Usefulness of antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for lung cancer patients on cisplatin-based or carboplatin-based chemotherapy

Mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers: A prospective multicenter phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Mirtazapine blocks 5-hydroxytryptamine type (5-HT)2A, 5-HT2C, 5-HT3 and histamine H1 receptors, similarly to olanzapine. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four institutions in Japan. Registered patients were moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy-naïve, and were scheduled to receive CBDCA at area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute. Patients received mirtazapine 15 mg/day orally at bedtime for four consecutive days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the delayed period (24-120 h).

RESULTS

Between July 2022 and July 2023, 52 patients were enrolled, and 48 patients were evaluated. CR rates in the delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and acute periods (0-24 h) were 83.3%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were observed except for one patient who had grade 3 dry mouth as evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone shows promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic cancers receiving a CBDCA-based regimen at AUC ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute.

Impact of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and emesis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemoradiation: a pilot prospective study and a review of literature

PURPOSE

Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, IMRT may increase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV.

METHODS

An infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant was given through a 30 min. We assessed acute toxicity using CTCAE v.4 and the incidence of CINV using the FLIE questionnaire. The evaluation of CINV was done at the second and fifth weeks of CRT and 1 week after the end. The EORTC QLQ-HN 43 questionnaire was administered before treatment beginning (baseline), at second (T1) and fifth (T2) weeks. A dosimetric analysis was performed on dorsal nucleus of vagus (DVC) and area postrema (AP).

RESULTS

Between March and November 2020, 24 patients were enrolled. No correlation was found between nausea and DVC mean dose (p = 0.573), and AP mean dose (p = 0.869). Based on the FLIE questionnaire, patients reported a mean score of 30.5 for nausea and 30 for vomiting during week 2 and 29.8 for nausea and 29.2 for vomiting during week 5. After treatment ended, the mean scores were 27.4 for nausea and 27.7 for vomiting. All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-HN 43. Significantly higher scores at T2 assessment than baseline were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV reduced incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting. No correlation has been found between nausea and median dose to DVC and AP.

Efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine for nausea and vomiting management in cancer patients receiving carboplatin: integrated study of three prospective multicenter phase II trials

Background

The efficacy of olanzapine as an antiemetic agent in cancer chemotherapy has been demonstrated. However, few high-quality reports are available on the evaluation of olanzapine’s efficacy and safety at a low dose of 5 mg among patients treated with carboplatin regimens. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine for managing nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving carboplatin regimens and identified patient-related risk factors for carboplatin regimen-induced nausea and vomiting treated with 5 mg olanzapine.

Methods

Data were pooled for 140 patients from three multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label phase II studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for managing nausea and vomiting induced by carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the patient-related risk factors.

Results

Regarding the endpoints of carboplatin regimen-induced nausea and vomiting control, the complete response, complete control, and total control rates during the overall study period were 87.9, 86.4, and 72.9%, respectively. No treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed. The multivariable logistic regression models revealed that only younger age was significantly associated with an increased risk of non-total control. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in CINV control between the patients treated with or without neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that antiemetic regimens containing low-dose (5 mg) olanzapine could be effective and safe for patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Low-Dose Olanzapine Plus Granisetron and Dexamethasone for Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Thoracic Malignancies: A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an inexpensive and durable agent for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and is also superior to neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in the control of nausea. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for treatment of carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four centers in Japan. Registered patients were scheduled to receive area under the curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA and had never received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received olanzapine 5 mg/day orally after supper for 4 days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the overall phase (0-120 hours).

RESULTS

Between February 2018 and June 2020, 51 patients were enrolled, and 50 patients were evaluated. The CR rates in the overall (0-120 hours), acute (0-24 hours), and delayed phases (24-120 hours) were 94.0%, 100%, and 94.0%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher adverse effects of olanzapine were observed.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone showed durable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving an AUC ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA-based regimen. Clinical trial identification number: UMIN000031267.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this phase II trial indicated that the prophylactic administration of low-dose of 5 mg olanzapine combined with granisetron and dexamethasone has promising activity with acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving high-dose carboplatin chemotherapy.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

Background

Studies have reported that patient-related factors significantly impact the risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV). The objective of this study was to analyze those risk factors of CINV through a systematic literature review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE to identify articles that addressed patient-related risk factors of CINV through clinical studies.

