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

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase).

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Phase I/II Trial of Docetaxel and Carboplatin as a First-Line Therapy in Patients with Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

A phase I/II study was conducted to determine the maximum-tolerated dose, the safety and tolerability, and the clinical efficacy of carboplatin and docetaxel in combination in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with measurable, previously untreated, good performance status, and stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were eligible. Increasing doses of docetaxel were given in combination with a fixed dose of carboplatin except at level 5. Cycles were repeated every four weeks. Seventy-seven patients were registered. In phase I, 27 patients were entered at five different dose levels. A docetaxel dose of 60 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration time curve 6 was recommended for phase II, and an additional 50 patients were entered at this level for a total of 56 patients. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was the most common adverse event and occurred in 70% of the patients. Two patients had febrile neutropenia. Fifty-six patients were assessable for response; 21 partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 37.5%. The median time to tumor progression was 4.0 months (range, 1.0-21.0 months), and the median survival was 12.9 months (range, 0.4-51.3 months). The one-year survival rate was 46.4%. The combination of docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration time curve 6 is feasible and effective in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology: update 2006

PURPOSE

To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

UPDATE METHODOLOGY

The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk. CONCLUSION The Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients' emetic risk categories and other characteristics.

Side effects associated with the use of dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The role of dexamethasone to reduce delayed emesis following highly emetogenic chemotherapy is proven, but there is less evidence of benefit after mild–moderately emetogenic regimens. Here, we develop and evaluate a Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) to assess the side effects of dexamethasone in the week after patients receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The DSQ was first optimised with the aid of a focus group. Sixty patients receiving oral dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer completed and then evaluated the DSQ. Patients reported that the DSQ was clearly worded and addressed items important to them. Patients receiving dexamethasone reported moderate–severe problems with insomnia (45%), indigestion/epigastric discomfort (27%), agitation (27%), increased appetite (19%), weight gain (16%) and acne (15%) in the week following chemotherapy. The side effects of dexamethasone may outweigh its benefits when used with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. A randomised, double-blind crossover trial is underway to determine the effect of dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting, and the impact of side effects of dexamethasone and of nausea and vomiting on quality of life.

Drug utilization review on a tertiary palliative care unit

Drugs are indispensable for the management of symptoms in palliative care patients, and account for a significant proportion of expenditures on a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit (TPCU). Drug expenditures for Edmonton's TPCU increased by 40% in 2002 compared to 2001. Fifty-five percent of the increase was attributable to injectable fentanyl, oral and injectable ondansetron, and total parenteral nutrition (TPN). As there was no increase in the unit cost of these drugs between 2001 and 2002, the increased expenditures reflected increased utilization. The hypothesis of this study was that the increased utilization of these drugs reflected appropriate prescribing. The objective was to compare the indications for prescribing these drugs in 2002 against evidence- and consensus-based criteria. Patients who received these drugs while admitted to the TPCU from January 1 to December 31, 2002 were identified through the pharmacy database. Evidence- and consensus-based criteria for drug utilization were developed. Prescribing indications were retrospectively compared against the criteria. Drug prescriptions were categorized as follows: (1) meeting criteria, (2) not meeting criteria, or (3) uncertain. The drugs under study were prescribed during 48 out of 234 admissions to the TPCU in 2002. Prescriptions for fentanyl met criteria in 26 of 29 cases. Indications were unsuccessful therapy with morphine, hydromorphone, and oxycodone (20), requirement for rapid titration from fentanyl patch (5), renal failure (2), and sublingual administration for breakthrough pain (1). Prescriptions for ondansetron met criteria in 19 of 21 cases. Indications were nausea refractory to metoclopramide and dexamethasone (13), and nausea related to radiotherapy or chemotherapy (6). Prescriptions for TPN met criteria for initiation in only one of five cases. However, in all cases, TPN had been started prior to admission. In cases where death was considered imminent, TPN was continued pending consultation with the patient and family regarding discontinuation. These data indicate that the increased prescribing of fentanyl and ondansetron on the TPCU satisfied evidence- and consensus-based criteria in most cases, apparently justifying the associated increase in drug expenditures. This type of analysis may be useful whenever increased drug utilization requires review. A cost effectiveness analysis would be the next step in evaluating the costs vs. the benefits. The issue of discontinuing TPN in palliative care patients requires further investigation.

Side effects of interferon-alpha therapy

AIM

Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) has been extensively explored for its efficacy in various disease conditions and is currently used as a standard treatment in several of these. Its use is accompanied by a wide variety of possible side effects. These side-effects may hamper reaching and maintaining the dose needed for maximal therapeutic effect while their occurrence can outweigh clinical benefit of IFN-alpha treatment. This review addresses the toxicity profile of IFN-alpha, the presumed pathophysiology of the different side effects and the strategies to handle these.

METHODS

Computerized searches were used and cross-references of articles and books were checked.

RESULTS

Adverse effects due to IFN-alpha have been described in almost every organ system. Many side-effects are clearly dose-dependent. Taken together, occurrence of flu-like symptoms, hematological toxicity, elevated transaminases, nausea, fatigue, and psychiatric sequelae are the most frequently encountered. Although insight in the mechanisms accounting for IFN-alpha-related toxicities has improved in recent years, much remains to be elucidated. Guidelines on the management of these untoward sequelae are mostly based on clinical experience, while many side-effects can only be adequately handled by dose adjustment or cessation of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Further research on the mechanisms underlying both therapeutic effects and adverse events is warranted. Hopefully, this will lead to better identification of those patients who are likely to benefit from treatment without experiencing severe toxicities.

