study examines the burden of symptoms by treatment type and patient characteristics in a population-based sample of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Using the Los Angeles County SEER Registry Rapid Case Ascertainment, we identified a cohort of breast cancer patients in 2000 and conducted telephone surveys in English and Spanish among participants.

RESULTS

We completed interviews of 1,219 breast cancer patients and found almost half (46%) had at least one severe symptom (any of the following: nausea/vomiting, arm problems, hot flashes, vaginal dryness, difficulty sleeping) that interfered with her daily functioning or mood. Multi-variate analysis controlling for patient characteristics and treatment showed that older (OR=0.90; P<0.000), black (OR=0.50; P<0.000), Hispanic Spanish-speaking (OR=0.37; P<0.000), widowed or never married (OR=0.68; P=0.049), and working (OR=0.72; P=0.024) women were less likely to report severe symptoms than other women. Number of comorbid conditions (OR=1.21; P<0.000) and receipt of chemotherapy (OR=1.48; P=0.040) were positively associated with reporting symptoms.

CONCLUSION

These findings estimate the prevalence of several mutable symptoms in breast cancer patients that can be addressed by appropriate treatments. Comorbidity is a significant predictor of symptoms, especially amongst those receiving chemotherapy. Variation in symptom reporting occurred by race/ethnicity and other sociodemographic characteristics, raising questions of different thresholds for reporting symptoms or truly fewer symptoms for some sociodemographic groups. Population-based estimates of the probability of symptoms in women with incident breast cancer can be used to provide patient education about potential outcomes following the treatment of breast cancer.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy for germ cell cancer

GOALS OF WORK

The aims of this study were to assess the safety and antiemetic efficacy of multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one men undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV once daily 30 min before chemotherapy on days 1, 3, and 5 plus IV dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy on days 1 and 2, and 8 mg PO bid on days 6 and 7 and 4 mg bid on day 8. Safety and efficacy were assessed in 24-h intervals for 9 days. Efficacy endpoints included emesis, intensity of nausea and its interference with patient functioning, and rescue antiemetic use. A subset of patients (n = 11) was studied for electrocardiograph effects and pharmacokinetic evaluation.

MAIN RESULTS

This multiple-day antiemetic regimen was safe, with headache and constipation the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Neither adverse events nor electrocardiographic changes appeared to increase in frequency, duration, or intensity over time despite a 1.42-fold systemic accumulation of palonosetron with repeated doses. The majority of patients had no emesis at any time throughout days 1-5 (51%) or days 6-9 (83%), had no moderate-to-severe nausea, and did not require rescue medication. Most patients reported that nausea had no significant effect on daily functioning on days 1-4 (72%) and days 5-9 (85%).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron on days 1, 3, and 5, along with a regimen of dexamethasone, was safe and well tolerated and effectively controlled both nausea and emesis in patients undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer.

The 5-HT3 receptor as a therapeutic target

The 5-HT3 receptor is a neurotransmitter-gated ion channel. It is a member of the Cys-loop family of receptors, which also includes nicotinic acetylcholine, glycine and GABAA receptors. Each member of the family consists of an arrangement of five subunits surrounding a central ion-conducting pore. The 5-HT3 receptor binding site is composed of six loops from two adjacent subunits, and the critical ligand binding residues within these loops are well documented. There are a range of 5-HT3 receptor agonists and competitive antagonists, but it is the antagonists that dominate their clinical use. Studies have proposed a range of disease symptoms that might be amenable to 5-HT3 receptor selective compounds; however, so far only the treatment of emesis and irritable bowel syndrome have been fully realised. In this review, the authors look at the structure, function and distribution of 5-HT3 receptors and how this may influence their role in disease. The authors also describe the existing clinical applications of 5-HT3 antagonists and the future potential of these drugs.

Efficacy of aprepitant in management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an important cause of distress for cancer patients. We have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a new antiemetic aprepitant in improving management of CINV refractory to standard antiemetic therapy in the general oncology setting.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients who received aprepitant from 1 January 2004 to 31 May 2005.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients received oral aprepitant in addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine blocker and corticosteroid. Eighty-five per cent of the patients were women. Median age was 49 years. More than half patients had early-stage cancers. Majority received anthracycline-based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Fourteen (54%) patients received aprepitant during cycle 2, seven patients (27%) started aprepitant during cycle 4 and one (4%) during cycle 5. Side-effects observed included constipation (27%), fatigue (27%) and diarrhoea (8%). Six (23%) patients did not complete chemotherapy. Two of these had persistent nausea and vomiting, and four experienced diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia and other chemotherapy-related events. Three patients (12%) were hospitalized prior to starting aprepitant because of CINV, and one patient was hospitalized because of CINV while receiving aprepitant. Only six (23%) patients would have been eligible for aprepitant under the reimbursement scheme available at the time.

