Prevention of delayed nausea: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients receiving chemotherapy

Dexamethasone-Sparing Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Highly and Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: The SHEILD Study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impacts patient's quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the efficacy of Generic Netupitant and Palonosetron tablets (Nykron) with dexamethasone single dose for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Additionally, this approach aligns with the principles of the SHIELD study (Sparing High Efficacy Intervention for Low Dose Dexamethasone), which focuses on maximizing antiemetic effectiveness while minimizing dexamethasone use.

METHODOLOGY

This multicenter retrospective study evaluates data from patients who received HEC/MEC and were administered a fixed-dose combination of Generic NEPA (Netupitant 300 mg and Palonosetron 0.5 mg tablets, Nykron combi-pack) along with a single dose of dexamethasone (12 mg/8 mg) before chemotherapy. The data were collected from September 2022 till September 2023. Outcomes measured included complete response (no vomiting and no need for rescue medications), complete protection (no significant nausea (<2.5 cm on VAS), no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), and complete control (no emetic episodes, no rescue therapy, and no nausea [0 cm on VAS]) during the acute phase (0-24 hours) and delayed phase (24-120 hours) post-chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The data of 372 patients was evaluated in which breast cancer was the most common cancer with 223 (59.95%) patients for which doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (192, 51.61%) was the most administered chemotherapy combination. The second most common cancer was gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with stomach cancer in 47 (12.6%), colorectal cancer in 4 (1%), and pancreatic cancer in 2 (0.54%). A total of 360 (96.8%) patients received an HEC regimen across the cycle, while only 5 (1.3%) received an MEC regimen. The regimen demonstrated exceptional efficacy with a 96.9% overall response rate across all cycles. Complete control rates for acute CINV were 92% and 90% for delayed CINV across chemotherapy cycles. Complete response rates remained consistently high (94%-98%) across all cycles and overall phases. Only 3% of patients experienced anticipatory CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

This dexamethasone-sparing Generic NEPA regimen showed remarkable efficacy in CINV management for HEC/MEC regimen-receiving patients, maintaining high response rates in both acute and delayed across all cycles. These findings indicate a potential paradigm shift in CINV prophylaxis, necessitating further investigation through prospective, randomized controlled trials to validate long-term safety and efficacy.

Megestrol acetate dispersible tablets with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone vs. 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone, can better control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized controlled study

Background

A reasonable and effective control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) plays an important role in the comprehensive treatment of cancer. Megestrol belongs to the 17α-hydroxyprogesterone derivative and is a highly effective synthetic progesterone. Recorded in the instructions may improve appetite and cachexia in patients with advanced tumors. In recent years, clinical practice and small sample studies have shown that megestrol combined with chemotherapy can improve CINV. This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate combined with a 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients with CINV.

Methods

Patients with malignant tumors who were treated with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy in our hospital from September 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled. A total of 120 patients were selected and randomly assigned to receive either megestrol acetate dispersible tablets with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (megestrol group) or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone (control group). Megestrol acetate dispersible tablets: 160 mg orally every morning from the day of chemotherapy until it lasts for ten days. Abstract IV of the quality-of-life scale for cancer patients in China was used to assess the quality of life (QOL) of the participants. All adverse reactions during chemotherapy were assessed according to the CTCAE 4.03 evaluation standard issued by the National Cancer Institute and divided into five grades according to severity.

Results

For the control of nausea, the rates of complete prevention were significantly higher in the megestrol group than in the control patients during the delayed [53.3% (31/60) vs. 30.0% (18/60), P=0.012] and overall [40.0% (24/60) vs. 15.0% (9/60), P=0.002] observation periods. Moreover, the megestrol combination treatment group also achieved markedly higher rates of complete remission of vomiting than the control group during the delayed observation period [76.7% (46/60) vs. 51.7% (31/60), P=0.001], achieving an overall higher proportion of remission during the study period [68.3% (41/60) vs. 46.6% (28/60), P=0.0016].