Acupuncture-point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting

BACKGROUND

There have been recent advances in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting using 5-HT(3) inhibitors and dexamethasone. However, many still experience these symptoms, and expert panels encourage additional methods to reduce these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture-point stimulation on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, MANTIS, Science Citation Index, CCTR (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register, Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care Specialized Register, Cochrane Cancer Specialized Register, and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of acupuncture-point stimulation by any method (needles, electrical stimulation, magnets, or acupressure) and assessing chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were provided by investigators of the original trials and pooled using a fixed effect model. Relative risks were calculated on dichotomous data. Standardized mean differences were calculated for nausea severity. Weighted mean differences were calculated for number of emetic episodes.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials (N = 1247) were pooled. Overall, acupuncture-point stimulation of all methods combined reduced the incidence of acute vomiting (RR = 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99; P = 0.04), but not acute or delayed nausea severity compared to control. By modality, stimulation with needles reduced proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01), but not acute nausea severity. Electroacupuncture reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.97; P = 0.02), but manual acupuncture did not; delayed symptoms for acupuncture were not reported. Acupressure reduced mean acute nausea severity (SMD = -0.19; 95% confidence interval -0.37 to -0.01; P = 0.04) but not acute vomiting or delayed symptoms. Noninvasive electrostimulation showed no benefit for any outcome. All trials used concomitant pharmacologic antiemetics, and all, except electroacupuncture trials, used state-of-the-art antiemetics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review complements data on post-operative nausea and vomiting suggesting a biologic effect of acupuncture-point stimulation. Electroacupuncture has demonstrated benefit for chemotherapy-induced acute vomiting, but studies combining electroacupuncture with state-of-the-art antiemetics and in patients with refractory symptoms are needed to determine clinical relevance. Self-administered acupressure appears to have a protective effect for acute nausea and can readily be taught to patients though studies did not involve placebo control. Noninvasive electrostimulation appears unlikely to have a clinically relevant impact when patients are given state-of-the-art pharmacologic antiemetic therapy.

Gastrointestinal toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents

Chemotherapy-induced toxicities commonly occur in sites within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and account for dose-limiting effects. These toxicities are major contributing factors to dose reduction, delays, and cessation of cancer treatment. Through intensive therapies including surgery, combination chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy, an increasing number of patients with cancer are experiencing improved survival and long-term disease-free survival, as well as palliation of disease-related symptoms. Thus, GI toxicities should be predicted and appropriate interventions initiated to prevent them when possible and provide effective supportive measures and comprehensive follow-up care. This review will discuss the etiology, incidence, prevention, and treatment of GI toxicities of cancer chemotherapy.

Incidence and temporal pattern of anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, and leukopenia in patients with cervical cancer treated with concurrent radiation therapy and weekly cisplatin: comparison with radiation therapy alone

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the temporal patterns of anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, and leukopenia in chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for cervical cancer compared with radiation therapy (RT) alone.

METHODS

Acute toxicities in 43 patients receiving RT alone and 40 patients receiving CRT were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were treated with a combination of external beam irradiation and high-dose rate intracavitary irradiation. Cisplatin was given once a week for 5 weeks concurrently with the external beam irradiation. CRT was divided into low-dose CRT group (cisplatin, 20-30 mg/m(2), n = 16) and high-dose CRT group (cisplatin, 35-40 mg/m(2), n = 24). Toxicities were evaluated before, every week up to 7 weeks during the cycle, and 12 weeks after initial irradiation, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.

RESULTS

In the high-dose CRT group, anorexia during the first 5 weeks, leukopenia after 5 weeks, and weight loss after 3 weeks were significantly higher than those in the RT alone group. In the low-dose CRT group, anorexia between 1 and 2 weeks, leukopenia after 5 weeks, and weight loss between 3 and 4 weeks were significantly higher than those in the RT alone group. Diarrhea between 1 and 2 weeks in the high-dose CRT group (P = 0.037, P = 0.025) and between 2 and 3 weeks in the low-dose CRT group (P = 0.015, P = 0.036) was significantly lower compared with RT alone.

CONCLUSION

These data can help us understand when patients are likely to develop maximal toxicities and to manage them with optimal timing.

Acupuncture and acupressure for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea--a randomised cross-over pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a combination of acupuncture and acupressure is effective for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a randomised cross-over trial, 28 patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and conventional standard antiemesis were treated for one chemotherapy cycle with a combination of acupuncture and acupressure at point P6 and for one cycle at a close sham point. The main outcome measure was a nausea score derived from daily intensity rating.

RESULTS

There was no difference between combined acupuncture and acupressure treatment at P6 and at the sham point for the nausea score, but the level of nausea was very low in both phases. The mean nausea score was 6.2 (standard deviation 9.0) for treatment at P6 and 6.3 (9.1) for treatment at the sham point (mean difference -0.1, 95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.7; p=0.96). Seventeen of 21 participants completing the study would desire acupuncture and acupressure for future chemotherapy cycles, but there was no clear preference for either point.

CONCLUSION

In this small pilot study a significant difference between treatment at P6 and a close sham point could not be detected. However, it cannot be ruled out that an existing difference was missed due to the small sample size.

Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment

BACKGROUND

We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin).

RESULTS

Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.

Bleomycin, Vincristine, Lomustine, and Dacarbazine (BOLD) with Interferon Regimen for Metastatic Melanoma

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. 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@aol.com ; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Director, Oncology Pharmacy Residency Program, Department of Pharmacy, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Rm 2P02, Washington, D.C.; E-mail: waddfour@charter.net .

