Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Fosaprepitant, Ondansetron, Dexamethasone (FOND) Versus FOND Plus Olanzapine (FOND-O) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Regimens: The FOND-O Trial

The effect of breathing exercises on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This research was conducted as a randomized controlled study to examine the effect of breathing exercises on managing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial design was used, including an intervention group doing breathing exercises and a control group receiving standard care for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The sample was selected from patients hospitalized in the bone marrow transplantation unit. A total of 70 autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients (35 intervention and 35 control participants). Several variables were evaluated, including the frequence and degree of nausea and vomiting, the patient's nutritional status, and the need for antiemetics. Data were analyzed and interpreted using Mann Whitney U, Pearson chi-square test, Independent t-test, Mann Whitney U, and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

It was found that there was a negative relationship between the number of breathing exercises, the number of nausea and vomiting and the severity of nausea. As the number of breathing exercises increased, the number nausea and vomiting, and severity of nausea decreased significantly (p < 0.05). It was found that the use of antiemetics decreased in the intervention group. Furthermore, it was found that the intervention group had higher daily food consumption on the 3rd, 7th, and 9th days (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Breathing exercises were a practical approach to managing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

Olanzapine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

This study was designed to investigate the prophylactic effect of oral olanzapine in postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

ASA I-II, aged 18-75 years, planned to undergo gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia in adult female patients. Using the randomized numbers table, the patients were placed in two groups. Oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo was given 1 h before anesthesia. All patients received standard antiemetic prophylaxis with dexamethasone and granisetron. The primary outcome was nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after the postoperative.

Results

A total of 250 patients were randomized, and 241 were analyzed. The primary outcome occurred in 10 of 120 patients (8.3%) in the olanzapine group and 23 of 121 patients (19.2%) in the placebo group (p = 0.014). According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probabilities of nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after the postoperative in the olanzapine group were lower than in the placebo group (log-rank p = 0.014). In a multivariate Cox analysis, the variables of use of olanzapine [hazard ratio (HR): 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.79; p = 0.012] and use of vasoactive drugs (HR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.07-5.75; p = 0.034) were independently associated with nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after the postoperative.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that olanzapine relative to placebo decreased the risk of nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Trial registration

The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment at The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=166900, link to registry page, Principal investigator: Nanjin Chen, Date of registration: 25 April 2022).

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic.

RESULTS

The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023.

RESULTS

We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

Olanzapine within steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Olanzapine use for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hematological malignancies, for multi-day chemotherapy, and with a steroid-sparing antiemetic strategy is poorly understood. This study investigated if olanzapine is associated with improved prevention of CINV when added to a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen in patients with acute leukemia receiving intensive, moderately emetogenic, multi-day chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in patients with acute leukemia. Patients who received olanzapine for CINV prevention were compared to those who did not. All patients received a 5-HT3 antagonist. Adult patients receiving moderately emetogenic, multi-day, intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia were included. Patients were excluded if they received steroids greater than physiological doses during the study period. The primary endpoint was the complete response of CINV (no emesis or rescue antiemetic usage).

RESULTS

This study included 58 patients, 12 patients received olanzapine and 46 patients were in the control group. Baseline demographics were similar. In the study population, 89.7% had acute myeloid leukemia, median age was 54 (interquartile range 42-63) years, 34.5% were female, 27.6% had prior CINV. Complete response of CINV was similar between groups, 4 (33.3%) and 15 (32.6%) patients in the olanzapine and control groups, respectively. Safety events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy are at high risk for CINV. The limited data in this study suggests that olanzapine use within a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen was well tolerated and associated with similar incidence and severity of CINV compared to the control group.

Olanzapine With or Without Fosaprepitant for Preventing Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (ALLIANCE A221602)

PURPOSE

A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%.

RESULTS

A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist.

CONCLUSION

This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m²). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

FINDINGS

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

INTERPRETATION

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

FUNDING

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Background

Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted.

