The role of the 5-HT3 antagonists ondansetron and dolasetron in the control of delayed onset nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day's CINV based on prior day's CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4-5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Possibilities of supportive therapy in patients with blood system tumors and malignant neoplasms

Finding opportunities to improve treatment outcomes of cancer patients remains a difficult and unresolved problem. Modern anticancer treatment due to the intensity and molecular biological orientation allows achieving higher efficiency and theoretically reducing the complications frequency. At the same time, the “increase in efficiency” in the modern oncology really exists, but a “decrease in the incidence of complications” is far from its solution. In many ways, the problems of diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of complications are associated with the impact on complex physiological processes in the body of an oncological patient. Timely implementation of modern and adequate programs for the prevention and treatment of these complications defines the concept of “supportive therapy”, which provides at least half of the effectiveness of anticancer treatment.

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) was formed in 1990. The main tasks of the association were the creation of supportive care system, its popularization and accumulation of scientific data. The MASCC was used not only oncologists experience, but also of specialists working in almost all areas of medicine. Supportive therapy provides prevention and treatment of complications from the moment of malignant disease develops, at all stages of anticancer treatment, during the rehabilitation period, and in patients in the terminal phase.

An important stage in the development of maintenance care in Russia was the holding of annual conferences in Moscow with the support of MASCC. Russia is included in the European MASCC group and in working group on supportive therapy and palliative care of the Chemotherapists Society (ESMO). The Russian Society of Supportive care in Oncology (RASSC) was organized In Russia on June 1, 2017. In recent years, the main directions of supportive care have been developed in our country. Today, supportive therapy is an obligatory component of anticancer programs, which allows the patient to cope with severe but potentially reversible disorders of vital organs at all stages of treatment. This is a real way to increase the treatment efficacy and improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-Induced Delayed Emesis: What is the Role of 5-HT3Antagonists?

Objective:

To review the current literature assessing the efficacy of different antiemetics, with a focus on comparison between serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists and other antiemetics, in the treatment of delayed emesis induced by either cisplatin or non-cisplatin cytotoxic agents.

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE search (1966–July 2002) was performed using delayed emesis, vomiting, nausea, chemotherapy, cisplatin, moderately emetogenic, selective serotonin subtype-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, metoclopramide, domperidone, corticosteroids, dexamethasone, prognostic factors, risk factors, and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists as key words or subject headings. Only English-language articles were identified and included. Additional references were retrieved from selected articles.

Data Synthesis:

Various antiemetic consensus guidelines have recommended the use of different pharmacologic treatment, including the use of 5-HT3antagonists, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis. In some instances, it has been suggested that combinations containing a 5-HT3antagonist may be superior to others. Current data have been synthesized in an attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of 5-HT3antagonists in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis.

Conclusions:

Dexamethasone has consistently shown its antiemetic efficacy for delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and non-cisplatin agents, whereas the role of 5-HT3antagonists alone remains controversial. Metoclopramide has been shown to be as efficacious as 5-HT3antagonists when combined with dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis. As a result, 5-HT3antagonists should be reserved as second-line agents to metoclopramide in addition to dexamethasone. NK1 receptor antagonists have shown some early promising results. However, many questions need to be addressed before their extensive use in clinical practice.

A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study Comparing the Impact of Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant on Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Treated for Gynecologic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the response rates and daily living activities of patients with newly diagnosed gynecologic cancer treated with fosaprepitant or aprepitant in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible participants were randomized to either intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg, day 1) or oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3) before undergoing weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/2)(2) and monthly carboplatin (AUC 6)-based chemotherapy. In addition, standard premedications (eg, ranitidine, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine) were administered intravenously on day 1. Response evaluation and impact on daily life were measured throughout the acute phase (0-24 hours), delayed period (days 2-4), and overall phase (0-120 hours) of the patients' initial chemotherapy cycle via the Functional Living Index-Emesis.