Conclusions

The triple antiemetic protocol using megestrol acetate with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone can improve CINV symptoms caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with cisplatin, with an excellent control effect and few adverse reactions, especially for delayed CINV.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017953.

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia in Oncologic Outpatients: A Narrative Review Using the Quadruple Aim Framework

Glucocorticoids are a central part of cancer treatment protocols. Their use in patients receiving chemotherapy increases patient risk of hyperglycemia and associated adverse outcomes. Despite this, there have been few published protocols that guide the management of this patient group. In this narrative review, we use the quadruple aim as a framework to evaluate the current literature, including interventions, on glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in patients receiving oncologic treatment, with a focus on the outpatient setting. Findings were drawn from published review articles, observational studies, qualitative reports and costing data. Results were synthesized using the framework's 4 dimensions of care: population health, provider experience, patient experience and cost. Prospective studies proposing an intervention on oncologic patients receiving glucocorticoids were identified as intervention studies. Management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in oncologic patients is a complex problem with no published interventions addressing all components of the quadruple aim. Most evidence on this population is based on retrospective studies. Six prospective intervention studies were identified and highlighted in this review, and only 2 were exclusively in the outpatient context. Challenges included lack of standardization in screening strategies and a paucity of interventions that have examined impact on patient and provider experience. There is limited evaluation of the impact of interventions targeting glycemic management on clinical outcomes and cost of care delivery, especially in the outpatient context. We propose a conceptual framework for evaluation of quality improvement programs. Management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in the outpatient setting is complex and requires well-designed intervention studies evaluated across the quadruple aim.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

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.

Psychological predictors of chemotherapy-induced nausea in women with breast cancer: Expectancies and perceived susceptibility

Objective

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea is challenging to predict and treat. Research indicates that pretreatment psychological variables including patients' perceptions of their susceptibility to nausea, expectancies of treatment‐related nausea and nausea history (i.e., motion sickness, morning sickness and baseline levels of nausea) may aid in predicting nausea severity during chemotherapy. However, this research is dated and limited in quantity. We investigated whether psychological variables could improve prediction of nausea severity to inform interventions targeting chemotherapy‐induced nausea.

Methods

In this secondary analysis, a subgroup of women receiving chemotherapy (for the first time) for breast cancer completed pretreatment measures: perceived nausea susceptibility, nausea expectancies, nausea history and baseline nausea. They rated subsequent nausea severity across 4‐days, during treatment and posttreatment in a self‐report diary. Structural Equation Modelling was used to explore associations.

Results

Across the women (N = 481), perceived nausea susceptibility predicted subsequent nausea severity (β = 0.16), but nausea expectancies did not (β = 0.05). Nausea history variables demonstrated small‐moderate associations with perceived susceptibility (β = 0.21–0.32) and negligible‐small associations with nausea expectancies (β = 0.07–0.14).

Conclusion

Perceived nausea susceptibility appears to capture patients' nausea history, to a degree, and is related to nausea severity during treatment. This is an important variable to include in pretreatment prediction of patients at risk of severe nausea.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.

RESULTS

In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

Identification of optimal contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis for doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in Chinese cancer patients: post-hoc analysis of 3 prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), corticosteroid, and dopamine antagonists. This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received (neo)adjuvant AC, in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients were included: Group 1, ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 2, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 3, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3); Group 4, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3)/olanzapine; and Group 5, netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone (D1-3). Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3, 4, and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1. In addition, emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5, and those of Groups 2 and 3, were compared.

