Optimizing antiemetic therapy in multiple-day and multiple cycles of chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Breast Cancer: Risk Factor and Predictive Model Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART)

Introduction Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and debilitating adverse effect of breast cancer chemotherapy. The incidence of CINV in the first cycle of chemotherapy is essential, as it sets the tone for anticipatory CINV and the overall patients' treatment experience. We aimed to investigate the risk factors of first cycle CINV in breast cancer patients and to develop a classification and regression tree (CART) model to predict its occurrence. Methods This is a cross-sectional study that nested in a prospective cohort. One hundred and thirty-seven female breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included. We used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting in the first chemotherapy cycle. The proportional difference of CINV between sociodemographic and clinicopathologic variables was analyzed using chi-square, and the strength and direction of the relationship with CINV were analyzed using bivariable logistic regression analysis. Multivariable logistic regression and CART analysis included variables with a p-value <0.250. Results The incidence of first-cycle CINV was 43.1%. The chi-square test revealed a significant association between insurance status and CINV (p<0.001) and between the stage at diagnosis and CINV (p<0.001). Underweight to normal body mass index (BMI) patients are significantly associated with an increased risk of first-cycle CINV (OR =2.17, 95% CI 1.03-4.56, p =0.041). In hierarchical order, three variables (stage at diagnosis, BMI, and age) were included in the CART model, which significantly influenced the probability of first cycle CINV. With an accuracy of 61.3%, the CART model had a sensitivity of 28.8%, a specificity of 85.9%, a positive predictive value of 60.7%, a negative predictive value of 61.5%, and an area under curve (AUC) of 0.602.  Conclusion Breast cancer patients with an underweight to normal BMI have a higher risk of developing first-cycle CINV. Our CART model was better at identifying patients who would not develop CINV than those who would. The CART model may provide a simple and effective way to individualize patient care for first-cycle CINV.

Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting Control in Pediatric Patients Receiving Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual, patient-level, pooled analysis was performed using data from five clinical trials of aprepitant or fosaprepitant in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. The proportion of individuals who experienced no vomiting (complete CIV control) during the phase of interest was the primary study end point. The association of acute-phase complete CIV control (from first chemotherapy dose to 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose of the chemotherapy block) with age, sex, race, cancer type, acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen was examined. Association of the same factors and acute-phase complete CIV control with complete CIV control in the delayed phase (end of acute phase until ≤ 96 hours later) was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 735 patients (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 0.3 to 17.9 years) were included in the acute-phase analysis. Acute-phase complete CIV control was less likely in older patients (relative risk [RR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98 per year) and longer acute-phase duration (RR, 0.89 per day; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.94 per day). Receipt of ondansetron plus aprepitant or fosaprepitant was associated with a higher likelihood of acute-phase complete CIV control versus ondansetron alone (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50). Delayed-phase complete CIV control was more likely in patients with acute-phase complete CIV control (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.34) and in those who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Younger age, shorter acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen were associated with acute-phase complete CIV control in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. Acute-phase complete CIV control and antiemetic regimen were associated with delayed-phase complete CIV control.