Results

A total of 49 articles were selected for this study. A total of 28 patient-related risk-factors that significantly impact the risk of CINV were documented. Three factors are demographically related, 17 factors are intrinsic in nature and innate to patient's physiology or influenced by physiology, and eight factors are extrinsic in nature. At least five studies identified seven risk factors with notable summary odds ratio: history of nausea/vomiting (odds ratio: 3.13, 95% CI 2.40–4.07, p < 0.05), female sex (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% CI 2.26–3.44, p < 0.05), expectancy of CINV (odds ratio: 2.61, 95%CI 1.69–4.02, p < 0.05), younger age (odds ratio: 2.59, 95% CI 2.18–3.07, p < 0.05), anxiety (odds ratio: 2.57, 95% CI 1.94–3.40, p < 0.05), history of morning sickness (odds ratio: 1.97, 95% CI 1.46–2.65, p < 0.05), and low alcohol intake (odds ratio: 1.94, 95% CI 1.68–2.24, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Oncologists can use these factors prior to the initiation of a chemotherapy regimen to identify patients at risk for CINV, in order to focus on more comprehensive antiemetic treatment options for those high-risk patients. This may enable better outcomes and avoid complications.

Clinical trial protocol of doublet therapy and olanzapine for carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer: a multicentre phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (DEX) improved carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with thoracic cancer. NK₁RAs with high-drug cost are raising medical expenses. Olanzapine (OLZ) is less expensive and can be expected to have an excellent effect on CINV. This phase II trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of 5 mg OLZ plus granisetron (GRN) and DEX in CBDCA combination therapy with area under curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL/min for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA-based therapies (AUC ≥5) and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive a combination of GRN, DEX and OLZ. The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as the absence of emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication for 120 hours after the initiation of CBDCA. Forty-eight patients are required based on our hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 65% (null hypothesis) to 80% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and a power of 0.8. We set the target sample size at 50 considering dropouts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031267.

[Curative Effect of Aprepitant Preventing CINV]

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is the most important method for cancer treatment. However, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has a profound effect on patients. In recent years, there have been new antiemetic drugs, such as aprepitant. We review the curative effect of aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy.

METHODS

Observation is divided into three stages. Whole study phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy administration), acute phases (0-24 h), and delayed phase (24 h-120 h). The primary endpoints were complete response (CR) and complete prevention (CP) during the three different study phase.

RESULTS

In the whole study phase, 86.02% of patients achieved CR; in acute phases and delayed phases were 89.25%, 87.1%, respectively. CP were 46.22%, 83.87%, 45.16%, respectively. Anti-CINV effect was significantly associated with age distribution (P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone prevented effectively CNIV for patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy. This combination could improve the quality of life and the compliance of patient with chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with advanced lung cancer during the first-line treatment: assessment by physicians, nurses, and patients from an Italian multicenter survey

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still represents a common side-effect of chemotherapy, and often, its perception differs between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement on the perception of CINV and other items among clinicians, patients, and nurses.

METHODS

This observational prospective study was part of an evaluation program promoted by the Women Against Lung Cancer in Europe (WALCE) Onlus. From August 2015 to February 2016, a survey was administered in 11 oncologic institutions to 188 stage IV lung cancer patients and to their oncologists and nurses during first-line chemotherapy. Our survey investigated 11 aspects: anxiety, mood, weakness, appetite, nausea, vomiting, pain, drowsiness, breath, general condition, and trust in treatments. These items were assessed through Numerical Rating Scale at four consecutive evaluations: at T0 (immediately prior to the first cycle), at T1 (immediately prior to the second cycle), at T2 (immediately prior to the third cycle), and at T3 (immediately prior to the fourth cycle). Clinician versus patient (CvP), nurse versus patient (NvP), and clinician versus nurse (CvN) agreements were estimated applying Weighted Cohen's kappa. A multivariate logistic model and generalized equation estimates were applied to evaluate factors possibly influencing CINV development.

RESULTS

The incidence of patients reporting CINV varied from 40% at T0 to 71% at T3. Both CvP and NvP agreement on the investigated items were mainly moderate, slightly increasing over time, and becoming substantial for some items, in particular for NvP. Pre-chemotherapy anxiety in its mild, moderate, and severe manifestations, as well as mild, moderate, and severe anxiety experienced after chemotherapy start, exposed patients to a higher risk of anticipatory and acute/delayed CINV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical staff awareness of patients' status and perceptions, CINV still represents a clinical problem. This study confirms that particular attention should be paid to anxiety due to its key role in CINV development.

Genetic risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Younger age and female sex have already been well-known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and 30-50% of cancer patients still suffer from CINV. Genetic polymorphisms are suggested to influence antiemetic treatment response.