Methods

We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine use in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients. We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine in an inpatient setting. The cost and probabilities of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the influence of each parameter on the model and the robustness of a base-case analysis. Threshold analysis was conducted to determine the cost of olanzapine that would make the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) equivalent to the threshold ICER). The threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was set at 5 million Japanese Yen (JPY) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

The cost was 10,238 JPY in the olanzapine regimen and 9719 JPY in the non-olanzapine regimen. The QALY gained were 0.01065 QALYs and 0.01029 QALYs in the olanzapine and non-olanzapine regimen, respectively. The incremental cost of the olanzapine regimen relative to the non-olanzapine regimen was 519 JPY, and the incremental QALYs were 0.00036 QALY, resulting in an ICER of 1,428,675 JPY per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the results were most sensitive to the utility value of incomplete control. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the probability that the ICER was below the willingness-to-pay, and the incremental QALYs was positive was 96.2%. The calculated cost of olanzapine per 5 mg that would make the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio equivalent to the threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated to be 475 JPY.

Conclusions

Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

Premedications for Cancer Therapies: A Primer for the Hematology/Oncology Provider

Chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy are associated with numerous potential adverse events (AEs). Many of these common AEs, namely chemotherapy- or radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, hypersensitivity reactions, and edema, can lead to deleterious outcomes (such as treatment nonadherence or cessation, or poor clinical outcomes) if not prevented appropriately. The occurrence and severity of these AEs can be prevented with the correct prescribing of prophylactic medications, often called "premedications." The advanced practitioner in hematology/oncology should have a good understanding of which chemotherapeutic agents are known to place patients at risk for these adverse events as well as be able to determine appropriate prophylactic medications to employ in the prevention of these adverse events. While several guidelines and literature exist regarding best practices for prophylaxis strategies, differences among guidelines and quality of data should be explored in order to accurately implement patient-specific recommendations. Herein, we review the existing literature for prophylaxis and summarize best practices.

The Balance Between the Effectiveness and Safety for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting of Different Doses of Olanzapine (10 mg Versus 5 mg): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) settings including (1) at 5- and 10-mg doses, and (2) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database through April 18, 2021. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue), in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of complete control (CC, no nausea, and no emesis), for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of somnolence, as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random, or fixed-effect analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO.

RESULT

Nine studies reported the use of 10 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV; three studies reported the use of 5 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV. When olanzapine was administered at 10 mg for HEC patients, the six endpoints were statistically and clinically better than the control group. For MEC patients, four out of six endpoints were better than the control group. When olanzapine is administered at 5 mg for MEC patients, four endpoints have statistical and clinical advantages. The sedative effects of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine were statistically more significant than those of the control group. The sedative effect of the 10-mg olanzapine group was more significant than that of the 5-mg olanzapine group, both statistically and clinically.

CONCLUSION

5 mg olanzapine may be as effective as 10 mg olanzapine for patients with HEC and MEC, and its sedative effect is lower than 10 mg olanzapine. Fewer studies on 5 mg olanzapine have led to uncertain data. In the future, more randomized controlled trials of 5 mg olanzapine are needed to study the balance between the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation

Purpose

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁RA)-containing regimens, there have been no studies evaluating antiemetic use during chemomobilization prior to ASCT.

Methods

This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated.

Results

Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported.

Conclusion

NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT.

A phase II study of the safety of olanzapine for oxaliplatin based chemotherapy in coloraectal patients

Olanzapine has exhibited efficacy as an antiemetic agent when used with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and NK₁ receptor antagonists for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In addition, several studies have reported the efficacy or safety of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, including carboplatin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, no reports of olanzapine use have focused on patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Therefore, we analyzed the safety of antiemetic therapy using olanzapine, palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in colorectal cancer patients undergoing oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. This study was a prospective phase II single-institution study of 40 patients (median age 60 years, 23 patients were male). The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events, and the exploratory endpoints were the rate of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Almost all patients (90%) had a performance status of 0. All patients received the scheduled antiemetic therapy. The most common adverse event was somnolence (n = 7 patients, 17.5%). All adverse events were grade 1. Thirty-six patients were included in the exploratory analysis of efficacy. No patients experienced vomiting during the first 120 h after chemotherapy, and complete response and complete control were both 86.1%. The rate of total control was 55.6% during the same time period. Olanzapine use with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and NK₁ receptor antagonists was safe for colorectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21-81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1-5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%.

CONCLUSION

Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

Antiemetic Prophylaxis with Fosaprepitant and 5-HT3-Receptor Antagonists in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Background

High-dose myeloablative conditioning prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) in pediatric patients is usually highly emetogenic. The antiemetic neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant was safe and effective in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant during autoHSCT in children are currently not available.