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant was associated with improved control of nausea and vomiting and reduction in hospitalization in patients receiving chemotherapy.

A double-blind, crossover, randomized dose-comparison trial of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and emesis in children receiving moderately emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granisetron is a safe and effective prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting associated with moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Few trials have been conducted to determine the optimal effective dose of granisetron in children with cancer. The objective of this report was to compare two doses of granisetron in patients with optic pathway tumors receiving moderately emetogenic doses of carboplatin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, crossover, randomized study, antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of two dose levels (10 and 40 microg/kg) of granisetron in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea/emesis were compared in children and young adults. A total of 18 patients (13 boys) aged 1-23 years (median 7.7 years) treated with a moderately emetogenic dose of carboplatin were randomly assigned to receive either 10 or 40 microg/kg of slow granisetron intravenous (i.v.) infusions at alternating cycles of chemotherapy in a blinded fashion until the end of the study period or until their chemotherapy regimen ended. In this way, the patients acted as their own controls.

RESULTS

Patients in the granisetron 10 and 40 microg/kg groups received 104 and 121 cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. There was no significant difference in antiemetic efficacy in terms of nausea and emesis between the dose groups in the first 5 days of chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that granisetron 10 and 40 microg/kg have comparable efficacy in controlling carboplatin-induced acute and delayed nausea/emesis and is well tolerated in children and young adults.

Comparative activity of antiemetic drugs

Nausea and vomiting continues to be an important problem for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are classified as acute, occurring within the first 24h, or delayed, occurring after the first 24h. A number of antiemetic agents are available for the management of nausea and vomiting, including 5-HT3-receptor-antagonists, corticosteroids, NK-1-receptor-antagonists, dopamine-receptor antagonists, benzodiazepines, neuroleptics and cannabinoids. With modern antiemetic therapy, vomiting can be prevented in 70-80% of patients, whereas the control of nausea remains suboptimal. The development of acute emesis is known to depend on serotonin. The pathophysiology of delayed emesis is less well understood, and multiple mechanisms may contribute, including substance P. Here, the most recent developments in the antiemetic therapy, including new antiemetic drugs and the latest guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis, are reviewed.

Ondansetron treatment in a child presenting with chronic intractable pruritus

The case of a seven-year-old boy with chronic pruritus secondary to a giant congenital melanocytic nevus is presented. The pruritus did not respond to conventional antipruritic drug treatment, but responded to ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptors.

Safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion, patient-controlled antiemetic pump for children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Diphenhydramine, lorazepam, and dexamethasone have been used individually to treat CINV. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of those drugs administered via a patient controlled pump (BAD pump) to control CINV.

PROCEDURE

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all pediatric oncology patients who received the BAD pump. Emetic episodes, doses of rescue medications to treat breakthrough nausea or vomiting, and occurrence of adverse events were recorded. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or rescue medications, partial response (PR) as emesis but no rescue medications, and failure (F) as rescue medications required.

RESULTS

Thirty patients received a total of 141 courses. Adverse events occurred in 4.2% of the courses; confusion (n = 2), depressed mood (n = 1), dysphoria (n = 1), agitation (n = 1), and restlessness (n = 1). All side effects resolved after decreasing the infusion rate, and the pump was not discontinued in any patients. Eighteen patients failed conventional prophylaxis and received BAD pump for identical subsequent chemotherapy cycles; they spent more days in CR with BAD pump than without it, 21 versus 45 days (P = .003) respectively. Patients receiving BAD pump had significantly shorter hospital stay with BAD pump than those not receiving it, 68 days versus 76 (P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

BAD pump is well tolerated in pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy and may be more effective than conventional prophylaxis in controlling CINV in some patients.

Efficacy of dronabinol alone and in combination with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of dronabinol, ondansetron, or the combination for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a 5-day, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy received dexamethasone (20 mg PO), ondansetron (16 mg IV) and either placebo or dronabinol (2.5 mg) prechemotherapy on day 1. Patients randomized to active treatment (dronabinol and/or ondansetron) also received dronabinol (2.5 mg) after chemotherapy on day 1. On day 2, fixed doses of placebo, dronabinol (10 mg), ondansetron (16 mg), or combination therapy were administered. On days 3-5, patients received placebo, flexible doses of dronabinol (10-20 mg), ondansetron (8-16 mg), or dronabinol and ondansetron (10-20 mg dronabinol, 8-16 mg ondansetron).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total response (TR = nausea intensity <5 mm on visual analog scale, no vomiting/retching, no rescue antiemetic), nausea (occurrence and intensity) and vomiting/retching episodes.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were randomized; 61 analyzed for efficacy. TR was similar with dronabinol (54%), ondansetron (58%), and combination therapy (47%) versus placebo (20%). Nausea absence was significantly greater in active treatment groups (dronabinol, 71%; ondansetron, 64%; combination therapy, 53%) versus placebo (15%; p < 0.05 vs. placebo for all). Nausea intensity and vomiting/retching were lowest in patients treated with dronabinol. Active treatments were well tolerated. The low number of patients due to slow enrollment limits the interpretation of these data.