Emerging drugs for chemotherapy-induced emesis

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, no alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have recently been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists. There are a number of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and NK-1 receptor antagonists currently in Phase II and III clinical trials. Revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV are reviewed. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron and aprepitant with current and other new agents (olanzapine, gabapentin) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Study of the effect of standardized chemotherapy order forms on prescribing errors and anti-emetic cost

OBJECTIVES

Many anti-neoplastic medication errors and excessive use of serotonin antagonist anti-emetic agents might be prevented by the use of a standardized chemotherapy order form (SCOF). Several studies showing a reduction in prescribing errors or control of inappropriate anti-emetic use through the use of SCOFs have been reported. No previously published study reported SCOFs were used to reduce both prescribing errors and anti-emetic cost. This study attempts to measure these outcomes in a haematology-oncology pharmacy service.

METHODS

The study consisted of a four-month control period, followed by a four-month test period following dissemination of the standardized order forms. In each period, prescriber errors and anti-emetic use were monitored. During the control period, using clinical studies from the primary literature and anti-emetic guidelines, 64 SCOFs representing the most commonly used chemotherapy regimens in the medical oncology and gynaecology oncology services were developed by the haematology-oncology pharmacy. Differences in prescribing error rate and anti-emetic cost were compared between each period and with the institution's historic prescribing error rate.

RESULTS

During the control period, 1078 orders for oral and parenteral granisetron and ondansetron with combined total acquisition cost of $76 454.64 and a mean cost of $70.92 were dispensed. During the test period, the pharmacy dispensed 1121 orders with an acquisition cost of $73 331.61 and a mean cost of $65.42. A savings of $3123.03 resulted from a reduction of the amount prescribed in the test period. The difference in mean cost per order between the two periods was significant (P <0.037). Fifty-three prescribing errors out of 3592 medication orders were detected in the control period, while 12 errors out of 3585 medication orders were detected during the test period. A significant difference(P <0.0001) was detected between the two periods. There was a significant difference (P <0.0001) between the control period and the institution's historic prescribing error rate and no difference between the test period and the institution's historic prescribing error rate.

CONCLUSION

SCOFs significantly reduced serotonin antagonist anti-emetic cost and prescribing error rate over a four-month period.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

A randomized, double-blind trial assessing the efficacy and safety of sublingual metopimazine and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis

The prevention of delayed emesis following chemotherapy remains an important challenge. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerance of metopimazine and ondansetron at preventing nausea and emesis in patients receiving chemotherapy. Two hundred patients were evaluated for efficacy: 103 patients received metopimazine (7.5 mg x 2 t.i.d.) and 97 received ondansetron (8 mg b.i.d.) for 5 days. Patients were asked to report episodes of nausea and emesis in a diary, and quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using the Functional Living Index--Emesis questionnaire. The incidence of complete response (defined as no nausea and emesis for 5 days) did not differ between the two treatment arms (53.4% for metopimazine versus 49.5% for ondansetron; P=0.58). No significant difference was found for the incidence of emesis (23.3% for metopimazine versus 30.9% for ondansetron) or QoL. Tolerance was as expected for both drugs and comparable, except for the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders, which was significantly lower in the metopimazine group (19.4 versus 32.7%; P=0.03). We conclude that metopimazine is an alternative to ondansetron that is better tolerated for the prevention of delayed emesis in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Combined data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant plus a 5HT 3 antagonist and a corticosteroid for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: effect of gender on treatment response

GOALS OF WORK

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with standard antiemetics has been more difficult to achieve in female patients. Data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant were assessed for potential effect of gender on treatment response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

1,044 patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomly assigned to control regimen [ondansetron (O) 32 mg i.v. and dexamethasone (D) 20 mg p.o. on day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on days 2-4] or aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg p.o. plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on days 2-3; and D 8 mg on day 4). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy over days 1-5). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Between-treatment comparisons for each gender were made using logistic regression.

MAIN RESULTS

Women comprised 42 and 43% of the aprepitant and control groups, respectively. In the control group, 41% of women had overall complete response compared with 53% of men. In the aprepitant group, 66% of women had overall complete response compared with 69% of men.

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant may negate the adverse prognostic effect of female gender on the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Comparison of Dexamethasone 8 mg and 16 mg for the Prevention of Acute and Delayed Cisplatin-induced Emesis in Patients with Lung Cancer

We performed a retrospective study that compared the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) 8 mg with DEX 16 mg in cases of acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer. Sixty-eight lung cancer patients treated with combination cisplatin, ifosfamide, and irinotecan therapy were studied. The DEX 8 mg group and the DEX 16 mg group received DEX intravenous injection 30 min prior to CDDP. All patients then received a 5-HT(3) antagonist intravenous injection 30 min before CDDP. Protection from acute nausea (day 1) was significantly superior in the DEX 16 mg group compared with the DEX 8 mg group (DEX 8 mg, 76.5%; DEX 16 mg, 100%). Protection from delayed emesis (day 1) was significantly superior in the DEX 16 mg group compared with the DEX 8 mg group. There was no reported severe nausea (grade 3) and vomiting (grade 2) in the DEX 16 mg group. Furthermore, perphenazine hydrochloride for use as rescue medication was required by significantly fewer patients in the DEX 16 mg group than in the DEX 8 mg group (DEX 8 mg, 41.2%; DEX 16 mg, 0%). Adverse effects were observed in 10 cases (nine reports of generalized fatigability, two of headache) in the DEX 8 mg group and in 16 cases (11 reports of generalized fatigability, one of pruritus) in the DEX 16 mg group. However, because the symptoms were all mild, we did not consider that there was any safety problem. In conclusion, DEX 16 mg is a clinically useful treatment for acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin-induced chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

Breast carcinoma during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Breast carcinoma during pregnancy (BCP) is a difficult clinical situation, as it appears to put the health of the mother in conflict with that of the fetus.

METHODS

An international expert meeting was conducted to form guidelines on how to diagnose and treat women with BCP.