RESULTS

In the current investigation, 20 gynecologic cancer subjects were treated with either fosaprepitant (n = 10) or aprepitant (n = 10) before their first chemotherapy cycle. We observed 7 overall complete responses (70%, no emetic episodes or rescue medications) in the aprepitant group and 6 (60%) in the fosaprepitant cohort (P = 0.660). In addition, both treatment groups reported similarly, favorable rates of daily living activities throughout the acute (P = 0.626) and delayed (P = 0.648) phases of cycle 1 chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from the current analysis suggest that intravenous fosaprepitant and oral aprepitant confer beneficial antiemetic prevention. Moreover, the 2 medications theoretically afford a favorable impact on daily living, thereby potentially facilitating the completion of a patient's clinically prescribed chemotherapy regimen.

Palonosetron versus granisetron in combination with aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer

Objective

There is no research regarding the appropriate antiemetic agents for female patients, especially those receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃ receptor with/without aprepitant in patients with gynecological cancer treated with the TC (paclitaxel and carboplatin) regimen of MEC.

Methods

We enrolled 38 patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer and scheduled to receive the TC regimen. The patients were randomly assigned to receive a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, either palonosetron in the first cycle followed by granisetron in the second cycle or vice versa. In the third cycle, all patients received a combination of the 5-HT₃ receptor and dexamethasone with/without aprepitant.

Results

When three drugs were administered, palonosetron consistently produced an equivalent complete response (CR) rate to granisetron in the acute phase (89.5% vs. 86.8%, p=0.87) and delayed phase (60.5% vs. 65.8%, p=0.79). With regard to the change in dietary intake, palonosetron exhibited similar efficacy to granisetron in the acute phase (92.1% vs. 89.4%, p=0.19) and delayed phase (65.7% vs. 68.4%, p=0.14). However, in the delayed phase, the addition of aprepitant therapy with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and dexamethasone produced a higher CR rate than a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (93.3% vs. 47.8%, p<0.001) and allowed the patients to maintain a higher level of dietary intake (93.3% vs. 56.5%, p<0.001).

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant therapy was more effective than the control therapy of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone in gynecological cancer patients treated with the TC regimen.

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.

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Materials and Methods

This study was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind and parallel-group trial involving 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 265 patients with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to either the azasetron or ondansetron group. All patients received azasetron (10 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 and dexamethasone (4 mg orally every 12 hours) on days 2-4. The azasetron group received azasetron (10 mg orally) with placebo of ondansetron (orally every 12 hours), and the ondansetron group received ondansetron (8 mg orally every 12 hours) with placebo of azasetron (orally) on days 2-6.

Results

Over days 2-6, the effective ratio of complete response in the azasetron and ondansetron groups was 45% and 54.5%, respectively (95% confidence interval, -21.4 to 2.5%). Thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared with ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was not proven in the present study. All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events related to the treatment were constipation and hiccups, and there were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events.

Conclusion

In the present study, azasetron showed inferiority in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with ondansetron whereas safety profiles were similar between the two groups.

Reappraisal of the role of dolasetron in prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with surgery or chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and postoperative nausea and vomiting are one of the most frequent but also very concerning consequences for patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgical procedures under general anesthesia. There are a variety of mechanisms involved in the activation of nausea and vomiting. Serotonin, a ubiquitous central and peripheral neurotransmitter, is thought to be the predominant mediator of the perception of nausea and triggering of the vomiting response in both the brain and the periphery via the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor pathways. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists disrupt this pathway, largely at the level of the vagal afferent pathways, to decrease nausea and vomiting. This review will focus on dolasetron, an older but sill commonly used 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and its multimodal mechanism of action, safety and tolerability, patient considerations, and a review of the current literature on its use to combat both chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting in these two important patient populations.