CONCLUSIONS

Dronabinol or ondansetron was similarly effective for the treatment of CINV. Combination therapy with dronabinol and ondansetron was not more effective than either agent alone. Active treatments were well tolerated.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Practicing pharmaceutical care is necessary to promote the appropriate use of medicines. In the practice of pharmaceutical care, monitoring the efficacy and safety of drugs from the pharmacists' point of view is an important role for clinical pharmacists and it is necessary to standardize clinical skills. We would like to introduce the monitoring skills of pharmacotherapy of clinical pharmacists by taking vancomycin injection and injectable anticancer drugs that have different monitoring points as examples.

Palonosetron: a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem. A new agent, palonosetron, has recently been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. In a single dosing study, palonosetron was highly effective in controlling CINV compared with a single dose of dolasetron or ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated control of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron appeared to be as effective in subsequent courses of chemotherapy compared with the initial course of chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant differences seen among palonosetron, ondansetron or dolasetron in laboratory, electrocardiographic or vital-sign changes, and adverse reactions reported in the clinical trials were the most common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Recent studies using palonosetron-based anti-emetic combinations in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron with current and other new agents and in other clinical settings, such as bone marrow transplantation and radiation therapy.

Absenteeism from work: the experience of employed breast and prostate cancer patients in the months following diagnosis

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of how cancer treatments affect patient's employment may help patients and physicians make more informed choices between treatment alternatives. This study examined the number of days employed patients undergoing treatment for either breast or prostate cancer were absent from their jobs.

METHOD

Using the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, End-Results registry, all potentially eligible women diagnosed with breast cancer and men diagnosed with prostate cancer were selected. Subjects who were employed full-time were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Women treated for breast cancer missed an average of 44.5 days from work; the median days missed was 22. The median days missed by women treated with surgery and chemotherapy was 40. Men diagnosed with prostate cancer missed an average of 27 days (median days = 20) from work. The median days missed for men treated surgically without hormone or radiation therapy was 25. In multivariable analyses, taking a leave of absence and greater elapsed time from diagnosis to interview were associated with the greatest number of days absent from work for all patients. Men treated with hormone and/or radiation therapy or who were not treated missed fewer days from work relative to men undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSION

Research and interventions are needed to minimize work loss for cancer patients. Vocational rehabilitation programs may minimize the impact of treatment on work. Information on how treatments may infringe the ability for patients to earn a living may influence treatment decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters.

RESULTS

Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.

Phase I trial of concurrent chemoradiation with weekly nedaplatin in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix

OBJECTIVE

This phase I clinical trial for cervical carcinoma had three objectives: to evaluate the toxicity of a concurrent chemoradiation regimen featuring weekly nedaplatin; to determine the recommended dose of nedaplatin for a phase II concurrent chemoradiation trial; and to evaluate the formula for predicting area under the curve data for nedaplatin through pharmacokinetic studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twelve patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix were enrolled. Nedaplatin was administered once a week for 6 weeks. The starting dose of nedaplatin was 25 mg/m(2)/week, with increments of 5 mg/m(2)/week planned for each dose level. Three cases were enrolled at each of the dose levels. Radiation therapy was delivered with both external beam teletherapy and intracavitary brachytherapy with HDR-RALS. Volunteering patients underwent pharmacokinetics studies during the second course.

RESULTS

Nedaplatin at a dose of 25, 30, and 35 mg/m(2) was safely administered for three cases at each dose level. At a dose of 40 mg/m(2), however, all three cases had Grade 3 neutropenia. Observed area under the curve value and predicted value was closely correlated, with differences between the two area under the curve values within 25%. All 12 cases achieved a clinical complete response, as evaluated with RECIST.

CONCLUSIONS

Our recommended dose for a phase II trial of concurrent chemoradiation with weekly nedaplatin is 35 mg/m(2). The formula can predict unbound concentration of nedaplatin based on area under the curve within 25% error.