RESULTS

When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet (5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with triplet antiemetic regimens (NK1RA/5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with/without olanzapine, complete response (CR) percentages and quality of life (QOL) in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups: Group 1 vs. 3, 41.9% vs. 38.3% (P = 0.6849); Group 1 vs. 4, 41.9% vs. 65.0% (P = 0.0107); and Group 1 vs. 5, 41.9% vs. 60.0% (P = 0.0460). Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing netupitant-based (Group 3) with aprepitant-based (Group 5) triplet antiemetics, CR percentages were 38.3% vs. 60.0%, respectively (P = 0.0176); Group 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing 1 day (Group 2) vs. 3 day (Group 3) dexamethasone, CR percentages were 46.8% and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.3459); Group 3 had a worse QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics. Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets. Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

Efficacy of acupuncture in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer: a multi-center, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical research

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing side effect. We conducted this clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of true acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

A total of 134 participants were randomly allocated into true acupuncture (TA) (n = 68) and sham acupuncture (SA) (n = 66) groups. Participants in both groups received acupuncture session twice on the first day of chemotherapy, and once consecutively on the following 4 days. The primary outcome was using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to assess CINV. The secondary outcome measures were the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (ECOG), Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS).

Results

Compared to the SA group, the TA group didn’t show significant improvement in complete response rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (all P > 0.05). However, the TA group could modestly reduce the severity of nausea (from day-3 to day-21, P < 0.05) or vomiting (from day-4 to day-21, P < 0.05), which is notably superior to the control group. Besides, TA promoted the nutritional status of patients with a significantly higher score comparing to the SA group on day 14 (21.82 vs.20.12, P = 0.003) and day 21 (22.39 vs. 20.43, P = 0.001). No apparent differences were found in anxiety and depression assessment between these groups. Participants in both groups were well tolerant of acupuncture therapy. There was no adverse event occurs in our study.

Conclusion

Acupuncture as an adjunctive approach could alleviate the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared to the sham control, even though the effect of acupuncture in preventing CINV occurring is relatively modest.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

BACKGROUND

Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.

RESULTS

Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of - 4% (range, - 1% to - 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Olanzapine 5 mg plus standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (J-FORCE): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Guidelines suggest that a dose reduction to 5 mg should be considered to prevent sedation. In several phase 2 studies, olanzapine 5 mg has shown equivalent activity to olanzapine 10 mg and a favourable safety profile in relation to somnolence. We evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg with triplet-combination antiemetic therapy done in 26 hospitals in Japan. Key inclusion criteria were patients with a malignant tumour (excluding those with a haemopoietic malignancy) who were scheduled to be treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) for the first time, age between 20 and 75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily on days 1-4 combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (dosage based on the standard antiemetic therapy against highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Patients were randomly assigned to interventions by use of a web entry system and the minimisation method with a random component, with sex, dose of cisplatin, and age as factors of allocation adjustment. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and individuals handling data were all masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the delayed phase (24-120 h). All randomly assigned patients who satisfied eligibility criteria received a dose of cisplatin 50 mg/m² or more, and at least one study treatment, were included in efficacy analysis. All patients who received any treatment in this study were assessed for safety. This study is registered at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000024676.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 9, 2017, and July 13, 2018, 710 patients were enrolled; 356 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 354 were assigned to receive placebo. All eligible patients were observed 120 h after cisplatin initiation. One patient in the olanzapine group and three in the placebo group did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses. One patient in the olanzapine group discontinued treatment on day 1 and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response was 280 (79% [95% CI 75-83] of 354 patients in the olanzapine group and 231 (66% [61-71] of 351 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). One patient had grade 3 constipation and one patient had grade 3 somnolence related to treatment in the olanzapine group.

INTERPRETATION

Olanzapine 5 mg combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone could be a new standard antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

FUNDING

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Positive effects of acupressure bands combined with relaxation music/instructions on patients most at risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea

PURPOSE

Research by our group has shown that acupressure bands are efficacious in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) for breast cancer patients who expect nausea, and that their effectiveness in controlling CIN can largely be accounted for by patients' expectations of efficacy, i.e., a placebo effect. The present research examined if the effectiveness of acupressure bands could be enhanced by boosting patients' expectation of the bands' efficacy.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who expected nausea were randomized. Arms 1 and 2 received acupressure bands, plus a relaxation MP3 and written handout that were either expectancy-enhancing (arm 1) or expectancy-neutral (arm 2). Arm 3 was the control without bands or MP3 and received standard care. All participants received guideline-specified antiemetics.