RESULTS

The goal for treatment of the pregnant woman with breast carcinoma is the same as that of the nonpregnant breast carcinoma patient: local control of disease and prevention of systemic metastases. However, certain treatment modalities need to be modified because of the potential for adverse effects on the fetus. There is evidence to support the safety of anthracycline-based chemotherapy during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy (Oxford Level of Evidence [LOE] 2b). Because of the lack of evidence, the expert opinion was not to recommend the routine use of newer cytotoxic drugs like the taxanes during pregnancy (LOE 5).

CONCLUSION

The recommendations provided should help to reach informed decision making by the patient. The ongoing prospective collection of data on BCP, such as that at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) and that of the German Breast Group/Breast International Group (GBG/BIG), is necessary to further our knowledge regarding the treatment of this unique group of breast carcinoma patients.

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge there is little information available regarding the effectiveness of standard antiemetic therapy among cancer patients who receive emetogenic chemotherapy in clinical practice, especially in the pediatric population. The current study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of standard antiemetic interventions among children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of antiemetic surveys for children who received emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients and/or their parents were surveyed for acute and delayed nausea and emesis after each course of emetogenic chemotherapy. The survey consisted of validated measures of the severity of nausea and emesis. Complete protection (CP) rates were calculated for each chemotherapy regimen during both the acute and delayed phases and also by gender and age group (ages birth-3 yrs, 4-11 yrs, and 12-20 yrs). Antiemetic therapy consisted of intravenous ondansetron administered once daily during chemotherapy either alone (for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy) or in combination with dexamethasone (for severely emetogenic chemotherapy).

RESULTS

In total, 224 different patients completed 1256 surveys. CP from both acute and delayed nausea and emesis was more likely in the children ages birth-3 years than in older children. For moderately emetogenic regimens, nausea and emesis in the acute and delayed phases were controlled well. Among severely emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, 7 of 12 different regimen types had CP rates < 50% in either the acute phase or the delayed phase. CP rates were particularly low for cisplatin-based and cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea and emesis remain significant problems among children who receive emetogenic chemotherapy. CP rates were associated significantly with patient age, and higher rates were observed among very young children.

Clinical usefulness of oral granisetron hydrochloride for alleviation of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by CPT-11

This open label pilot study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonist granisetron for prophylaxis of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 30 patients with advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer. Patients were studied during two cycles of a 5-week regimen with irinotecan (CPT-11) and UFT. Patients received prophylactic anti-emetic therapy that included intravenous granisetron. If Grade 1 or higher severity gastrointestinal symptoms occurred during 6 days after CPT-11 administration in Cycle 1, then oral granisetron was administered daily for the following 5 days of CPT-11 in Cycle 2. Sixteen patients (53.3%) experienced delayed CINV in Cycle 1. The incidence of Grade 2 or higher vomiting was 32.1% and 27.7% in Cycles 1 and 2 in males (P = 0.554) respectively, and 54.6% and 32.4% in females (P = 0.001) respectively. Granisetron is effective against delayed Grade 2 or higher vomiting induced by CPT-11/UFT in female patients, although granisetron alone may not sufficiently control nausea induced by this regimen.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis over multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles.

METHODS

The authors performed a randomized, double-blind study. Eligible patients with breast carcinoma were naïve to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide alone or with doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomized to receive either an APR regimen (Day 1: APR 125 mg, ondansetron [OND] 8 mg, and dexamethasone [DEX] 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: APR 80 mg every day) or a control regimen (Day 1: OND 8 mg and DEX 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: OND 8 mg twice per day). Data on nausea, emesis, and use of rescue medication were collected. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue therapy) in Cycle 1. Efficacy end points for the multiple-cycle extension were the probabilities of a CR in Cycles 2-4 and a sustained CR rate across multiple cycles.

RESULTS

Of 866 patients randomized, 744 (85.9%) entered the multiple-cycle extension, and 650 (75.1%) completed all 4 cycles. Overall, the CR was greater with the APR regimen over the 4 cycles: 53.8% versus 39.4% for Cycle 2, 54.1% versus 39.3% for Cycle 3, and 55.0% versus 38.4% for Cycle 4. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was greater with the APR regimen (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The APR regimen was more effective than a control regimen for the prevention of nausea and emesis induced by MEC over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

Comparison of Ramosetron and Granisetron for the Prevention of Acute and Delayed Emesis in Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy: a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

A clinical study of ramosetron was carried out to evaluate its efficacy in preventing both acute and delayed emesis in cisplatin-based chemotherapy by using a double-blind method with granisetron as the comparative drug.

METHODS

Cisplatin at a dose of > or =70 mg/m(2) was administered as a single intravenous (i.v.) infusion over 4 h. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ramosetron (0.3 mg i.v. bolus 30 min before cisplatin on Day 1 and a 0.1 mg tablet in the morning for Days 2 to 5 after completion of chemotherapy; n = 36) or granisetron (3 mg i.v. infusion 30 min before cisplatin on Day 1 and a 1 mg tablet in the morning for Days 2 to 5 after completion of chemotherapy; n = 37). The observation period started with the initiation of chemotherapy (0 h) and continued for 24 h after completion of the chemotherapy for acute emesis, and on Days 2 to 5 for delayed nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients were eligible for evaluation, with 36 patients in the ramosetron group and 37 in the granisetron group. The efficacy of both drugs was analyzed in terms of the degree of achievement in each day of treatment. Ramosetron was as effective as granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting (both acute and delayed emesis). The two drugs had a similar safety profile and adverse events were generally mild and transient.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron is effective and safe for the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

Acupuncture-point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Assess the effectiveness of acupuncture-point stimulation on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized trials of acupuncture-point stimulation by needles, electrical stimulation, magnets, or acupressure were retrieved. Data were provided by investigators of the original trials and pooled using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven trials (N = 1,247) were pooled. Overall, acupuncture-point stimulation reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (relative risks [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .04), but not the mean number of acute emetic episodes or acute or delayed nausea severity compared with controls. By modality, stimulation with needles reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = .01), but not acute nausea severity. Electroacupuncture reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P = .02), but manual acupuncture did not; delayed symptoms were not reported. Acupressure reduced mean acute nausea severity (standardized mean difference = -0.19; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.01; P = .03) and most severe acute nausea, but not acute vomiting or delayed symptoms. Noninvasive electrostimulation showed no benefit for any outcome. All trials used concomitant pharmacologic antiemetics, and all, except electroacupuncture trials, used state-of-the-art antiemetics.

CONCLUSION

This review complements data on postoperative nausea and vomiting, suggesting a biologic effect of acupuncture-point stimulation. Electroacupuncture has demonstrated benefit for chemotherapy-induced acute vomiting, but studies with state-of-the-art antiemetics as well as studies for refractory symptoms are needed to determine clinical relevance. Acupressure seems to reduce chemotherapy-induced acute nausea severity, though studies did not involve a placebo control. Noninvasive electrostimulation seems unlikely to have a clinically relevant impact when patients are given state-of-the-art pharmacologic antiemetic therapy.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting and functional status in women treated for breast cancer

Nausea and vomiting are among the most distressing symptoms for cancer patients treated with chemotherapy even with the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is composed of 4 major components: acute nausea, delayed nausea, acute vomiting, and delayed vomiting. Determining the relationship of each component of CINV on the functional status of women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer was the purpose of this study. This longitudinal, descriptive study recruited 303 patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy from 40 study sites in the United States. Reliable and valid measures of CINV and functional status were employed. Patients demonstrated significant decreases in the following aspects of functional status as measured by the SF-36: physical functioning (P < .0005), role limitations due to physical problems (P = .003), general health (P = .029), vitality (P < .0005), and social functioning (P = .001). The pattern of reduction in usual activities and increase in hours of resting correlated best with 2 components of CINV--delayed nausea and delayed vomiting (P < .0001, each). The results of this study suggest that control of delayed CINV may contribute to the functional improvement of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Employment of substandard antiemetic prophylaxis in recent trials of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of substandard antiemetic therapy among recently published trials conducted in patients with cancer who received emetogenic chemotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted (2000-July 2004) using the key words 5-HT(3) antagonists, ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, ramosetron, palonosetron, NK-1 antagonists, and aprepitant.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All antiemetic trials in patients receiving chemotherapy that were published from January 2000 to July 2004 were evaluated. Standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy was derived from contemporary antiemetic guidelines published by oncology professional organizations and expert panels. The number of patients and studies in which patients received standard and substandard antiemetic therapy was determined for both the acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Separate determinations were made for severely and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The annual percentage of studies in which substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was given and the percentage of patients who received substandard prophylaxis also were determined.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies were reviewed, which included a total of 10 274 patients and 125 study arms. The percentage of patients who received substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was 30% (n = 3063) for acute CINV and 33% (n = 3413) for delayed CINV. The average annual percentage of studies that employed substandard prophylaxis during this time period was 54%.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent antiemetic trials for CINV, the employment of substandard antiemetic therapy is common. These results raise important ethical questions regarding contemporary antiemetic trial design.

Antiemetic therapy in cancer: an update

Although nausea and vomiting are widely recognised as two of the most distressing symptoms of cytotoxic therapy, there is still concern over the adequate control of these symptoms in the cancer population. Recently updated Antiemetic Consensus Guidelines recommend the prophylactic treatment of all patients at moderate-to-high risk of experiencing nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It is important that these guidelines are fully adhered to; however, when considering which antiemetic regimen is most appropriate in an individual patient, it is also important to consider individual patient-related factors. In addition, certain patient groups, such as the young or the elderly, may be in need of specific consideration due to age-related factors that may influence treatment decisions.

5-Hydroxytryptamine-receptor antagonists versus prochlorperazine for control of delayed nausea caused by doxorubicin: a URCC CCOP randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of short-acting antagonists for the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) receptor, about 50% of patients given moderately emetogenic chemotherapy have delayed nausea. We aimed to assess whether a 5-HT-receptor antagonist was more effective than was prochlorperazine for control of delayed nausea and delayed vomiting caused by doxorubicin.

METHODS

691 patients who previously had not had chemotherapy and who were scheduled to receive doxorubicin were given a short-acting 5-HT-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone before doxorubicin (day 1), and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens for days 2 and 3: 10 mg prochlorperazine taken orally every 8 h; any first-generation 5-HT-receptor antagonist (except palonosetron) taken as standard dose intravenously or orally; or 10 mg prochlorperazine taken as needed. Nausea and vomiting were assessed by use of a home record. The primary endpoint was mean severity of delayed nausea. The secondary endpoint was quality of life. Analyses were done by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

519 (77%) of the 671 evaluable patients had delayed nausea, with a mean severity of 3.33 (95% CI 3.22-3.44). 161 (71%) of 226 patients assigned prochlorperazine every 8 h reported delayed nausea (mean severity 3.37 [3.16-3.58]), as did 179 (79%) of 226 patients assigned 5-HT-receptor antagonists (3.29 [3.09-3.48]) and 179 (82%) of 219 patients assigned prochlorperazine as needed (3.33 [3.15-3.50]); groups did not differ in mean severity (p=0.853, one-way ANOVA). Patients allocated prochlorperazine every 8 h had less delayed nausea than did those allocated 5-HT-receptor antagonists (p=0.05, t test) and those allocated prochlorperazine as needed (p=0.009, t test).

INTERPRETATION

Short-acting 5-HT-receptor antagonists are no better than is prochlorperazine in control of delayed nausea caused by doxorubicin. Although fewer patients taking prochlorperazine report delayed nausea, the proportion was unacceptably high.

Cisplatin-related hiccups: male predominance, induction by dexamethasone, and protection against nausea and vomiting

Dexamethasone is likely to play a role in the etiology of hiccups in patients receiving cisplatin-based regimens. Two hundred seventy-seven patients received three doses of ondansetron 8mg intravenously (IV) at 4hour intervals plus dexamethasone 20mg IV from the start of chemotherapy, followed by dexamethasone 5mg IV every 12hours, until chemotherapy was complete. Hiccups were observed in 114 (41.2%) patients, of whom 97.4% were men. Nausea and vomiting showed inverse correlations with hiccups (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.001, respectively). In 73 patients who experienced hiccups but lacked nausea/vomiting (H+N/V-), we discontinued dexamethasone in subsequent cycles. Sixty-six patients (90.4%) ceased hiccuping, but complete protection rates of nausea and vomiting decreased to 63% and 74%, respectively. For patients who experienced both hiccups and nausea/vomiting, the onset of nausea/vomiting usually was delayed to Day 3 or 4 and began after the cessation of hiccups. We conclude that cisplatin-related hiccups are predominant in males, dexamethasone-induced, and associated with protection against nausea/vomiting.

Antiemetic efficacy of the neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid in patients receiving anthracyclines or cyclophosphamide in addition to high-dose cisplatin: analysis of combined data from two Phase III randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The tendency of chemotherapeutic regimens to cause vomiting is dependent on the individual drugs in the regimen. The authors analyzed data combined from 2 Phase III trials to assess the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant combined with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus a corticosteroid in a subpopulation receiving > 1 emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent.

METHODS

In the current study, 1043 cisplatin-naive patients (42% were women) receiving cisplatin-based (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were assigned randomly to a control regimen (ondansetron [O] 32 mg intravenously and dexamethasone [D] 20 mg orally on Day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg orally plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on Day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and D 8 mg on Day 4). Randomization was stratified for use of concomitant chemotherapy and female gender. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) on Days 1-5 (0-120 hours). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach, and logistic regression was used to make treatment comparisons among patients receiving the most frequently coadministered emetogenic concomitant chemotherapy (Hesketh level > or = 3).

RESULTS

Among the approximately 13% of patients (n = 81 for A; n = 80 for control) who received additional emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide), the aprepitant regimen provided a 33 percentage-point improvement in the complete response rate compared with the control regimen. Among the general population, the advantage with aprepitant was 20 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis of > 1000 patients from 2 large randomized trials showed that in the subpopulation at increased risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to concomitant emetogenic chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics improved protection to an even greater extent than in the general study population.

The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials

In this work, data from two phase III studies were pooled to further evaluate the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for prevention of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. One thousand and forty three patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomised to receive either a control regimen (32 mg intravenous ondansetron [O] and 20 mg oral dexamethasone [D] on day 1; 8 mg D twice daily on days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (125 mg A plus 32 mg O and 12 mg D on day 1, 80 mg A and 8 mg D once daily on days 2-3, and 8 mg D on day 4). The primary endpoint was no emesis and no rescue therapy. Potential correlations between acute and delayed emesis were assessed, as were frequency of emetic episodes by time interval and effects on nausea and quality of life as measured by the functional living index emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. In the aprepitant group, there was statistically significantly less nausea over the study period as well as higher functioning on the FLIE questionnaire in both the nausea and vomiting domains. Patients without acute emesis were more likely to have no emesis in the delayed phase. Compared with control, the aprepitant regimen improved prevention of delayed emesis by 16% points in patients without acute emesis, and by 17% points in patients with acute emesis. Among patients who did not have complete response, the frequency of emesis at various intervals over 5 days was consistently lower in patients receiving aprepitant. Analyses of this combined Phase III population further characterized the clinical profile of the aprepitant regimen, showing that delayed emesis is correlated with, but not entirely dependent on, the presence of acute emesis, and that aprepitant has a favorable effect against nausea throughout 5 days postchemotherapy. In addition, even among patients who had emesis or needed rescue therapy, aprepitant was associated with a lower frequency of these events compared with the control regimen.

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To report recommendations given in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) International Consensus Conference regarding the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A steering committee under MASCC auspice chose panel participants for the guidelines development process on prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis (RIE). Pertinent information from published literature as of March 2004 was reviewed for the guideline process. Both the MASCC level of scientific confidence and level of consensus, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) type of evidence and grade for recommendation were adopted.

RESULTS

Total body irradiation is classified at high risk, upper abdomen at moderate, lower thorax, pelvis, cranium (radiosurgery) and craniospinal at low, head and neck, extremities, cranium and breast at minimal risk. The recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy are as follows: prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist in patients at high and moderate risk levels of RIE (+/-dexamethasone in the former group), prophylaxis or rescue with a 5-HT3 antagonist in the low risk group, and rescue with dopamine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in minimal risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations represent a valid tool for prophylaxis and treatment of RIE in clinical practice.

A Process for Measuring the Quality of Cancer Care: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Purpose

The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported.

Methods

Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices.

Results

Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures.

Conclusion

Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.

5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in the management of nausea and vomiting in cancer and cancer treatment

The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, considered as 'gold standard' therapy for cancer patients, are generally perceived to have similar efficacy and safety profiles, andmost antiemetic guidelines do not distinguish between agents. However, important pharmacological differences exist between agents, which may translate into potential benefits for some patients. In particular, 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists vary in the nature of their receptor antagonism and plasma half-lives, possibly leading to differences in duration of action. Agents with a longer duration of action provide antiemetic protection throughout the acute emetic period (24 h) with a single daily dose, whereas shorter-acting agents, e.g. ondansetron, may require multiple dosing for full efficacy. Differences also exist between agents in their hepatic metabolism and cardiovascular safety, which may present particular problems for elderly patients who often receive additional medications for comorbid conditions, increasing the risk of drug-drug interaction. Recent antiemetic guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend preferential use of palonosetron for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy; however, this agent is newly approved and key clinical questions remain unanswered by clinical trial data. Selection of an appropriate 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be based on proven efficacy and safety, as well as on the individual characteristics of the patient.