Costs of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among working-age cancer patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared side effects of cancer treatment. Poorly controlled CINV may lead to additional office visits or emergency room admissions, thus increasing the overall costs of cancer care. The objective of the project was to estimate the societal costs of uncontrolled CINV among working-age cancer patients.

METHODS

The 1997-2002 Health and Productivity Management database, a proprietary database linking medical claims to work loss information, was used. The study population consisted of employees or their spouses who were cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Costs of uncontrolled CINV were estimated by comparing the direct medical costs and indirect costs between those with and without uncontrolled CINV; all costs were normalized as monthly costs and updated to 2006 US dollars. The Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the costs differences in univariate analyses, followed by multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In all, 2,018 patients were identified; 1,771 (88%) received 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, and uncontrolled CINV was found in 563 (28%). The estimated monthly medical costs associated with uncontrolled CINV were approximately 1,300 dollars higher for cancer patients at working ages. Subgroup analysis concluded that indirect costs per patient per month were 433 dollars higher for those in the uncontrolled CINV group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a prevalent use of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, uncontrolled CINV remained a common and costly problem among cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Aprepitant as salvage therapy in patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis refractory to prophylaxis with 5-HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

Despite prophylaxis with 5-HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone, nausea/emesis are common chemotherapy- induced toxicities. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of adding the NK1 antagonist aprepitant in patients refractory to standard prophylaxis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with significant nausea/vomiting despite prophylaxis with 5-HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone were eligible. Aprepitant was added to the same antiemetic regimen used during previous cycles.

RESULTS

34 patients received 92 cycles of chemotherapy with aprepitant which was applied orally at 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3. All patients were refractory to standard antiemetic prophylaxis during cisplatin-based (n = 12) or other chemotherapy (n = 22). With the addition of aprepitant, all patients reported subjective improvement. The number of patients with nausea for >4 days decreased from 24 (71%) to 4 (12%) (p < 0.001), and the number of those with emesis for >2 days decreased from 26 (77%) to 0 (0%) (p < 0.001). In 12 patients receiving aprepitant for >2 cycles (3-8) the efficacy was maintained. No toxicity possibly related to aprepitant was observed.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant demonstrated significant activity in patients with nausea/vomiting refractory to prophylaxis with 5-HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone.

Cochrane systematic reviews examine P6 acupuncture-point stimulation for nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

In 1998, the National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement on Acupuncture concluded that promising results have emerged showing the efficacy of acupuncture in adult postoperative and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The acupuncture point, P6 had been the point used in most of the trials.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize Cochrane systematic reviews assessing P6 stimulation for nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Reviews were found on postoperative sickness, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting. Results for postoperative nausea and vomiting show the most consistent results with 26 trials and more than 3000 patients showing the superiority of real P6 stimulation over sham for both adults and children and for both nausea and vomiting. Pooled data of trials including different antiemetics showed that P6 stimulation seems to be superior to antiemetic medication for nausea and equivalent for vomiting. P6 stimulation was similarly effective across the different methods of stimulation, both invasive or noninvasive. Results for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting showed 11 trials and over 1200 patients. Electroacupuncture, but not manual acupuncture, was beneficial for first-day vomiting. Acupressure was effective for first-day nausea but not vomiting. Wristwatch-like electrical devices were not effective for any outcome. Results for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting comprised six trials and approximately 1150 patients. Results were mixed with some trials showing positive and other trials equivocal results with no favor to a certain kind of method.

CONCLUSIONS

P6 stimulation may be beneficial for various conditions involving nausea and vomiting. The added value to modern antiemetics remains unclear. In patients on chemotherapy, future research should focus on patients for whom the problems are refractory. The next steps in research should include investigating whether acupuncture points added to P6 or individualizing treatment based on a Traditional Chinese Medicine diagnosis increases treatment effectiveness. It would also be worthwhile to identify predictors of response across the different conditions so that the individual patients can optimize acupuncture point therapy.

Electroacupuncture for Refractory Acute Emesis Caused by Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of electroacupuncture in preventing anthracycline-based chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis refractory to combination 5HT(3)-antagonist and dexamethasone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with refractory emesis after their first cycle of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy were accrued into this study. Electroacupuncture was given during the second cycle of chemotherapy. Each patient was evaluated for the number of emetic episodes and grade of nausea within the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and electroacupuncture.

RESULTS

Forty-seven of a total of 317 patients screened were eligible for this study. Of these, 27 patients agreed to participate. Twenty-six (26; 96.3%) of them had significant reduction in both nausea grade and episodes of vomiting after electroacupuncture. There was complete response with no emetic episodes in 37%. Subjectively, 25 (92.6%) of the total 27 patients believed that acupuncture was an acceptable procedure and was helpful in reducing emesis. Electroacupuncture was well-tolerated with a median pain score of 3 of 10.