METHODS

This study included a subset of patients previously enrolled in a randomised controlled trial; 156 patients were evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of pharmacogenomic polymorphisms relevant to antiemetic response in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study's efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR). The study endpoint was evaluated separately in the acute (CR_0-24) and delayed (CR_24-120) phases. Thirteen polymorphisms were genotyped, and the association of these genotypes with the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics was then investigated. Confounding variables for the CR were identified using stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis. Age and sex were included as independent variables by the forced-entry method, and the stepwise method was used to select the pharmacogenomic factors for inclusion as independent variables.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 8092AA (odds ratio [OR] = 11.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-72.71; p = 0.011) and female sex (OR = 3.63; 95% CI 1.14-11.58; p = 0.029) were significant predictors of CR_0-24. No significant association of CR_24-120 with pharmacogenomic polymorphisms was found via multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCC1 polymorphism influenced the extent of CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial information: UMIN 000009335.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer: efficacy of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron), the first combination antiemetic

Purpose

Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin.

Methods

In each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0–100 mm) during the acute (0–24 h), delayed (25–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1–4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs.

Results

NEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients.

Conclusions

NEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Although antiemetic management in cancer therapy has improved, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain common and troubling adverse events. Chemotherapeutic agents are classified based on their emetogenic effects, and appropriate antiemetics are recommended according to this categorization. Chemotherapy categorized as moderately emetogenic is associated with a wide spectrum of emetic risks. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens have been recently reclassified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This review focuses on antiemetic pharmacotherapy in patients receiving non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Combination therapy with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is the standard therapy in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although triple therapy with add-on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is used as an alternative treatment strategy. Among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy has considerable emetic potential, particularly during the delayed phase. However, the additional of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to the standard antiemetic therapy prevents carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. For regimens including oxaliplatin, the benefit of adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist requires further clarification.

Glucocorticoid receptors in lung cancer: new perspectives

Proper expression of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) plays an essential role in the development of the lung. GR expression and signalling in the lung is manipulated by administration of synthetic glucocorticoids (Gcs) for the treatment of neonatal, childhood and adult lung diseases. In lung cancers, Gcs are also commonly used as co-treatment during chemotherapy. This review summarises the effect of Gc monotherapy and co-therapy on lung cancers in vitro, in mouse models of lung cancer, in xenograft, ex vivo and in vivo The disparity between the effects of pre-clinical and in vivo Gc therapy is commented on in light of the recent discovery of GR as a novel tumour suppressor gene.

Evaluation of palonosetron and dexamethasone with or without aprepitant to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Although antiemetic management has improved, better control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase, is needed. The benefit of combination therapy using dexamethasone and the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron compared with that of other such receptor antagonists in carboplatin-based chemotherapy is unclear. The effectiveness of adding aprepitant for CINV treatment in moderate emetogenic chemotherapy is also unknown. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy using aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with that of double antiemetic therapy using palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either double antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone, or triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. Complete response rate (no vomiting episode and no rescue therapy) was evaluated as the primary endpoint during the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

RESULTS

The aprepitant add-on and double therapy groups showed overall complete response rates of 80.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.4-92.6%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.7-90.1%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.81; 95% CI; 0.27-2.36; p=0.788), respectively. Complete responses in the acute and delayed phases and overall incidences of treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

According to the selection design, triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was not considered as an option for further studies.

Evaluation of the efficacy of palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastric cancer treated with S-1 plus cisplatin

Purpose

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new combination antiemetic therapy consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in gastric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin.

Methods

This prospective, multi-institutional observational study assessed patient-reported nausea, vomiting, use of rescue therapy, change of dietary intake, and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire results. The percentages of patients showing complete response (CR; no emesis and non-use of any rescue antiemetics) and complete protection (CP; no significant nausea and non-use of any rescue antiemetics), change of dietary intake, and impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily life during the overall (0–120 h after cisplatin administration), acute (0–24 h), and delayed (24–120 h) phases were examined. These findings were compared with our previous study, which used granisetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone, to assess the relative effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.

Results

Of the 72 included patients, 66 (91.6 %), 70 (97.2 %), and 50 (69.1 %) achieved CR, and 48 (66.7 %), 61 (84.7 %) and 49 (68.1 %) achieved CP during in the overall, acute, and delayed phases of cisplatin administration, respectively. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of anorexia. FLIE results indicated that 78.6 % of patients maintained their quality of life. Palonosetron was not superior to granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.

Conclusions

Three-drug combination antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was tolerable in gastric cancer patients undergoing treatment with S-1 plus cisplatin. The predominance of palonosetron to granisetron was not demonstrated in this study.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Our search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate.

CONCLUSIONS

Superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.