Inhibiting substance p pathway for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis: preclinical data, clinical trials of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic agents that have activity in controlling cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis. Preclinical data in animal models show that the NK-1 receptor antagonists have broad antiemetic activity. The NK-1 receptor antagonists have activity in controlling emesis induced by peripherally acting and centrally acting emetogens, suggesting a mechanism of action at multiple sites. The effects at central and peripheral sites to control acute and delayed emesis cannot be determined at this time based on available studies. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5- HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, the NK-1 receptor antagonists improve control of acute emesis. The NK-1 receptor antagonists improve delayed emesis compared with placebo, and when used in combination with dexamethasone, compared with dexamethasone alone. Acute and delayed nausea may also be improved by the NK-1 receptor antagonists when they are used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone prechemotherapy or with daily dosing for 5 days after chemotherapy. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1 receptor antagonists appears to be different from that of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may consider using NK-1 receptor antagonists with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as bone marrow transplantation.

Efficacy and safety of casopitant mesylate, a neurokinin 1 (NK1)-receptor antagonist, in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a clinical management problem after treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We therefore designed and carried out a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a three-drug antiemetic regimen of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and the neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate was able to prevent acute and delayed CINV events in patients naive to chemotherapy with a malignant solid tumour who were scheduled to receive cisplatin-based HEC regimens.

METHODS

The study was done between Nov 6, 2006, and Oct 9, 2007, in 77 participating centres in 22 countries. All 810 patients enrolled in the trial received dexamethasone and ondansetron. Patients were randomly assigned to also receive placebo (n=269), single oral dose of casopitant mesylate (150 mg oral, n=271), or 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate (90 mg intravenous on day 1 plus 50 mg oral on days 2 and 3, n=270). Randomisation was done using a central telephone system at the study level, because some centres were expected to recruit only a few patients during the study period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue medications) in the first 120 h after receiving HEC. Efficacy analysis was done on the modified intention-to-treat population (n=800), which included all patients who received placebo or study drug and HEC (n=265 control, n=266 single-dose oral casopitant mesylate, n=269 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate). Safety was reported in 802 patients who received either placebo or study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00431236.

FINDINGS

Significantly more patients in each casopitant group achieved complete response in cycle 1 of HEC treatment than did those in the control group (175 [66%] patients in the control group, 228 [86%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group [p<0.0001 vs control], and 214 [80%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group (p=0.0004 vs control]). This improvement was sustained over multiple cycles of HEC. Adverse events occurred in 205 (77%) patients in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group and 203 (75%) patients in the 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate group compared with 194 (73%) of patients in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were neutropenia (n=5 [3%] in the control group, n=3 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=11 [4%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=6 [2%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), and dehydration (n=4 [2%] in the control group, n=2 [<1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=1 [<1%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group).

INTERPRETATION

A three-drug regimen including a single oral dose or 3-day intravenous plus oral regimen of casopitant mesylate plus dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly reduced CINV events in patients receiving HEC compared with a two-drug regimen of dexamethasone and ondansetron.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Palonosetron and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with auto-SCT

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high-dose (HD)-CT with auto-SCT, and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis. One hundred thirty-four patients treated with HD-CT and auto-SCT for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of conditioning; patients were also administered dexamethasone throughout the entire period of conditioning. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered at 72 h after the first administration. Complete response and complete protection were observed in 36 and 26% of patients, respectively. One-half of the patients, re-treated with palonosetron for breakthrough emesis, were successfully rescued. Treatment with palonosetron plus dexamethasone seems to be encouraging in terms of prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of HD-CT.

Palonosetron (Aloxi) and dexamethasone for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six patients treated with multiple-day chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of chemotherapy and dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered after 72 h following the first administration. The results were retrospectively compared to group of patients with similar clinical characteristics undergoing similar multiple-day chemotherapy. This group had received single-dose ondansetron as CINV prophylaxis on the first day of chemotherapy plus dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy and metoclopramide for breakthrough emesis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty and 173 chemotherapy cycles were administered in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were absent in 80% of patients of the palonosetron group and 60% of the control group (p < 0.05). In the palonosetron group, 67% of patients who experienced CINV were successfully rescued by a second dose of palonosetron, while in the ondansetron group, only 22% showed a no CINV after metoclopramide treatment (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The present results appear to be encouraging in terms of complete prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of multiple-day chemotherapy.