Methods

A total of 35 consecutive pediatric patients, who received an antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 x 150 mg/kg BW) and ondansetron (24-hours continuous infusion; 8–32 mg/24h) or granisetron (2 x 40 µg/kg∙d⁻¹) during highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy before autoHSCT were retrospectively analyzed, and their results were compared with a control group comprising 35 consecutive pediatric patients, who received granisetron or ondansetron only. The antiemetic efficacy and the safety of the two prophylaxis regimens were compared with respect to three time periods after the first chemotherapy administration (0–24h, >24–120h, >120–240h).

Results

Clinical adverse events and clinically relevant increases/decreases of laboratory markers were similarly low and did not significantly differ between the two study groups (p>0.05). The registered number of vomiting events was significantly higher in the control group in the time periods of 0–24h (64 vs 22 events; p<0.01), >24–120h (135 vs 78 events; p<0.0001), >120–240h (268 vs 105 events; p<0.0001), and the whole observation period 0–240h (467 vs 205 events; p<0.0001). The percentage of patients experiencing vomiting was higher in the control group during the time period of >24–120h (100% vs 74.3%) but not the other analyzed time periods (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The fosaprepitant-based antiemetic prophylaxis was safe, well tolerated and significantly reduced vomiting in children undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy prior to autoHSCT. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results.

Optimization of nutrition support practices early after hematopoietic cell transplantation

Nutrition support is often required during hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) given the gastrointestinal toxicity that frequently precludes adequate protein-calorie intake. This article reviews the latest evidence for enteral versus parenteral nutrition in the adult and pediatric HCT population and addresses key considerations as well as barriers to implement this in practice. Registered Dietitian Nutritionists are key members of the interdisciplinary team to proactively manage enteral nutrition support to provide timely, adequate protein and calories to help prevent malnutrition, loss of lean body mass, and functional decline as well as provide evidence-based diet recommendations. This article also reviews emerging research supporting the role of luminal nutrients to maintain microbiotal diversity.

Evaluation of repeated or acute treatment with cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) or CBDA methyl ester (HU-580) on nausea and/or vomiting in rats and shrews

RATIONALE

When acutely administered intraperitoneally, the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD), its acidic precursor cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) and a stable methyl ester of CBDA (HU-580) reduce lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced conditioned gaping in male rats (a selective preclinical model of acute nausea) via activation of the serotonin 1A (5-HT_1A) receptor.

OBJECTIVES

To utilise these compounds to manage nausea in the clinic, we must determine if their effectiveness is maintained when injected subcutaneously (s.c) and when repeatedly administered. First, we compared the effectiveness of each of these compounds to reduce conditioned gaping following repeated (7-day) and acute (1-day) pretreatments and whether these anti-nausea effects were mediated by the 5-HT_1A receptor. Next, we assessed whether the effectiveness of these compounds can be maintained when administered prior to each of 4 conditioning trials (once per week). We also evaluated the ability of repeated CBD (7 days) to reduce LiCl-induced vomiting in Suncus murinus. Finally, we examined whether acute CBD was equally effective in male and female rats.

RESULTS

Both acute and repeated (7 day) s.c. administrations of CBD (5 mg/kg), CBDA (1 μg/kg) and HU-580 (1 μg/kg) similarly reduced LiCl-induced conditioned gaping, and these effects were blocked by 5HT_1A receptor antagonism. When administered over 4 weekly conditioning trials, the anti-nausea effectiveness of each of these compounds was also maintained. Repeated CBD (5 mg/kg, s.c.) maintained its anti-emetic efficacy in S. murinus. Acute CBD (5 and 20 mg/kg, s.c.) administration reduced LiCl-induced conditioned gaping similarly in male and female rats.

CONCLUSION

When administered repeatedly (7 days), CBD, CBDA and HU-580 did not lose efficacy in reducing nausea and continued to act via agonism of the 5-HT_1A receptor. When administered across 4 weekly conditioning trials, they maintained their effectiveness in reducing LiCl-induced nausea. Repeated CBD also reduced vomiting in shrews. Finally, CBD's anti-nausea effects were similar in male and female rats. This suggests that these cannabinoids may be useful anti-nausea and anti-emetic treatments for chronic conditions, without the development of tolerance.

Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non–small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor–containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Creation of a chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting dashboard to improve outcomes for pediatric cancer patients

PURPOSE

Two of the most common acute side effects of chemotherapy are nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting impact quality of life, nutritional status, and ability to tolerate further chemotherapy. Parents of pediatric oncology patients rank nausea as one of the most bothersome treatment-related symptoms.

METHODS

Utilizing Quality Improvement methodology, we developed a dashboard interface to facilitate extraction of data from the electronic medical record (EMR), which is presented via a visual display that summarizes the type of chemotherapy and antiemetic medications, use of as needed medications, and number of episodes of emesis.

RESULTS

This dashboard interface allows for rapid and efficient identification of patients whose antiemetic regimen is mismatched for the emetogenicity of ordered chemotherapy, thus providing a timely opportunity to modify the antiemetic regimen based on published guidelines before administration of chemotherapy drugs. It also allows measurement of the effectiveness of the antiemetic regimen in terms of the number of break through emesis and the need for as needed medications.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel CINV dashboard was created, which visually conveys complex information about antiemetics, chemotherapy emetogenicity, as needed medications, and breakthrough vomiting for inpatient pediatric oncology patients.

Nausea and vomiting during post-transplantation cyclophosphamide administration

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is a new method to prevent graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Although the use of dexamethasone is recommended as prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients who receive high-dose cyclophosphamide, corticosteroids cannot be used during PTCy administration to exploit depletion of alloreactive T cells. Thus, CINV may not be adequately controlled in this situation. We retrospectively examined antiemetic efficacy of the combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃ RA) and a NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁ RA) in 36 patients who received PTCy, and compared this efficacy with that of the same combination together with dexamethasone in 27 patients conditioned with cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (CY/TBI). The proportion of patients who had no vomiting during the acute phase of PTCy administration was 81%, and was lower than 100% in the CY/TBI group (p = 0.02). Our results suggest that prevention of CINV using 5-HT₃ RA and NK₁ RA during PTCy administration is suboptimal and that addition of antiemetic is necessary in patients who receive PTCy.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aprepitant versus two dosages of olanzapine with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life.

RESULTS

Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Effect of combined doses of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol or tetrahydrocannabinolic acid and cannabidiolic acid on acute nausea in male Sprague-Dawley rats

RATIONALE

This study evaluated the potential of combined cannabis constituents to reduce nausea.

OBJECTIVES

Using the lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced conditioned gaping model of nausea in male rats, we aimed to: 1) Determine effective anti-nausea doses of cannabidiol (CBD) 2) Determine effectiveness and the mechanism of action of combined subthreshold doses of CBD and Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 3) Determine effective doses of synthetic cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) 4) Determine effective doses of synthetic tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) 5) Determine the mechanism of action for THCA 6) Determine effectiveness and the mechanism of action of combined subthreshold doses of CBDA and THCA RESULTS: CBD (0.5-5 mg/kg, intraperitoneal [i.p.]) reduces LiCl-induced conditioned gaping (but 0.1, 20, 40 mg/kg are ineffective). Combined subthreshold doses of CBD (0.1 mg/kg, i.p.) and THC (0.1 mg/kg, i.p.) produce suppression of conditioned gaping, and this effect is blocked by administration of either WAY100635 (a serotonin 1A [5-HT_1A]) receptor antagonist or SR141716 (SR; a CB₁ receptor antagonist). THCA (0.01 mg/kg, i.p.) reduces conditioned gaping and administration of MK886 (a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha [PPARα] antagonist) blocked THCA's anti-nausea effect. Combined subthreshold doses of CBDA (0.00001 mg/kg, i.p.) and THCA (0.001 mg/kg, i.p.) produce suppression of conditioned gaping, and this effect is blocked by administration of WAY100635 or MK886.

CONCLUSION

Combinations of very low doses of CBD + THC or CBDA + THCA robustly reduce LiCl-induced conditioned gaping. Clinical trials are necessary to determine the efficacy of using single or combined cannabinoids as adjunct treatments with existing anti-emetic regimens to manage chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing.

Methods

In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d⁻¹) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration.

Results

During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03143-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

A randomized study of olanzapine-containing versus standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of "Complete Response" than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of "No significant nausea" and "No nausea" during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted.