5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with or without short-course dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation induced emesis: a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (SC19)

Use of Radiation Therapy in the Management of Vulvar Cancers-Identification and Management of Acute and Late Toxicities

Radiation therapy plays a critical role in the management of locally advanced vulvar cancers but can lead to a unique spectrum of side effects, with >25% of patients experiencing high-grade toxicities. The treatment phase requires meticulous perineal skincare and may require pharmacologic management of dysuria and cystitis, diarrhea, nausea, and dermatitis/mucositis. The addition of chemotherapy warrants close laboratory monitoring for hematologic and metabolic derangements.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases

After liver and lungs, bone is the third most common metastatic site (Nystrom et al., 1977). Almost all malignancies can metastasize to the skeleton but 80% of bone metastases originate from breast, prostate, lung, kidney and thyroid cancer (Mundy, 2002). Introduction of effective systemic treatment in many cancers has prolonged patients' survival, including those with bone metastases. Bone metastases may significantly reduce quality of life due to related symptoms and possible complications, such as pain and neurologic compromise. The most serious complications of bone metastases are skeletal-related events (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, pain, or other symptoms requiring an urgent intervention such as surgery or radiotherapy. In turn, growing access to modern diagnostic tools allows early detection of asymptomatic bone metastases that could be successfully managed with local treatment avoiding development of SRE. The treatment for bone metastases should focus on relieving existing symptoms and preventing new ones. Radiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic bone metastases, providing durable pain relief with minimal toxicity and reasonable cost-effectiveness. Historically, the dose was prescribed in one to five fractions and delivered using simple planning techniques. While 3D-conformal radiotherapy is still widely used for treating bone metastases, introduction of highlyconformal radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have opened new therapeutic possibilities that should be considered in selected patients with bone metastases.

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.

Evolution of antiemetic studies for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting within an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a common side effect of radiotherapy and can affect up to 50-80% of patients, potentially causing detrimental effects to physical health, clinical efficacy, and patient quality of life. Antiemetic drugs act on receptors involved in the emesis pathway to block the uptake of neurotransmitters and inhibit stimulation of vomiting centers in the brain to prevent and treat RINV. The most commonly prescribed antiemetics for RINV are 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA). Guidelines describing the optimal management of RINV are produced by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, the European Society of Medical Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. This review will present findings from research on antiemetic management for RINV conducted at our center.

METHODS

A selective review of research conducted in a palliative outpatient radiotherapy clinic relating to antiemetic management for RINV was performed.

RESULTS

Several studies investigating the efficacy of different routes of administration, new antiemetic drug types, and novel combinations of antiemetics have been tested at our clinic to elucidate which approach provides the best response. These include studies on the use of ondansetron rapidly dissolving film, palonosetron, and the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to traditional 5-HT3 RA regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide a framework for future research and could potentially inform changes to future guidelines to include the use of these novel regimens and techniques.

Radiotherapy toxicity

Radiotherapy is used in >50% of patients with cancer, both for curative and palliative purposes. Radiotherapy uses ionizing radiation to target and kill tumour tissue, but normal tissue can also be damaged, leading to toxicity. Modern and precise radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, may prevent toxicity, but some patients still experience adverse effects. The physiopathology of toxicity is dependent on many parameters, such as the location of irradiation or the functional status of organs at risk. Knowledge of the mechanisms leads to a more rational approach for controlling radiotherapy toxicity, which may result in improved symptom control and quality of life for patients. This improved quality of life is particularly important in paediatric patients, who may live for many years with the long-term effects of radiotherapy. Notably, signs and symptoms occurring after radiotherapy may not be due to the treatment but to an exacerbation of existing conditions or to the development of new diseases. Although differential diagnosis may be difficult, it has important consequences for patients.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Treatment for Oxycodone-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients with Cancer Pain (POINT): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

Although opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) often result in analgesic undertreatment in patients with cancer, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics for preventing OINV. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine for preventing OINV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients who started to receive oral oxycodone were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prochlorperazine 5 mg or placebo prophylactically, given three times daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a complete response (CR) during the 120 hours of oxycodone treatment. CR was defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medication for nausea and vomiting during 5 days. Key secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with emetic episodes, proportion of patients with moderate or severe nausea, quality of life, and proportion of treatment withdrawal.