CONCLUSION

Electroacupuncture is well-tolerated and effective as an adjunct in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis.

Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data.

RESULTS

Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: incidence and impact on patient quality of life at community oncology settings

GOALS OF WORK

The present study sought to determine the prevalence of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across ten community oncology settings. The effect of CINV on quality of life (QOL) was also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients who were scheduled for their first cycle of a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited from ten community oncology clinics. Study participants recorded occurrence of CINV by completing a daily diary each day for the first 8 days after treatment during each cycle and the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) before chemotherapy, at the end of day 1 and day 6 after chemotherapy. Mixed model regression analysis was used to explore the association between occurrence of CINV at cycle 1 and subsequent cycles and its impact on patient QOL.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one patients provided information for at least one cycle. During cycle 1, only 33% had neither acute nor delayed CINV. Of the 36% patients who developed acute CINV, 8% developed acute CINV only. Of the 59% who developed delayed CINV, 53% reported delayed only and 47% reported acute and delayed CINV. A similar pattern was seen at cycles 2 and 3. Experience of CINV at cycle 1 was associated with the development of CINV at cycles 2 and 3. Occurrence of CINV significantly interfered with patient QOL as assessed by the FLIE.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remained a substantial problem for patients receiving chemotherapy in this community-based sample, especially delayed CINV. CINV significantly interfered with patient QOL and daily functioning.

Potential synergism between hypnosis and acupuncture—is the whole more than the sum of its parts?

Both hypnosis and acupuncture have gained credibility over the years in their effectiveness for treating various health conditions. Currently, each of these treatments is administered in distinct settings and separate times. That is, even if patients receive both treatments as part of a multidimensional therapeutic program, they would typically receive them separately rather than simultaneously at the same session. This separation however might be undesirable since, at least theoretically, hypnosis and acupuncture could potentially augment each other if administered concomitantly. In this article we outline the rationale for this hypothesis and discuss the potential ramifications of its implementation.

Acupuncture for nausea and vomiting: An update of clinical and experimental studies

The objective of this overview is to summarize existing knowledge about the effects of acupuncture-point stimulation on nausea and vomiting. Systematic reviews on postoperative nausea and vomiting, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting exist. Several randomised trials, but no reviews, exist for motion sickness. For postoperative nausea and vomiting, results from 26 trials showed acupuncture-point stimulation was effective for both nausea and vomiting. For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, results of 11 trials differed according to modality with acupressure appearing effective for first-day nausea, electroacupuncture appearing effective for first-day vomiting, and noninvasive electrostimulation appearing no more effective than placebo for any outcome. For pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, results were mixed. Experimental studies showed effects of P6-stimulation on gastric myoelectrical activity, vagal modulation and cerebellar vestibular activities in functional magnetic resonance imaging. There is good clinical evidence from more than 40 randomised controlled trials that acupuncture has some effect in preventing or attenuating nausea and vomiting. A growing number of experimental studies suggest mechanisms of action.

Delayed nausea and vomiting continue to reduce patients' quality of life after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy despite antiemetic treatment

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are major adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. We compared the impact of acute (during the first 24 hours postchemotherapy) and delayed (days 2 through 5 postchemotherapy) CINV on patients' quality of life (QoL) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, multinational study was conducted in 14 medical practices on cancer patients undergoing either HEC or MEC treatment. Patients recorded episodes of nausea and vomiting in a diary. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire at baseline and on day 6.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients were assessable (67 HEC patients, 231 MEC patients). Emesis was reported by 36.4% of patients (13.2% acute, 32.5% delayed) and nausea by 59.7% (36.2% acute, 54.3% delayed). HEC patients reported significantly lower mean FLIE total score than MEC patients (95.5 v 107.8 respectively; P = .0049). Among all patients, the nausea score was significantly lower than the vomiting score (50.0 and 55.3, respectively; P = .0097). Of the 173 patients who experienced neither vomiting nor nausea during the first 24 hours postchemotherapy, 22.9% reported an impact of CINV on daily life caused by delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

CINV continues to adversely affect patients' QoL despite antiemetic therapy even after treatment with only moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, and even in the subgroup of patients who do not experience nausea and vomiting during the first 24 hours. On the basis of the FLIE results in this study, nausea had a stronger negative impact on patients' daily lives than vomiting.