RESULTS

Peak CIN for arms 1, 2, and 3 on a 1-7 scale was 3.52, 3.55, and 3.87, respectively (p = 0.46). Because no differences were observed between arms 1 and 2 (primary analysis), we combined these two arms (intervention) and compared them to controls for the following analyses. A significant interaction was found between intervention/control and receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (yes/no) and pre-treatment anxiety (high/low). Intervention patients receiving doxorubicin had lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.38; p = 0.02). Similarly, intervention patients with high pre-treatment anxiety had a lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.62; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and having high CIN expectation, acupressure bands combined with a relaxation recording were effective in reducing CIN for patients who received doxorubicin or had high anxiety.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK₁RAs when combined with 5-HT₃RA–dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron–dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin– or anthracycline–cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone–metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant–dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK₁RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant–granisetron–dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK₁RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

Nausea and disturbed sleep as predictors of cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer patients: a multicenter NCORP study

PURPOSE

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a prevalent and distressing side effect of cancer and its treatment that remains inadequately understood and poorly managed. A better understanding of the factors contributing to CRF could result in more effective strategies for the prevention and treatment of CRF. The objectives of this study were to examine the prevalence, severity, and potential predictors for the early onset of CRF after chemotherapy cycle 1 in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We report on a secondary data analysis of 548 female breast cancer patients from a phase III multi-center randomized controlled trial examining antiemetic efficacy. CRF was assessed by the Brief Fatigue Inventory at pre- and post-chemotherapy cycle 1 as well as by the four-day diary.

RESULTS

The prevalence of clinically relevant post-CRF was 75%. Linear regression showed that pre-treatment CRF, greater nausea, disturbed sleep, and younger age were significant risk factors for post-CRF (adjusted R² = 0.39; P < 0.0001). Path modeling showed that nausea severity influenced post-CRF both directly and indirectly by influencing disturbed sleep. Similarly, pre-treatment CRF influenced post-CRF directly as well as indirectly through both nausea severity and disturbed sleep. Pearson correlations showed that changes in CRF over time were significantly correlated with concurrent changes in nausea severity (r = 0.41; P < 0.0001) and in disturbed sleep (r = 0.20; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a high prevalence (75%) of clinically relevant CRF in breast cancer patients following their initial chemotherapy, and that nausea severity, disturbed sleep, pre-treatment CRF, and age were significant predictors of symptom.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

State of the Art Antiemetic Therapy for Cancer Patients

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin- or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens

Purpose

In a comparative phase 3 study involving 1114 Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), palonosetron (PALO) was found to be superior to granisetron (GRA) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of PALO for the control of nausea.

Methods

The proportion of patients without nausea was assessed at 24-h intervals during the acute phase (0–24 h), delayed phase (24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h). No nausea rates were also evaluated by sex, type of chemotherapy (cisplatin or doxorubicin/epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide [AC/EC]), and age (<55 vs. ≥55 years). Nausea severity was categorized using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = no nausea to 3 = severe nausea).

Results

The proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm than in the GRA arm in the delayed phase (37.8 % vs. 27.2 %; p = 0.002) and overall (31.9 % vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.0117). When analyzed by stratification factors, the proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm in the delayed phase and overall in patients who were female, younger, or treated with cisplatin and in the delayed phase in patients who were older or treated with doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PALO was more effective than GRA in prophylaxis of HEC-induced nausea in the delayed phase and overall. In addition, PALO was more effective than GRA in young and female patients, who are at high risk of CINV, both in the delayed phase and overall.

Low Enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults Onto Cancer Trials: Insights From the Community Clinical Oncology Program

PURPOSE

Stagnant outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15 to 39 years old) with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) was developed to improve clinical trial participation in the community setting, where AYAs are most often treated. Further, many CCOP sites had pediatric and medical oncologists with collaborative potential for AYA recruitment and care. For these reasons, we hypothesized that CCOP sites enrolled proportionately more AYAs than non-CCOP sites onto Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials.

METHODS

For the 10-year period 2004 through 2013, the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention database was queried to evaluate enrollments into relevant COG studies. The proportional enrollment of AYAs at CCOP and non-CCOP sites was compared and the change in AYA enrollment patterns assessed. All sites were COG member institutions.

RESULTS

Although CCOP sites enrolled a higher proportion of patients in cancer control studies than non-CCOP sites (3.5% v 1.8%; P < .001), they enrolled a lower proportion of AYAs (24.1% v 28.2%, respectively; P < .001). Proportional AYA enrollment at CCOP sites decreased during the intervals 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013 (26.7% v 21.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite oncology practice settings that might be expected to achieve otherwise, CCOP sites did not enroll a larger proportion of AYAs in clinical trials than traditional COG institutions. Our findings suggest that the CCOP (now the NCI Community Oncology Research Program) can be leveraged for developing targeted interventions for overcoming AYA enrollment barriers.

Comparison of the Control of Nausea and Vomiting among Several Moderately Emetic-Risk Chemotherapy Regimens

BACKGROUND

Different antiemetic medications with or without aprepitant are recommended for moderately emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) depending on the emetic potential of chemotherapy agents, although the criterion for the use of aprepitant is still unclear. The present study was designed to compare the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among several MEC regimens used in the outpatient chemotherapy setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single center prospective observational study was carried out in 326 patients who received 2,061 chemotherapy cycles from January 2013 to December 2014. Antiemetic medication consisting of two-drug combination of granisetron (day 1) and dexamethasone (days 1-3) was carried out in 87.6% of patients receiving the first chemotherapy cycle. The checklist for CINV was provided to all patients, and the control of CINV was evaluated on the next visit based on the checklist. Complete inhibition of nausea and vomiting during acute and delayed periods were compared among MEC regimens.

RESULTS

Two hundred and one patients received the first cycle of chemotherapy, in which the rates of complete inhibition of nausea and vomiting were 87.6% and 95.5%, respectively, during acute period, and 68.2% and 92.0%, respectively, during delayed period. There were no significant differences in the control of CINV among oxaliplatin, carboplatin and irinotecan, except for the cyclophosphamide-base regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-drug antiemetic medication of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was sufficiently effective for prevention of CINV in most MEC regimens.

Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common challenge in oncology practice for which there are expensive guideline-based treatment options. Although supportive care in cancer adds significantly to the overall cost, the discussion of unaffordability of anticancer treatment frequently only revolves around the targeted drugs and immunotherapies. In this review, we highlight the available cost-saving strategies and recent updates in preventing CINV in patients with cancer. This is the first work, to our knowledge, to review specifically the less expensive alternatives in CINV prevention, which is particularly important for those working in resource-limited settings. Whereas patients in these settings often cannot afford expensive antiemetics, we now have the science to offer cheaper, more affordable options without necessarily compromising efficacy.