Comparative activity of antiemetic drugs

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

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.

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.

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.

Should 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists be administered beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy to prevent delayed emesis? Systematic re-evaluation of clinical evidence and drug cost implications

PURPOSE

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) are effective for preventing acute chemotherapy-induced emesis but the benefits of continuing administration of these agents beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy (delayed emesis) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide estimates of clinical efficacy and drug acquisition cost associated with administering 5-HT(3) antagonists beyond 24 hours, as monotherapy or as added to dexamethasone.

METHODS

This analysis is based on the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative meta-analysis of the efficacy of 5-HT(3) antagonists. Results from the clinical trials covered in that meta-analysis were reanalyzed to provide estimates of absolute risk reductions (ARR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) for 5-HT(3) antagonists, as monotherapy or as adjunct treatment. Numbers of 5-HT(3) antagonist unit doses per successfully treated patient were also calculated.

RESULTS

Five studies (comprising 1,716 assessable patients) compared a 5-HT(3) antagonist with placebo; five studies (2,240 patients) compared a combination of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone with dexamethasone monotherapy. ARR for monotherapy was only 8.2% (95% CI, 3.0% to 13.4%). On average, 74 5-HT(3) antagonist doses must be administered to 12 patients (NNT, 12.2; 95% CI, 7.5 to 33.4) not receiving dexamethasone to protect one patient from delayed emesis. In those patients receiving dexamethasone as standard antiemetic treatment in the delayed phase, the addition of a 5-HT(3) antagonist did not significantly improve control of delayed emesis as compared with dexamethasone monotherapy (ARR, 2.6%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 5.8%).

CONCLUSION

Neither clinical evidence nor considerations of cost effectiveness justify using 5-HT(3) antagonists beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy for prevention of delayed emesis.

A phase II trial of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Hoosier Oncology Group study

In a previous phase I study, olanzapine was demonstrated to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of delayed emesis in chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and/or cisplatin. Using the maximum tolerated dose of olanzapine in the phase I trial, a phase II trial was performed for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy-naïve patients. The regimen was 5 mg/day of oral olanzapine on the 2 days prior to chemotherapy, 10 mg on the day of chemotherapy, day 1, (added to intravenous granisetron, 10 mcg/kg and dexamethasone 20 mg), and 10 mg/day on days 2-4 after chemotherapy (added to dexamethasone, 8 mg p.o. BID days 2 and 3, and 4 mg p.o. BID day 4). Thirty patients (median age 58.5 years, range 25-84; 23 women; ECOG PS 0, 1) consented to the protocol, and all were evaluable. Complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue) was 100% for the acute period (24 h postchemotherapy), 80% for the delayed period (days 2-5 postchemotherapy), and 80% for the overall period (0-120 h postchemotherapy) in ten patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2)). CR was also 100% for the acute period, 85% for the delayed period, and 85% for the overall period in 20 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin > or =50 mg/m(2)). Nausea was very well controlled in the patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with no patient having nausea [0 on scale of 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)] in the acute or delayed periods. Nausea was also well controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with no nausea in 85% of patients in the acute period and 65% in the delayed and overall periods. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities and no significant pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, memory changes, dyspnea, lack of appetite, drowsiness, dry mouth, mood changes, or restlessness experienced by the patients. Complete response and control of nausea in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy (25 patients, cycle 2; 25 patients, cycle 3; 21 patients, cycle 4) were equal to or greater than cycle 1. Olanzapine is safe and highly effective in controlling acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Delayed emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Data on the incidence and efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis against delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy are scanty. An overview of the literature has been done that showed the efficacy of dexamethasone in two of three randomized trials. Its optimal dose and duration of administration has not been defined. Only one of four randomized studies showed a statistically significant efficacy of 5-HT(3) antagonists. Finally, only weak evidence has been published on the efficacy of dopamine receptor antagonists.