Skipping day 2 antiemetic medications may improve chemotherapy induced delayed nausea and vomiting control: results of two pilot phase II trials

BACKGROUND

5HT-3 antagonists and corticosteroids control less than 50% of delayed chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) episodes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two pilot phase II studies were conducted at our institution in which all patients received ondansetron 16 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy on day 1. Patients on study 1 received metoclopramide 10 mg PO q8 h, granisetron 0.5 mg PO QD and dexamethasone 8 mg QD on days 2 and 3, whereas only metoclopramide was continued on the same schedule on day 4. On study 2, patients received the same medications, but no drugs were given on day 2, and the same treatment schedule was given to them but from days 3 to 5 instead. Patients were interviewed on days 1 and 6.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients participated on each study. There were no significant clinical differences between these two studied populations. Complete CINV control occurred from days 2 to 5 in 23.1% (95% CI: 8 to 47%) on study 1 vs 61.9% (95% CI: 38 to 81%) of the patients on study 2. By logistic regression, complete CINV control was correlated significantly with antiemetic treatment group (p=0.011) even when we considered only patients who achieved complete CINV control during the first 24 h (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Skipping day 2 antiemetic medications does not seem to worsen delayed CINV control and may even improve it, perhaps by avoiding tachyphylaxis to these medications. A randomized controlled study is in progress to confirm these results.

New drugs for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on palonosetron

Significant progress has been made in the development of effective, convenient and well-tolerated means to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Nevertheless, a substantial minority of patients continue to have suboptimal antiemetic control, and additional treatment approaches are needed. One avenue of investigation being pursued involves the evaluation of a new 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist (palonosetron) that differs from available serotonin antagonists in its markedly longer half-life (40 h) and greater binding affinity for the type-3 serotonin receptor. Analysis of available clinical data demonstrates that palonosetron is an active and well-tolerated new 5-HT(3) antagonist. Moreover, single-dose palonosetron, prior to chemotherapy, has demonstrated improved control of CINV through the full period of emetic risk with a single dose. Palonosetron is recommended as the preferred treatment of acute and delayed emesis prevention with moderate emetic risk chemotherapy in the most recently published evidence-based antiemesis consensus guidelines. Further studies incorporating dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists will be necessary to determine the relative efficacy of palonosetron compared with available agents. These trials could open a new era in the treatment of CINV.

Update on the Management of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy is associated with a variety of side effects, and many of these can be dose-limiting. One of the most dreaded side effects for patients receiving chemotherapy is nausea and vomiting, however. Although in the last 2 decades there have been several advances in the development of new therapies for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), recent pharmacologic advances have significantly improved control of this feared side effect. Antiemetic guidelines help clinicians manage CINV and are updated frequently. Ongoing studies further define appropriate management of patients with CINV; of particular interest is delayed nausea and vomiting. With the addition of the long-acting serotonin antagonist, palonosetron, and the unique neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, control of CINV has improved considerably for those patients receiving chemotherapy. This article discusses CINV and recent pharmacologic advances in controlling this side effect. Guidelines for the management of CINV are reviewed.

The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life

GOAL OF WORK

The objectives of this prospective observational study were to estimate the frequency of patients who reported an impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on their daily life and to evaluate the determinants of such an impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult cancer patients at seven Italian oncology centers who were receiving cisplatin-containing regimens reported incidence and intensity of CINV for eight consecutive days in a diary and completed a Functional Living Index for Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 34% of patients reported vomiting and 62% reported nausea after chemotherapy. On days 1 to 5 after receiving chemotherapy, 67% of patients who had at least one emetic episode and 77% of those who suffered from at least mild nausea experienced an impact on their daily activities as measured on the FLIE questionnaire. More than 90% of all patients with both acute and delayed nausea or vomiting reported an impact on their daily life. Both acute and delayed vomiting contributed in similar measure to impact daily life; however, the importance of delayed nausea was greater than that of acute nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite antiemetic prophylaxis, CINV is still prevalent and often impacts the daily life of patients in Italy, especially in the delayed phase. The duration more than the severity seems to be responsible for the impact of CINV on the patients' daily lives.