Antiemetic guidelines: are they being used?

Evidence-based guidelines are regarded as therapeutic standards for many medical interventions. However, implementation of such recommendations seems to be rather difficult. An international antiemetic guideline for the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy was issued by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer in 1997 and has been in use ever since. However, for many reasons, the guideline has not been followed completely, despite the fact that if antiemetics are used in accordance with guidelines, efficacy is similar to that achieved in randomised controlled trials. Structural difficulties, patients characteristics, and other barriers, such as the individual acceptance of guidelines and education of physicians and nurses, could be crucial factors for successful implementation. Thus, better adherence to antiemetic guidelines can only be achieved through a complex and long-term process, consisting of efficient education, training, and monitoring of all individuals involved.

5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis: can we safely reduce the dose of administered agents?

BACKGROUND

Nausea and emesis as a consequence of chemotherapy or radiotherapy can have an adverse effect on patients' quality of life during cancer treatment and may last for > 5 days after administration. Guidelines suggest that, used at appropriate doses, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists--which are considered the antiemetic "gold standard" when they are administered in combination with corticosteroids--demonstrate equivalent efficacy and safety. However, due to financial considerations, these agents often are used at lower doses than recommended.

METHODS

A literature review of relevant publications pertaining to the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis and dosing issues of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was undertaken to provide a comprehensive review of dosing issues relevant to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

RESULTS

The issue of "down dosing" was particularly pertinent because of the nature of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist dose-response curve: A steep dose-response profile within a narrow dose range suggests that antiemetic control will be lost suddenly after dose deescalation. However, the array of predisposing and confounding patient factors indicates that it is unlikely that a loss of antiemetic control will be apparent across a population; rather, individuals will experience loss of control as the dose is reduced below threshold. Of the 4 5-HT3 receptor antagonists currently licensed in the United States (granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, and palonosetron), ondansetron is used sometimes at lower than optimal doses, and there is evidence to suggest that even the approved oral dose of dolasetron may be suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal dosing not only will be detrimental to patients' quality of life but, ultimately, will prove counterproductive in terms of hospital resources, and it will add to the already significant socioeconomic burden associated with cancer therapy. Therefore, the dose of antiemetic agent administered should be sufficiently high to ensure good emesis control across the whole patient population.

Drug–drug interactions in oncology: Why are they important and can they be minimized?

Adverse drug-drug interactions are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Cancer patients are at particularly high risk of such interactions because they commonly receive multiple medications, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal agents and supportive care drugs. In addition, the majority of cancer patients are elderly, and so require medications for co-morbid conditions such as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and rheumatological diseases. Furthermore, the age-related decline in hepatic and renal function reduces their ability to metabolize and clear drugs and so increases the potential for toxicity. Not all drug-drug interactions can be predicted, and those that are predictable are not always avoidable. However, increased awareness of the potential for these interactions will allow healthcare providers to minimize the risk by choosing appropriate drugs and also by monitoring for signs of interaction. This review considers the basic principles of drug-drug interactions, and presents specific examples that are relevant to oncology.

A pilot study of ondansetron plus metopimazine vs. ondansetron monotherapy in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a Bayesian randomized serial N-of-1 trials design

GOALS OF WORK

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is problematic in paediatric brain tumour treatment protocols which often discourage the use of corticosteroids as anti-emetics. The dopamine receptor antagonist, metopimazine, is an effective anti-emetic in combination with ondansetron in adults. The present study was designed to assess its efficacy in children with cancer, a group in which it has not been studied previously.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a series of randomized, multiple-crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials comparing ondansetron/metopimazine with ondansetron monotherapy in children with brain tumours receiving highly emetogenic therapy and combined the individual results using Bayesian statistical modeling.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten of twelve enrolled patients completed at least one chemotherapy cycle on study (median=2.5 cycles, range 1-11). Two patients were unable to complete any cycles, and a further three patients withdrew from the study prior to completing all cycles because of an inability to tolerate the taste of the study drug. Combination therapy increased the proportion of days during which patients had no emesis (overall odds ratio=1.52, 95% credible region=0.32-6.40, probability of odds ratio>1=72%), decreased the number of emetic episodes per day (overall rate ratio=0.67, 95% credible region=0.15-3.14, probability of rate ratio<1=75%) and decreased parents' ratings of their child's distress. The drug was more effective during the delayed chemotherapy phase than the acute phase. No adverse events were attributed to metopimazine.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this pilot study, we believe that the high likelihood that metopimazine is an effective adjunct to ondansetron monotherapy suggests that this combination therapy is worthy of further study in children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately High to Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

The purpose of this article is to assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and dexamethasone in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Cancer patients (n = 232) receiving moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: 15 mg prochlorperazine spansules twice daily; 8 mg ondansetron tablets twice daily; or 8 mg dexamethasone tablets twice daily on days 2 through 5. All patients received 24 mg ondansetron and 20 mg dexamethasone orally before chemotherapy. Daily assessment (days 1 through 5) included the number of episodes of retching and vomiting, severity of nausea, restlessness, difficulty concentrating and fatigue, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life (measured using a 10-cm VAS). The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) was completed on day 5. Other side effects attributed to antiemetic therapy were recorded daily. For acute CINV, total control, defined as no vomiting, retching, nausea <1 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale, and no administration of rescue medications, was achieved in 78% in the overall group and was not significantly different in the patients randomized to the 3 treatment arms for delayed CINV. Delayed CINV was reported by 43% to 57% of patients, with the highest incidence reported on day 3. For delayed CINV, patients receiving prochlorperazine reported the lowest average nausea score on days 2 to 5, whereas patients receiving ondansetron reported the highest nausea score (P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in CINV or side effects of antiemetic therapy were noted between treatment groups on days 2 to 5. For patients similar to those included in this study, there does not appear to be a clinically important difference in efficacy, adverse effects, or treatment satisfaction among dexamethasone, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron in the doses used in these delayed CINV regimens on days 2 to 5 in this study.

Optimising antiemetic therapy: what are the problems and how can they be overcome?

BACKGROUND

Management of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced emesis has improved significantly following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. Prophylactic use of these agents is recommended for the prevention of both chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, given with a corticosteroid. Despite these advances, nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared and debilitating adverse effects of cytotoxic therapy. The shift towards a more elderly population of patients with cancer presents additional considerations for supportive care, with an emphasis on achieving control of nausea and vomiting, whilst minimising toxicity and avoiding drug-drug interactions. This review presents some of the key issues for consideration in optimising antiemetic therapy. The PubMed search engine was used to search for relevant literature (up to December 2004) and relevant international congress materials collected during 2003 and 2004.

SCOPE

While the early stages of nausea and vomiting are 5-HT-mediated, identification of a role for substance P in late emesis has led to the development of the NK1-receptor antagonist, aprepitant. As a new agent, the clinical profile of aprepitant is still being explored, including its interaction with concomitant medications. Patients who achieve good control of acute and late-acute nausea and vomiting have a reduced risk of experiencing delayed onset symptoms, emphasising the importance of prophylactic management with effective agents. Although the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are widely considered to have equivalent efficacy, they vary in half-life and the nature of antagonism at receptors. Their metabolic profiles also differ, with cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism affecting their propensity for drug-drug interactions. Several sets of guidelines are available that outline recommendations for selection and use of antiemetic therapy. However, under-use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists has been reported in both the radiotherapy and chemotherapy settings, and some commonly used doses may be suboptimal.

CONCLUSION

In optimising antiemetic therapy, wider implementation of guidelines is desirable, as is consideration of each patient's individual needs. Safety and tolerability of supportive care medications should be a key consideration, and cardiovascular warnings and the possibility of drug-drug interactions should be given sufficient consideration, particularly in view of the older age of the population with cancer.

Methotrexate, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil (MPF Regimen) for Head and Neck Cancer

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Quality of evidence-based pediatric guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To identify evidence-based pediatric guidelines and to assess their quality.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and relevant Web sites of guideline development programs and national pediatric societies to identify evidence-based pediatric guidelines. A list with titles of identified guidelines was sent to 51 leading pediatricians in the Netherlands, who were asked to select the 5 most urgent topics for guideline development. Three pediatrician reviewers appraised the available guidelines on the 10 most frequently mentioned topics with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.

RESULTS

A total of 215 evidence-based pediatric guidelines were identified; of these, 17 guidelines on the 10 most frequently mentioned topics were appraised. The AGREE instrument rates guidelines among 6 domains. For the scope and purpose domain, the mean score was 84% of the maximal mark. For stakeholder involvement, the mean score was 42%, with 12 guidelines (71%) scoring <50%. For rigor of development, the mean score was 54%, with 5 guidelines (29%) scoring <50%. For clarity and presentation, the mean score was 78%, with 4 guidelines (24%) scoring <50%. For applicability and editorial independence, performance was poor, with mean scores of 19% and 40%, respectively. Low scores were partly attributable to poor reporting. After considering all domain scores, the reviewers recommended 14 of 17 guidelines (82%) to be used in local practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The current volume of pediatric guidelines categorized as evidence based in popular databases is large. Overall, these guidelines scored well, compared with other studies on guideline quality in fields outside pediatrics, when assessed for quality with the AGREE instrument. This holds especially for guidelines published or endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics or registered in the National Guideline Clearinghouse.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) Regimen for Colorectal Cancer

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.

Low-dose granisetron for prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (QTNV) are very uncomfortable symptoms for patients with cancer, which can be circumvented in most of them with drug combinations containing serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 receptor antagonists) such as granisetron. In an attempt to decrease costs of QTNV prophylaxis, we studied a lower dose regimen of granisetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with cancer scheduled to receive moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy were pretreated 1 h before with 0.5 mg granisetron p.o. combined with dexamethasone 20 mg i.v.

RESULTS

We observed complete control for nausea, vomiting, and nausea and vomiting in 78% [95% confidence interval (CI), 67-89%], 61% (95% CI, 47.5-74.5%), and 58% (95% CI, 44.3-71.7%) of the patients, respectively. This regimen was very well tolerated; headache (35%), xerostomia (11%), and constipation (5%) were the most frequent adverse symptoms reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The regimen with lower dose granisetron is effective for acute QTNV prophylaxis and offers a cheaper alternative for QTNV control. We feel that these encouraging results should be confirmed in a randomized comparative trial.

Is there a pharmacological basis for differences in 5-HT3-receptor antagonist efficacy in refractory patients?

5-HT3-receptor antagonists are the current antiemetic 'gold standard' for chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Interestingly, studies have shown that patients experiencing poor control of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with one antiemetic therapy may respond well to another agent, including a drug of the same class. This review examines pharmacological differences between the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in order to determine potential reasons for their differing efficacy, particularly in relation to refractory emesis. Differences in drug metabolism by the cytochrome P450 system, inadequate dosing of the respective agents, differences in onset and duration of action, and effects on serotonin release and reuptake are discussed.