Choice of study endpoint significantly impacts the results of breast cancer trials evaluating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Multiple endpoints can be used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These endpoints reflect the various combinations of vomiting, nausea and rescue antiemetic use in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) periods after chemotherapy. As the choice of outcome measure could potentially change the interpretation of clinical trial results, we evaluated CINV rates using different endpoints on a single dataset from a prospective cohort. Data from 177 breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy was used to calculate CINV control rates using the 15 most commonly reported CINV endpoints. As nausea remains such a significant symptom, we explored the frequency at which pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical company-funded studies included measures of nausea in their primary study endpoint. CINV control rates ranged from 12.5 %, 95 % (CI 7.6-17.4 %) for total control (no vomiting, no nausea and no rescue medication) in the overall period to 77.4 %, 95 % (CI 71.2-83.6 %) for no vomiting in the overall period. Similar differences were found in the acute and delayed periods. Non-pharmaceutical company-funded trials were more likely to include a measure of nausea in the primary study outcome (9/18, 50 %) than pharmaceutical-funded trials (1/12, 8.3 %). The choice of trial endpoint has an important impact on reported CINV control rates and could significantly impact on interpretation of the results. Primary endpoints of studies, including those mandated by regulatory bodies, should account for nausea to reflect patient experience. Reporting of endpoints should be more comprehensive to allow for cross-trial comparisons.

Novel management of postoperative pain using only oral analgesics after LADG

PURPOSE

Managing postoperative pain is important to ensure a good quality of life and fast recovery after surgery. We examined the feasibility of peroral management for the postoperative pain after laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG).

METHODS

Between June 2012 and September 2013, we enrolled 34 patients prospectively to receive peroral tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets, celecoxib and prochlorperazine maleate after LADG through postoperative day 3 (ORAL group). The postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale. Postoperative outcomes related to the analgesic methods were compared with those of patients who used epidural anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011 (EPI group).

RESULTS

The ORAL group pain scale scores on postoperative days 1-3 were 3.96, 3.06 and 2.40, respectively. The frequency of additional analgesic use in the ORAL group was significantly lower than in the EPI group (P = 0.006). The rate of urethral catheter reinsertion was 20.6 % in the EPI group (P = 0.054). A multivariate analysis revealed that only epidural anesthesia was a significant risk factor for the need for additional medication four times or more for breakthrough pain (P = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain management using oral analgesics after LADG is feasible and safe, and is an ideal pain treatment associated with few adverse events while providing pain relief not inferior to epidural anesthesia.

A phase II, randomized study of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in colorectal cancer patients

The present study aimed to study the efficacy of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for colorectal cancer (CRC), and comprised a multicenter, phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel comparative study conducted as part of the Kagoshima aprepitant study for colon cancer in Japan. Patients with advanced or recurrent CRC were treated with standard MEC regimens (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) and received either standard chemotherapy [5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) + dexamethasone] or aprepitant regimen chemotherapy (5-HT₃ RA + reduced-dose dexamethasone + aprepitant). The primary endpoint of the present study was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) during the overall, acute, and delayed phases of the first planned chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints were complete protection, the proportions of patients without emetic episodes or nausea, patients with no more than moderate nausea during the overall, acute and delayed phases, and the time to treatment failure. The CR rates in the overall, acute and delayed phases were similar in the aprepitant and the standard-regimen groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in secondary endpoints between the two groups. In summary, aprepitant in combination with 5-HT₃ RA and reduced-dose corticosteroids was well tolerated and effective in preventing CINV associated with moderately emetogenic antitumor agents in Japanese patients with CRC.

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea in patients receiving outpatient cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea is still incomplete, regardless of adherence to the antiemetic guideline. The present study was designed to assess the control rates of nausea and vomiting in the outpatient chemotherapy clinic and to determine risk factors for nausea.

METHODS

A single-center prospective observational study was carried out in 779 patients who received 5511 chemotherapy cycles from January 2013 to December 2014 in the outpatient chemotherapy clinic. A checklist for adverse events was provided to all patients, and nausea and vomiting were monitored on the next visit. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting during acute (within 24 h) and delayed (during 2-7 days) periods was assessed.

RESULTS

Under the condition of 76-99 % rates of adherence to the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemesis, the rates of complete protection from acute and delayed nausea in the first cycle of chemotherapy were 60 % and 45 %, respectively, for high emetic risk chemotherapy (HEC), and 85 % and 70 % for moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC). The rates were improved in the overall cycles. On the other hand, vomiting was well controlled, in which complete protection ranged from 83 % (HEC) to 99 % (minimum). A multivariate analysis indicated that being female, age less than 60 years, high or moderate risk chemotherapy, and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (A/C) were significant risks for overall nausea. Indeed, the control of delayed nausea was extremely poor in the first cycle of A/C, although there was no difference in the control of nausea among MEC.