RESULTS

From November 2013 through February 2016, a total of 120 patients were assigned to receive prochlorperazine (n = 60) or placebo (n = 60). There was no significant difference in CR rates (69.5% vs. 63.3%; p = .47) or any secondary endpoint between the groups. Patients who received prochlorperazine were more likely to experience severe somnolence (p = .048).

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prochlorperazine as a prophylactic antiemetic at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Prophylactic prochlorperazine seems to be ineffective in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and may cause adverse events such as somnolence. Routine use of prophylactic prochlorperazine at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.

RESULTS

From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11-1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported "emetic episode/event" measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., "response," "control," "success") that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.

An Overview of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is common occurrence in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. When radiation is prescribed to certain sites, it can lead to retching, vomiting, and nausea that can lead to impairments on quality of life and even effect adherence to treatment regimes. The present study reports select literature examining RINV phenomena and reviews mechanisms of RINV as well as current management strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using search strategies such as "radiation-induced nausea vomiting," "RINV," and "radiation and antiemetics." The search was limited to articles published from January 2000 to April 2016 and those that involved humans and were published in English. Information regarding emetic risk of each treatment and management strategies used were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this select review. The current evidence regarding the standard antiemetics for RIINV are discussed, as well as upcoming therapies and future potential endeavors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients treated with emetogenic radiotherapy are at risk of experiencing RINV. RINV has the potential to impact patient quality of life and treatment delivery and optimal prophylactic strategies should be implemented, particularly in radiation naïve patients. More awareness on these topics is warranted, so that standard antiemetic regimens can be used in both the prophylactic and rescue settings.

Nausea and vomiting induced by gastrointestinal radiation therapy: current status and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are common and troublesome symptoms among patients receiving radiation therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. Their impact on function, quality of life and, ultimately, cancer control warrant a review of their incidence, underlying mechanisms, treatments and research themes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research in RINV is underrepresented relative to that in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The incidence of RINV among patients receiving modern day radiation therapy is questioned and supportive care practice patterns vary among radiation oncologists. Antiemetic guideline recommendations for prophylactic and rescue therapy are based solely on the anatomic region being irradiated and not other patient-related, radiation therapy-related, or organ-specific dosimetric factors that likely modulate the risk of RINV. Dosimetric predictors are likely the most attainable biomarker moving forward, but only early steps have been taken. The small bowel and stomach will be the best first candidates for study among patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Studies of the mechanisms underlying RINV are conspicuously lacking. A new generation of observational studies and therapeutic clinical trials is needed, and more attention must be given to the relative impact of nausea and vomiting on the function and quality of life among specific homogeneous patient populations.

SUMMARY

Optimal supportive care strategies for RINV following radiation therapy for gastrointestinal cancers are lacking, and will not be known until future research answers the many open questions regarding the mechanisms underlying RINV, the true incidence and impact of these symptoms among patients and the best way to predict and mitigate them.

Acute toxicity profile of craniospinal irradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in children with medulloblastoma: A prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

To report on the acute toxicity in children with medulloblastoma undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with daily intrafractionally modulated junctions.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients, aged 3-21, with standard-risk (SR) or high-risk (HR) medulloblastoma were eligible. A dose of 23.4 or 36.0 Gy in daily fractions of 1.8 Gy was prescribed to the craniospinal axis, followed by a boost to the primary tumor bed (54 or 55.8 Gy) and metastases (39.6-55.8 Gy), when indicated. Weekly, an intravenous bolus of vincristine was combined for patients with SR medulloblastoma and patients participating in the COG-ACNS-0332 study. Common toxicity criteria (CTC, version 2.0) focusing on skin, alopecia, voice changes, conjunctivitis, anorexia, dysphagia, gastro-intestinal symptoms, headache, fatigue and hematological changes were scored weekly during radiotherapy.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2014, data from 15 consecutive patients (SR, n = 7; HR, n = 8) were collected. Within 72 h from onset of treatment, vomiting (66 %) and headache (46 %) occurred. During week 3 of treatment, a peak incidence in constipation (33 %) and abdominal pain/cramping (40 %) was observed, but only in the subgroup of patients (n = 9) receiving vincristine (constipation: 56 vs 0 %, P = .04; pain/cramping: 67 vs 0 %, P = .03). At week 6, 73 % of the patients developed faint erythema of the cranial skin with dry desquamation (40 %) or moist desquamation confined to the skin folds of the auricle (33 %). No reaction of the skin overlying the spinal target volume was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache at onset and gastro-intestinal toxicity, especially in patients receiving weekly vincristine, were the major complaints of patients with medulloblastoma undergoing craniospinal irradiation with IMRT.

Prophylactic Management of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The incidence of nausea and vomiting after radiotherapy is often underestimated by physicians, though some 50–80% of patients may experience these symptoms. The occurrence of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) will depend on radiotherapy-related factors, such as the site of irradiation, the dosing, fractionation, irradiated volume, and radiotherapy techniques. Patients should receive antiemetic prophylaxis as suggested by the international antiemetic guidelines based upon a risk assessment, taking especially into account the affected anatomic region and the planned radiotherapy regimen. In this field the international guidelines from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines as well as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are widely endorsed. The emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists, steroids, and other antiemetics will be reviewed in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen.

Ondansetron rapidly dissolving film for the prophylactic treatment of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting-a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of an ondansetron rapidly dissolving film (rdf) in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (rinv). Rapidly dissolving film formulations facilitate drug delivery in circumstances in which swallowing the medication might be difficult for the patient.

METHODS

Patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy at risk for rinv were prescribed ondansetron rdf 8 mg twice daily while on treatment and were asked to complete a nausea and vomiting-specific daily diary, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (flie), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C15 Palliative (qlq-C15-pal). Patients were categorized as receiving primary or secondary prophylaxis based on whether they had already experienced emetic episodes. "Overall control" was defined as a maximum increase of 2 episodes of nausea or vomiting from baseline. "Acute phase" was defined as the days during radiation until the first day after radiation; "delayed phase" was defined as days 2-10 after radiation.

RESULTS

The study accrued 30 patients. Rates of overall control for nausea and for vomiting during the acute phase in the primary prophylaxis group were 88% and 93% respectively; during the delayed phase, they were 73% and 75%. Rates of overall control for nausea and for vomiting during the acute phase in the secondary prophylaxis group were both 100%; during the delayed phase, they were 50%. The number of nausea and vomiting episodes was found to be significantly correlated with the flie and qlq-C15-pal questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron rdf is effective for the prophylaxis of rinv.

Symptom clusters of gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life tool

OBJECTIVE

The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument is a validated nausea and vomiting specific quality of life (QOL) tool originally created as a 3-day test of the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on cancer patients' daily life. The primary objective of the present study was to retrospectively explore the use of the FLIE from data obtained in a previously published study of patients with gastrointestinal radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and compare the extracted symptom clusters on a weekly basis for the entirety of gastrointestinal cancer patients' radiotherapy treatments.

METHODS

QOL was assessed on a weekly basis using the 18-item FLIE questionnaire for patients' radiotherapy treatments. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed at each visit. The internal consistency and reliability of the derived clusters was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Robust relationship and correlation among symptoms was displayed with biplot graphics.

RESULTS

A total of 460 FLIE assessments were completed for the 86 gastrointestinal patients who underwent radiotherapy. Two components were consistently identified except for week 5 where only one component was identified. Component 1 contained the items "Q10-Q18" which included all vomiting items. Component 2 included all nausea items from "Q1 to Q9". All the variables were well accounted for by two components for most weeks of treatment with excellent internal consistency. Biplots indicate that the two symptom clusters were evident at each week, with the exception of the first week of treatment. Strong correlations were seen between the effect of nausea on patients' ability to make meals, patients' ability to do tasks within the home, and patients' willingness to spend time with family and friends.

CONCLUSION

The high internal consistency at all timepoints indicates that the FLIE QOL instrument is useful for the RINV population.

Aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for bone metastases: a prospective pilot study

PURPOSE

We evaluated the novel combination of aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (rinv) among patients receiving moderately-emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases.

METHODS

In this single-centre two-arm nonrandomized prospective pilot study, patients undergoing single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) received aprepitant 125 mg and granisetron 2 mg on the day of radiotherapy and aprepitant 80 mg on each of the first 2 days after the day of radiotherapy. Patients undergoing multiple-fraction radiotherapy (20 Gy in 5 fractions) received aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 of radiotherapy, aprepitant 80 mg on days 3 and 5 of radiotherapy, and granisetron 2 mg on every day of radiotherapy. Symptoms and total medication intake were recorded daily during the acute phase (day 1 of radiotherapy until the first day after the last day of radiotherapy), and the delayed phase (days 2-10 after the last day of radiotherapy). Control of vomiting, retching, and nausea was defined as no symptoms and no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Control rates for single-fraction patients (n = 13) were 100% for acute nausea, 62% for delayed nausea, 100% for acute vomiting and retching, and 85% for delayed vomiting and retching. Control rates for multiple-fraction patients (n = 6) were 67% for acute nausea, 83% for delayed nausea, 67% for acute vomiting and retching, and 83% for delayed vomiting and retching. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities attributable to the study intervention were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of aprepitant and granisetron was safe and efficacious for the prophylaxis of rinv after both single- and multiple-fraction moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases. Our results require confirmation in a larger population.

Developing a Service Model That Integrates Palliative Care Throughout Cancer Care: The Time Is Now

Palliative care is a fundamental component of cancer care. As part of the 2011 to 2012 Leadership Development Program (LDP) of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a group of participants was charged with advising ASCO on how to develop a service model integrating palliative care throughout the continuum of cancer care. This article presents the findings of the LDP group. The group focused on the process of palliative care delivery in the oncology setting. We identified key elements for models of palliative care in various settings to be potentially equitable, sustainable, feasible, and acceptable, and here we describe a dynamic model for the integrated, simultaneous implementation of palliative care into oncology practice. We also discuss critical considerations to better integrate palliative care into oncology, including raising consciousness and educating both providers and the public about the importance of palliative care; coordinating palliative care efforts through strengthening affiliations and/or developing new partnerships; prospectively evaluating the impact of palliative care on patient and provider satisfaction, quality improvement, and cost savings; and ensuring sustainability through adequate reimbursement and incentives, including linkage of performance data to quality indicators, and coordination with training efforts and maintenance of certification requirements for providers. In light of these findings, we believe the confluence of increasing importance of incorporation of palliative care education in oncology education, emphasis on value-based care, growing use of technology, and potential cost savings makes developing and incorporating palliative care into current service models a meaningful goal.

The Efficacy of Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone in Preventing Chemoradiotherapy-induced Nausea and Emesis in Patients Receiving Daily Low-dose Cisplatin-based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Uterine Cervical Cancer: A Phase II Study

OBJECTIVES

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis is recommended by several guidelines; however, there are no evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone during CCRT.

METHODS

This is a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study.Twenty-six consecutive patients with cervical carcinoma were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m/d)-based CCRT (2 Gy/d, 25 fractions, 5 times a week). All patients received 0.75 mg of palonosetron on day 1 of each week and 4 mg of oral dexamethasone daily. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a complete response, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no antiemetic rescue medication during treatment.

RESULTS

Planned daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT was successful without delay or interruption in 46% (12/26) of the patients. The mean dose of total cisplatin was 184 (range, 136 to 200) mg/m.No patient vomited during the treatment period. The complete response rate during CCRT was 100%. A total of 81% patients were completely free from nausea. All patients tolerated the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone and completed the scheduled regimen. Five patients exhibited grade 1 Cushingoid features that resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone provided complete protection from nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT.

Radiation induced nausea and vomiting

Radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a frequent complication of radiotherapy and still often underestimated by radiation oncologists. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8 weeks period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting affect quality of life. Approximately, 50-80 percent of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience these symptoms if no appropriate prophylaxis is applied. The incidence and severity are influenced by the specific RT regimen and by patient-specific factors. Patients should receive antiemetic prophylaxis as suggested by the international antiemetic guidelines based upon a risk assessment, taking especially into account the planned radiotherapy regimen. In this field the guideline from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Clinical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Medical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines are wildly endorsed. The emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and steroids will be discussed in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen.

Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO

In 2011, ASCO updated its guideline for the use of antiemetics in oncology, informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. This is an abbreviated version of that guideline, which is available in full at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics. Key changes from the prior update in 2006 include the following: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1 receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours following treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. Continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy is recommended. Clinicians often underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as vomiting. Detailed information about the development of the guideline as well as practice tools are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.

Prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the palliative treatment of bone metastases

PURPOSE

To document the incidence and timing of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) in the treatment of bone metastases among patients receiving prophylaxis with a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist.

METHODS

Patients receiving single (SF) or multiple fraction (MF) palliative radiotherapy (RT) of moderate or low emetogenic risk for bone metastases were prescribed prophylactic Ondansetron. The frequency and duration of prophylaxis and the use of rescue antiemetics were left to the discretion of the treating physicians. Patients documented episodes of nausea (N) and vomiting (V) in daily diaries before and during RT, and until 10 days following RT completion. Rates of complete prophylaxis (CP) for N&V, respectively (CP = no event and no rescue medication), were calculated for the acute phase (the period from the start of RT to the first day following RT completion inclusive) and the delayed phase (the second to tenth days following RT completion inclusive).

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled, and 32 were evaluable. CP rates were as follows: moderate-risk SF group (n = 16), acute phase (CP for N = 56%, CP for V = 69%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 31%, CP for V = 44%); moderate-risk MF group (n = 7), acute phase (CP for N = 71%, CP for V = 57%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 43%, CP for V = 57%); low-risk SF group (n = 8), acute phase (CP for N = 50%, CP for V = 100%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 43%, CP for V = 57%); and low-risk MF group (n = 1), acute phase (CP for N = 100%, CP for V = 100%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 100%, CP for V = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite prophylaxis, RINV was common among patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, especially during the delayed phase.

Radiation dose-volume effects in the stomach and small bowel

Published data suggest that the risk of moderately severe (>or=Grade 3) radiation-induced acute small-bowel toxicity can be predicted with a threshold model whereby for a given dose level, D, if the volume receiving that dose or greater (VD) exceeds a threshold quantity, the risk of toxicity escalates. Estimates of VD depend on the means of structure segmenting (e.g., V15 = 120 cc if individual bowel loops are outlined or V45 = 195 cc if entire peritoneal potential space of bowel is outlined). A similar predictive model of acute toxicity is not available for stomach. Late small-bowel/stomach toxicity is likely related to maximum dose and/or volume threshold parameters qualitatively similar to those related to acute toxicity risk. Concurrent chemotherapy has been associated with a higher risk of acute toxicity, and a history of abdominal surgery has been associated with a higher risk of late toxicity.

Nausea and vomiting with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue therapy: a review of antiemetic regimens

Stem cell transplantation, using high-dose chemotherapy with or without TBI, is usually associated with significant nausea and vomiting. A variety of antiemetic regimens have been studied to control nausea and vomiting associated with the preparative therapy phase of SCT. We review the most significant studies and highlight the limitations of many of these studies. In addition, we review the few studies with the use of aprepitant as an antiemetic in combination with a 5HT(3) antagonist and a steroid. The American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetic use for treatment regimens that are highly emetogenic is reviewed regarding recommendations for SCT preparative regimens. On the basis of this review of published data, we recommend the basic outline for an effective antiemetic investigational approach to the study and to the control of nausea and vomiting during the preparative phase of treatment for SCT.

How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients?

To make optimal use of data from randomized trials in clinical decision-making, clinicians require knowledge of the magnitude of treatment effects. Reports of trials including quality of life data often fail to report results that provide interpretable estimates of magnitude of effect. Strategies that investigators could use to remedy this problem include reporting mean differences between groups in relation to the minimal important difference and reporting the proportion of patients who benefit from treatment and the associated number needed to treat. Techniques are available that allow investigators to use the same strategies in reporting pooled estimates from meta-analyses, even when studies use different instruments to measure the same construct. These reporting approaches, as well as ensuring access to data from individual items, will also help those developing decision aids to use quality of life data.