Treatment of nausea and vomiting: gaps in our knowledge

The past 20 years have seen notable advances in our understanding of the physiology and pharmacology of the emetic reflex leading to the identification of the anti-emetic effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5-HT(3)) and neurokinin(1) receptor (NK(1)) antagonists. The introduction of 5-HT(3) and NK(1) receptor antagonists into the clinic has had a major impact in alleviating the nausea and vomiting associated with the treatment of cancer and the sequelae to anaesthesia and surgery (post-operative nausea and vomiting, PONV). Despite these advances there are major gaps in our understanding. Interestingly, one of these is the relatively poor ability to treat nausea. Additional gaps in our knowledge are highlighted to provide a framework within which directions for research can be proposed. Particular attention is drawn to: lacunae in knowledge of some currently used anti-emetics such as the source of dopamine required to initiate emesis; the theoretical assumptions and mechanisms underlying the concept of a "universal anti-emetic"; the variety of receptors at which agonists act to have anti-emetic effects (GABA (B), CB(1), 5-HT(1A), ghrelin, opioid); issues of translation from animals to humans and the relationship between the pathways involved in emesis and certain gastrointestinal disorders such as dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux, with the latter being of particular interest as some agents affecting reflux are also anti-emetic. Together, the unmet clinical need to adequately control nausea, possibly by new drugs acting within the brainstem, and the significant gaps in understanding key aspects of the emetic reflex, suggest an important need to focus and re-direct research into the distressing and sometimes life-threatening symptoms of nausea and vomiting.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are symptoms that cause major concern to oncology patients. This article explores the types of nausea and vomiting in the context of chemotherapy, and discusses their pathogenesis and management.

The continuing problem of post chemotherapy nausea and vomiting: contributions of classical conditioning

Despite continuing improvements in antiemetic therapies, nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy treatments for cancer remain significant clinical problems for many patients. The role of classical conditioning in patients' anticipatory nausea is well known, but little attention has been paid to possible conditioning effects on post treatment nausea. The present study statistically examined the contribution of anticipatory (conditioned) nausea to patients' subsequent post treatment nausea. Forty early stage breast cancer patients who developed anticipatory nausea were analyzed. Results revealed a significant correlation between the intensity of anticipatory nausea in the clinic prior to their treatment infusion and subsequent post treatment nausea during the 24 h after the infusion. These results provide support for the hypothesis that, once established, conditioned nausea may contribute to the severity of subsequent post treatment nausea in patients receiving repeated cycles of chemotherapy for cancer. The results suggest the importance of considering the contribution of conditioning process to nausea and other post treatment side effects.

5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with or without short-course dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation induced emesis: a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (SC19)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for the control of radiation induced emesis (RIE) when added to ondansetron during days 1 to 5 of fractionated radiotherapy. The study had two hypotheses: ondansetron and dexamethasone could provide superior control of RIE over ondansetron alone during the prophylactic period and; the combination could provide sustained control of RIE during subsequent fractions of radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2001 to Jan 2004, 211 patients receiving radiotherapy (> or = 15 fractions) to the upper abdomen were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 8 mg bid with either dexamethasone 4 mg daily or placebo during fractions 1 to 5. Rescue antiemetics were provided.

RESULTS

During the prophylactic period there was a trend for improved complete control of nausea in the dexamethasone arm (50% v 38%; P = .06) while complete and partial control of emesis, average nausea score, and use of rescue medications were similar in the two groups. During the overall study period patients receiving dexamethasone had better complete control of emesis (23% v 12%; P = .02) and a lower average nausea score (0.28 v 0.39; P = .03); there was a trend towards less use of rescue medications with dexamethasone (70% v 80%; P = .09); other outcomes were similar on the two arms. Quality of life analysis showed a significant difference in appetite.

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron as prophylaxis provides a modest improvement in protection against RIE during moderately emetogenic fractionated radiotherapy. It is a potentially useful addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in this setting.

The Importance of Continuous Quality Assessment: A Lesson from Antiemetic Guidelines for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

At the University of Maryland Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, we noticed that patients did not routinely receive a guideline recommended antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy induced emesis. To achieve better compliance, treatment guidelines were incorporated into chemotherapy preprinted orders. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes in the delayed period following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients receiving a guideline recommended antiemetic regimen. Outcomes were compared to a historical cohort of patients who did not receive a guideline recommended regimen.

This prospective, observational, quality-assessment study enrolled patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy who received a standard delayed antiemetic regimen of dexamethasone for 5 days plus dolasetron for 3 days. Patients documented the number of emesis episodes, breakthrough nausea with medication use, and adverse effects. Quality of life was measured using the Modified Functional Living Index – Emesis. Originally, 40 to 60 patients were planned to be studied. This study was stopped early, because national consensus guidelines for preventing chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting were recently updated and no longer recommended this regimen.

Overall, the incidence of vomiting was statistically similar ( P= 0.4) in the prospective study cohort (77.8%) vs the historical cohort (65.2%). Also, breakthrough antiemetic use was similar in both groups. Complete response was similar between the two groups (27.8% current, 30.4% historic).

Outcomes were similar in the current study vs the historical cohort. The institution's guidelines were modified and further studies will assess the efficacy of newer antiemetic regimens using these data as historical control.

Emetic potential of daily oral etoposide

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapeutic agents are classified by their degree of emetogenicity. Highly and moderately emetogenic agents require antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Intravenous etoposide is listed as having low emetic potential. However, oral etoposide is categorized as having moderate emetogenicity. Daily oral etoposide is used in refractory germ cell cancer patients. We prospectively evaluated the emetic potential of oral etoposide in this patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between August 2003 and February 2006, 16 patients with refractory germ cell cancer received single-agent, daily oral etoposide 50 mg/M(2) for 21 consecutive days every 4 weeks. All patients had progressed after cisplatin combination chemotherapy and had received high-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin plus etoposide (intravenously) with peripheral blood stem cell transplant. No patient received prophylactic antiemetics. Patients completed a six-question Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) antiemetic tool during each day of etoposide during the first 21-day course. Nausea intensity and duration were recorded. Number of emetic episodes and any antiemetic medications were recorded.

RESULTS

All 16 patients completed the six-question MASCC form. Eleven of 16 had no nausea or vomiting and two other patients had only minimal nausea, despite absence of any prophylactic antiemetics. Only two patients required antiemetic support. Two patients experienced emesis for a single episode. One patient had nausea on days 9-20 with a MASCC rating of 3-6, and one patient had continued mild nausea (MASCC rating 1-3) for all 21 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily oral etoposide has a low probability of producing chemotherapy-induced nausea and/or vomiting and, in our opinion, does not require prophylactic antiemetics.

Drug interactions in cancer therapy

Drug interactions in oncology are of particular importance owing to the narrow therapeutic index and the inherent toxicity of anticancer agents. Interactions with other medications can cause small changes in the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of a chemotherapy agent that could significantly alter its efficacy or toxicity. Improvements in in vitro methods and early clinical testing have made the prediction of potentially clinically significant drug interactions possible. We outline the types of drug interaction that occur in oncology, the mechanisms that underlie these interactions and describe select examples.

Modified Bagshawe Regimen for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasms

The increasing complexity of cancer chemotherapy heightens the requirement that pharmacists be familiar with these highly toxic agents. This column will review various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of cancer chemotherapy. It will also serve as a review of various agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

The cost of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Italy

GOALS OF WORK

The aim of this paper is to analyze the costs of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective observational study at seven public oncology centers, incidence and intensity of CINV daily for 8 days after chemotherapy in consecutive patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy were recorded. All costs related to CINV (direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect) were recorded (in 2003 euros).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were enrolled; cost data were available for 168 patients. Thirty-seven percent of patients experienced acute CINV, and 57% experienced delayed CINV; 39% achieved total control, defined as no nausea, vomiting, or rescue therapy. Mean per-patient costs of acute and delayed CINV were 30.03 euro from the hospital perspective, 4.9 euro from the patient perspective, and 26.85 euro from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Costs of CINV were highly variable among oncology centers, largely because of differences in procedures for preventing delayed CINV. These costs were four times higher when antiemetic drugs were prescribed and paid for by the NHS than when antiemetic prophylaxis was provided directly from hospital pharmacies. Moreover, in the delayed phase, the NHS incurred a 94% increase in costs for patients without total control. Overall costs for patients who did not experience total control of CINV were 35.57 euro higher than for those who did (85% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Costs of CINV for the Italian NHS could be reduced if hospitals furnished antiemetic prophylaxis directly to patients. Better control of both acute and delayed CINV would improve patient well-being as well as reduce the budgetary impact of CINV in Italy.

Phase I-II study of biweekly paclitaxel administration with fixed-dose-rate cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Both paclitaxel (TXL) and cisplatin (CDDP) show efficacy against gastric cancer. The aim of this phase I-II study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of combination chemotherapy with these two agents.

METHODS

Nineteen patients entered the phase I part of the study, and 21 patients entered the phase II part. TXL infusions were administered on days 1 and 15, with a fixed 3mg/m2 dose of CDDP.

RESULTS

In the phase I part of the study, we determined dose level 5, which represented a TXL dose of 18 mg/m2, with CDDP 3 mg/m2, to be the MTD. The recommended dose (RD) was level 4, with a TXL dose of 16 mg/m2 with CDDP, 3 mg/m2. In the phase II part of the study, the response rate was 25.0%; five patients had a partial response, seven had stable disease, 6 had progressive disease, and 2 were not evaluable. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was the most common adverse event and occurred in 65% of the patients. During treatment, 25% of the patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, but febrile neutropenia was not shown in any of the patients. Major nonhematological toxicities were nausea/vomiting, anorexia, fatigue, alopecia, and sensory neuropathy. Adverse reactions of grade 3 or 4 were shown by two patients, one with anorexia (5%) and the other with sensory neuropathy (5%).

CONCLUSION

The RD was determined to be TXL 14 mg/m2, with CDDP 3 mg/m2.