Moxibustion for alleviating side effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Moxibustion, a common treatment in traditional Chinese medicine, involves burning herbal preparations containing Artemisia vulgaris on or above the skin at acupuncture points. Its intended effect is to enhance body function, and it could reduce the side effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy and improve quality of life (QoL) in people with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of moxibustion for alleviating side effects associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from their inception to February 2018. We also searched databases in China including the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Contents (CMCC), TCMonline, Chinese Dissertation Database (CDDB), China Medical Academic Conference (CMAC) and Index to Chinese Periodical Literature from inception to August 2017. Registries for clinical trials and other resources were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing moxibustion treatment, including moxa cone and moxa stick, versus sham, no treatment or conventional treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (HWZ and FC) independently extracted data on study design, participants, treatment and control intervention, and outcome measures, and they also assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We performed meta-analyses, expressing dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs involving 2569 participants. Five RCTs compared moxibustion versus no treatment, 15 compared moxibustion plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment, one compared moxibustion versus sham moxibustion, and eight compared moxibustion versus conventional medicine. The overall risk of bias was high in 18 studies and unclear in 11 studies. Studies measured outcomes in various ways, and we could rarely pool data.Moxibustion versus no treatment: low-certainty evidence from single small studies suggested that moxibustion was associated with higher white blood cell counts (MD 1.77 × 109/L; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.78; 80 participants, low-certainty evidence) and higher serum haemoglobin concentrations (MD 1.33 g/L; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07; 66 participants, low-certainty evidence) in people with cancer, during or after chemotherapy/radiotherapy, compared with no treatment. There was no evidence of an effect on leukopenia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; 72 participants, low-certainty evidence) between study groups. The effects on immune function (CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts) were inconsistent.Moxibustion versus sham moxibustion: low-certainty evidence from one study (50 participants) suggested that moxibustion improved QoL (measured as the score on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)) compared with sham treatment (MD 14.88 points; 95% CI 4.83 to 24.93). Low-certainty evidence from this study also showed reductions in symptom scores for nausea and vomiting (MD -38.57 points, 95% CI -48.67 to -28.47) and diarrhoea (MD -13.81, 95% CI -27.52 to -0.10), and higher mean white blood cell count (MD 1.72 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.47), serum haemoglobin (MD 2.06 g/L, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.86) and platelets (MD 210.79 × 109/L, 95% CI 167.02 to 254.56) when compared with sham moxibustion.Moxibustion versus conventional medicines: low-certainty evidence from one study (90 participants) suggested that moxibustion improved WBC count eight days after treatment ended compared with conventional medicines (MD 0.40 × 109/L; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65). Low-certainty evidence from two studies (235 participants) suggested moxibustion improved serum haemoglobin concentrations compared with conventional medicines (MD 10.28 g/L; 95% CI 4.51 to 16.05).Moxibustion plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone: low-certainty evidence showed that moxibustion plus conventional treatment was associated with lower incidence and severity of leukopenia (WHO grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.64; 1 study, 56 participants), higher QoL scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 (MD 8.85 points, 95% CI 4.25 to 13.46; 3 studies, 134 participants, I² = 26%), lower symptom scores for nausea and vomiting (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; 7 studies, 801participants; I² = 19%), higher white blood cell counts (data not pooled due to heterogeneity), higher serum haemoglobin (MD 3.97 g/L, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.53; 2 studies, 142 participants, I² = 0%). There was no difference in platelet counts between the two groups (MD 13.48 × 109/L; 95% CI -16.00 to 42.95; 2 studies, 142 participants; I² = 34%).Most included studies did not report related adverse events, such as burning or allergic reactions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited, low-certainty evidence suggests that moxibustion treatment may help to reduce the haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, improving QoL in people with cancer; however, the evidence is not conclusive, and we cannot rule out benefits or risks with this treatment. High-quality studies that report adverse effects are needed.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Rolapitant for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting over initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Efficacy of aprepitant for nausea in patients with head and neck cancer receiving daily cisplatin therapy

BACKGROUND

Although efficacy of aprepitant for suppressing emesis associated with single-dose cisplatin has been demonstrated, there are limited data on the antiemetic effect of this oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist during daily administration of cisplatin. Accordingly, we investigated the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving combination therapy with cisplatin and 5-FU (FP therapy).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with HNC were prospectively studied who received a triple antiemetic regimen comprising granisetron (40 μg/kg on Days 1-4), dexamethasone (8 mg on Days 1-4), and aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-5) with FP therapy (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 on days 1-4; 5-FU 400 mg/m2 on days 1-5) (aprepitant group). We also retrospectively studied another 20 HNC patients who received the same regimen except for aprepitant (control group).

RESULTS

For efficacy endpoints based on nausea, the aprepitant group showed significantly better results, including a higher rate of complete response (no vomiting and no salvage therapy) for the acute phase (p=0.0342), although there was no marked difference between the two groups with regard to percentage of patients in whom vomiting was suppressed. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions to aprepitant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that a triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant is safe and effective for HNC patients receiving daily cisplatin therapy.

Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in triple antiemetic regimens during multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The second-generation serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron has shown improved efficacy in the prevention of both acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, there have been no randomized controlled trials supporting the preferential use of palonosetron in triple antiemetic regimens for patients receiving multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of palonosetron-based and first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based triple antiemetic regimens in cancer patients receiving multiday HEC.

METHODS

This was a review and analysis of medical record data. A total of 115 patients who had received multiday HEC were included and grouped into a palonosetron-based antiemetic group (n = 73) or a first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based antiemetic group (n = 42). Data on CINV were collected in 24-hour intervals for 120 hours after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Complete response rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups during any of the 3 phases: acute (0-24 hours), p = 0.877; overlap (24-120 hours), p = 0.997; and overall (0-120 hours), p = 0.723. The proportion of patients with complete control was similar between the groups during each phase: acute, p = 0.862; overlap, p = 0.838; and overall, p = 0.828. There was also no significant difference in other end points between the 2 groups. Among all patients, females experienced significantly more acute nausea (p = 0.040) and vomiting (p = 0.046) than males. Compared with nondrinkers, patients who consumed alcohol had a lower overall incidence of vomiting (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a triple antiemetic regimen, a palonosetron-based antiemetic regimen was not significantly different from regimens based on first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists in preventing CINV during multiday HEC.

Impact of initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus ondansetron on risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer receiving multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.

METHODS

The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle. Risk for uncontrolled CINV, up to 7 days after last chemotherapy administration, was analyzed at cycle level using logistic regression with regressors of gender, age, number of chemotherapy administration days, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, multicancer diagnoses, and chemotherapy regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 209 palonosetron and 153 ondansetron patients (702 and 515 cycles, respectively) met the inclusion criteria. Palonosetron patients were significantly older (mean 67.9 versus 63.9 years; P < 0.0001), with no significant difference in gender, baseline comorbidity score, or multicancer diagnosis. Palonosetron cycles had 63% lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron cycles [odds ratio (OR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001]. Sub-analysis by chemotherapy supported overall analysis (cisplatin OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.25; P < 0.0001; carboplatin OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients, multi-day chemotherapy cycles administered with palonosetron on day 1 were associated with a significantly lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron-initiated chemotherapy cycles.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in daily clinical practice: a community hospital-based study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are major adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. This study investigated: (1) the impact of CINV on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL) in daily clinical practice; (2) the association between patient characteristics and type of antiemetics and CINV; and (3) the role of CINV in physicians' decisions to modify antiemetic treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter study was conducted in nine general hospitals in the Netherlands. During three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, patients used a diary to record episodes of nausea, vomiting and antiemetic use. For each cycle, these ratings were made 1 day prior to and 7 days after having received chemotherapy. The influence of CINV on patients' HRQL was evaluated with the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire at day 6 of each treatment cycle. (Changes in) antiemetic use were recorded by the treating nurse. Patient inclusion took place between May 2005 and May 2007.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Acute and delayed nausea during the first treatment cycle was reported by 39% and 68% of the patients, respectively. The comparable figures for acute and delayed vomiting were 12% and 23%. During the first and subsequent treatment cycle, approximately one-third of the patients indicated that CINV had a substantial impact on their daily lives. Female patients and younger patients reported significantly more CINV than male and older patients. At all treatment cycles, patients receiving treatment with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, containing anthracycline, reported more acute nausea than patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Acute vomiting was associated significantly with change in (i.e., additional) antiemetic treatment. Delayed CINV did not influence antiemetic treatment.

CONCLUSION

CINV continues to be a problem that adversely affects the daily lives of patients. CINV is worse in women and in younger patients. In daily clinical practice, acute CINV, but not delayed CINV, results in changes in antiemetic treatment. In view of the effects of not only acute, but also delayed CINV on daily life, more attention should be paid to adjustment of antiemetic treatment to cover CINV complaints, later during the chemotherapy cycle.