Methodology for quality-of-life assessment: a critical appraisal

The methodology for QOL assessment covers a wide range of topics. It involves a proper choice of instruments with appropriate psychometric properties, the administration of these instruments, frequency of measurements, missing data problems, and the method of analysis. There are currently debates on the meaning and interpretation of the HRQOL domains taking the form of arguing how to define minimal clinically meaningful difference and whether this can be used in regulatory approval for drug development. From a practical point of view, the authors proposed that a disease-specific checklist or symptom domains incorporated within a HRQOL questionnaire may be a middle ground to gain general agreements among academic institutions, manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to use a specific symptom checklist or domain as the primary end point for clinical trials together with other HRQOL domains as ancillary data for the study. Antiemetic trial with HRQOL assessments is an example. Most would agree, however, that no matter what HRQOL domains or symptoms are being studied, it should be based on a patient self-administered questionnaire as shown by the lack of sensitivity in the example in this article. Missing data are a problem in the data collection and handling. The authors have examined a few commonly used approaches and performed simulation to study their properties. The subscale-mean method when one has more than 50% of the information on a subscale generally reflects the true values. In practice, one still would have missing data that cannot be handled completely by imputation. The method of analysis must be flexible enough to incorporate the nature of these data. Two approaches have been discussed, and they are both flexible in terms of using all available information being obtained in a longitudinal fashion with variable visiting schedules and potential missing data. The HRQOL response variable approach is simple and easy to understand. The growth curve models approach provides more detailed information on average trends between treatment arms. In general, these two methods agree on the results of the example. They can be used to report clinical trial results using HRQOL data as end points.

Role of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists in Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis: Summary of Clinical Trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life, and although the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, delayed nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it improves the complete response rate of acute CINV. Aprepitant also improves the complete response of delayed CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone alone. The use of aprepitant in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will await the review and analysis of recently completed phase III trials. The control of nausea is improved in some studies with the use of aprepitant when it is combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, but nausea control remains suboptimal. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1s appears to be different from the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may explore the use of aprepitant and other NK-1s in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Impact of nausea and vomiting on quality of life in cancer patients during chemotherapy

It is commonly claimed that the nausea and vomiting accompanying cytotoxic chemotherapy have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. While this may seem self-evident, until a few years ago there was little empirical data demonstrating that the failure to control postchemotherapy emesis affects aspects of quality of life. In spite of their limitations, several observational studies showed that nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy induced a decrease in health-related quality of life with respect to patients without nausea and vomiting. This has also been demonstrated after the adjustment for health-related quality of life before chemotherapy that is an important prognostic factor of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, one study suggests that the optimal time of assessment of quality of life to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is day 4 if a 3-day recall period is used or day 8 when the recall period is 7 days. In double-blind studies the efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was superior with respect to metoclopramide, alizapride and prochlorperazine. Similar results have been achieved with the combination of ondansetron with dexamethasone, the standard treatment for the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with respect to the metoclopramide plus dexamethasone combination. Instead, in another double-blind study, in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a 5-HT3 antagonist did not seem to significantly increase complete protection from delayed emesis and the patients' quality of life with respect to dexamethasone alone. In conclusion, the evaluation of quality of life in randomized trials comparing different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can add important information useful for the choice of the optimal antiemetic treatment.

Effect of gabapentin on nausea induced by chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer

In an anecdotal report, complete resolution of chemotherapy-induced nausea was seen in a patient with breast cancer, after she was placed on the anticonvulsant gabapentin. On this basis, we did an open-label study in which oral gabapentin 300 mg thrice daily was given for every other chemotherapy treatment in nine patients with breast cancer. Six of the nine reported at least a three-point improvement in peak delayed nausea (on an eight-point nausea scale), and three patients had complete resolution of nausea when taking gabapentin. This preliminary evidence shows that gabapentin might have a role in treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most distressing adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. They can lead to both physical and psychological complications if uncontrolled. The exact mechanism for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is not known; it is thought to occur through numerous neuronal pathways acting on different sites. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are broken down into 3 phases: acute, delayed, and anticipatory. The incidence of each phase depends largely on the chemotherapy agent used and is primarily treated with different antiemetic agents. Pharmacists can assist in optimizing antiemetic use by selecting appropriate antiemetics based on the emetogenicity of the cancer treatment and helping to individualize therapy to each patient’s specific needs.

Economics and health-related quality of life in antiemetic therapy: recommendations for trial design

Emesis (nausea and vomiting) is one of the most important toxicities associated with chemotherapy. Although it is not life threatening, it has a major impact on a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQL) and overall response to chemotherapy. New antiemetics are expensive and well-conducted comparative health economic studies are rare. The aim of the study was to review the literature in the area of chemotherapy-induced emesis in cancer patients and to offer recommendations for the inclusion of these outcomes in the design of clinical trials for new antiemetic therapies. The economic literature was reviewed based on methodological standards for economic evaluation. Many studies did not comply with standards, specifically with regard to the choice of alternatives, chosen perspective, setting, type of emesis, measurement of costs and defining outcomes (including health-related quality of life). These issues are described for each study and recommendations for trial design are presented. The role of economic data is to support decision making in choosing between competing antiemetic therapies. It is the combination of clinical outcomes, costs and health-related quality of life, which will allow treating physicians to comprehensively assess the relative value of antiemetic therapies and to provide the most cost-effective therapy for their patients.

Drug therapy for gynaecological cancer in older women

A substantial proportion of all women dying from gynaecological malignancies are aged >75 years. Many reports have indicated that the survival of these patients is decreased compared with younger patients. Differences in biological behaviour, stage of the disease at presentation, and reluctance to undergo aggressive treatment with its associated morbidity are among the factors thought to be responsible for this difference in outcomes. However, investigations also indicate that elderly patients may receive less surgical and chemotherapeutic treatment without obvious clinical rationale. This overview is aimed at providing a guideline of chemotherapy appropriate for patients with epithelial ovarian, uterine (corpus and cervix), and vulvar cancer, aged 70 to 75 years and over. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the cornerstone of drug treatment in patients with ovarian cancer. Patients aged between 70 and 75 years with a good performance status can be treated with cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Carboplatin, either in combination or as a single-agent, may offer advantages in patients aged >75 years and in those with a poor performance status. For patients with early recurrence there is no standard treatment, but several cytostatic and hormonal agents can be used with palliative intent. Patients with a late recurrence are probably best retreated with a platinum-based regimen. In metastatic endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy is the first choice in tumours expressing a progesterone receptor. Poorly differentiated tumours infrequently respond to endocrine therapy. In this situation, and for patients with tumours that have become resistant to hormonal manipulation, platinum-based chemotherapy may be used. The use of carboplatin-based regimens seems preferable in elderly patients, particularly in those with a decreased performance status. The usefulness of chemotherapy in elderly patients with cervical cancer is limited. In case of recurrent or metastatic disease, the use of single agent (low-dose) cisplatin should be balanced against best supportive care. Although overall chemoradiation seems superior than radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, the feasibility of this approach in elderly patients needs further investigation. Chemoradiation might also be considered in patients with locally advanced vulvar cancer. However, treatment-related morbidity can be considerable and randomised studies are lacking to prove a survival benefit. Our understanding of the tolerance and effectiveness of chemotherapy in elderly patients is still incomplete due to a paucity of trials that specifically focus on this subset of patients. However, there appears no argument to withhold chemotherapy based purely on age.

Dexamethasone alone or in combination with ondansetron for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer has not been studied systematically.

METHODS

We enrolled patients who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy for the first time in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. All the patients received ondansetron combined with dexamethasone for prophylaxis against emesis that might occur within 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy (acute emesis). They were then divided into two groups: patients who did not have either vomiting or moderate-to-severe nausea (the low-risk group) and patients who had one or both (the high-risk group). Patients in the low-risk group were then randomly assigned to one of the following regimens, given on days 2 through 5 after the start of chemotherapy: oral placebo, 4 mg of dexamethasone given orally twice daily, or 8 mg of ondansetron in combination with 4 mg of dexamethasone, given orally twice daily. Patients in the high-risk group were randomly assigned to receive oral dexamethasone alone or in combination with ondansetron at the same doses as those used in the low-risk group.

RESULTS

Among the 618 patients in the low-risk group, there was a complete absence of both delayed vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea in 91.8 percent of those who received ondansetron combined with dexamethasone, 87.4 percent of those who received dexamethasone alone, and 76.8 percent of those who received placebo. The proportions of patients who were protected by dexamethasone combined with ondansetron or by dexamethasone alone were significantly greater than the proportion protected by placebo (P<0.001 and P<0.02, respectively). Of the 87 patients in the high-risk group, complete protection was achieved in 40.9 percent of those treated with ondansetron and dexamethasone and in 23.3 percent treated with dexamethasone alone (P not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The best way to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is to control these complications within the first 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone alone provides adequate protection against delayed emesis in patients at low risk (those who have not had acute emesis).

The standard of reporting of health-related quality of life in clinical cancer trials

The standard of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important to the interpretation of outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). HRQL is used increasingly as an outcome in clinical cancer trials.

DESIGN

All 1997 issues of 36 selected journals were hand searched to identify original articles that included the term "quality of life" in the title, abstract, keywords or methods. Studies were included if they were RCTs and addressed cancer-related topics. A checklist to assess the adequacy of reporting of HRQL was developed based on a guideline previously published by an expert panel. Two unblinded reviewers applied the quality of life reporting (QLR) and CONSORT checklists, along with an instrument to assess the likelihood of bias to each selected RCT.

RESULTS

72 articles were identified of which 20 were RCTs and cancer-related. For these 20 reports the median number of items in the QLR checklist that were adequately reported is 42% (range 15% to 85%). The median number of items in the CONSORT checklist that were adequately reported is 70% (range 47% to 95%). The mean score for the instrument to assess the likelihood for bias is 2.6 (95% CI 2. 08-3.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The current standard of reporting of HRQL needs to be improved. Major deficiencies that should be addressed are failure to provide a rationale for HRQL assessment and inadequate description of methodology. Development and application of structured formats for presentation of HRQL may help to improve the standard of reporting of HRQL in the literature.

History of the development of antiemetic guidelines at Mayo Clinic Rochester

This article describes the historic experience of the development of antiemetic guidelines for patients taking chemotherapy drugs at Mayo Clinic Rochester. The initial guidelines for the use of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine3) receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were developed in early 1995 and implemented in September 1995. In February 1997, the guidelines were reviewed and modified. In the spring of 1998, major changes were made based on new data from the literature and discussions with antiemetic authorities in the United States. These guidelines were implemented in July 1998. The guidelines were again reviewed and modified in December 1998. In addition, we compared costs associated with the 1997 guidelines and the December 1998 guidelines. The developed guidelines, utilizing clinically available agents, seem to provide high-quality patient care at a reasonable cost.

Effects of altering the time of administration and the time frame of quality of life assessments in clinical trials: an example using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a large anti-emetic trial

Previous studies conducted by our group suggested that the ability to demonstrate an impact of emesis control on quality of life might depend upon when an quality of life instrument was administered in relation to chemotherapy and on the time frame of the questionnaire. This study was conducted to address this issue. Six hundred and fifty patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in a randomized trial comparing a variety of anti-emetic regimens were allocated to four different modes of administration (days 4 and 8; 3 and 7 day time frames) of the QLQ-C30. Patients who completed the questionnaire at the time of maximal impact of chemotherapy (day 3) were more likely to report deterioration in quality of life. Patients who completed questionnaires at day 8 were more likely to report deterioration in quality of life if their questionnaire had a 7 day time frame rather than a 3 day time frame. Patients receiving more effective anti-emetic therapy had better quality of life. It was concluded that better anti-emetic control improves quality of life after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In studying quality of life in situations where the impact of treatment waxes and wanes, careful attention needs to be paid to scheduling the administration of questionnaires and to their time frame.