CONCLUSION

Antiemetic medication in consideration of the risk factors is required to improve the control of nausea.

Defining optimal control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-based on patients' experience

PURPOSE

A considerable challenge when comparing antiemetic trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the large number of outcome measures for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal definition of CINV control from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

Patients with early-stage breast cancer who had received anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were surveyed. They were asked about their experiences of CINV and perceptions of different CINV assessment tools.

RESULTS

Of 201 patients approached, 168 (83 %) completed the survey. Patients consistently ranked nausea over vomiting as the "worst side effect from chemotherapy." Despite the use of multi-agent antiemetic regimens, 71 % of patients experienced nausea and 26 % vomiting. Only 57 % of patients with any nausea or vomiting took rescue medications and only then when the symptom was severe. Most (76 %) patients believed that the primary end point of antiemetic trials should include the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients felt that CINV should be evaluated for the overall period post chemotherapy (i.e., days 1-5) and not simply the acute (the first 24 h) or delayed (days 2-5) periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients strongly favored a CINV end point that includes the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients' experience with CINV is underestimated when nausea is not included in composite end points. "Use of rescue medication," a commonly used surrogate for emesis control, is inappropriate as it underestimates nausea. A standardized primary end point that includes nausea is essential if CINV control is to be improved.

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.

Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been revolutionized over the past 25 years. Guideline-based treatment means that vomiting can be prevented in the majority, but not in all patients. Therefore, antiemetic research continues with the goal of optimizing CINV control for all patients. This comprehensive review summarizes the research efforts in this field over the past few years. Emerging from this research are two new antiemetic agents, netupitant/palonosetron, the first antiemetic combination agent and rolapitant, a new NK1RA. In addition, studies have evaluated the benefits of olanzapine and ginger, explored optimal combinations of agents for delayed CINV prevention, confirmed that dexamethasone-sparing regimens are effective, and demonstrated the value of NK1RAs in high-dose chemotherapy settings as well as with certain moderately emetogenic chemotherapies such as carboplatin. Research has also validated the correlation between antiemetic guideline adherence and improved CINV control. Finally, regulatory authorities have utilized extreme caution in retiring some 5-HT3RAs or decreasing their maximum dose.

Safe and effective dosing of basal-bolus insulin in patients receiving high-dose steroids for hyper-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia occurs in cancer patients receiving high-dose steroids with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone (hyper-CVAD) protocol. The purpose of our study was to determine insulin requirements in patients with hyperglycemia on hyper-CVAD therapy using a systematic algorithm.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We did a retrospective chart review of 23 leukemia inpatients with hyperglycemia (two glucose values >250 mg/dL) on hyper-CVAD chemotherapy managed by the Endocrine Diabetes Inpatient Team algorithm. We reviewed demographic and glycemic data, insulin dosages, and use of oral hypoglycemic agents. Using our algorithm, the dose of insulin for each patient was titrated daily and with each subsequent cycle of hyper-CVAD.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of patients had known diabetes. The median body mass index was 32.5 (range, 21.6-40.9) kg/m², and median age was 61 (range, 40-80) years. The overall trend in glucose values across cycles showed a statistically significant decrease with each subsequent cycle of hyper-CVAD. Hyperglycemia accounted for 81% of glucose measurements in the first cycle and 60% of glucose values in the last cycle. Patients received 1-1.3 units/kg of insulin per cycle, and insulin requirements were similar across cycles. The distribution of basal versus bolus insulin for each cycle was 63-77% prandial and 23-37% basal. Nine of the 23 patients had at least one glucose value <70 mg/dL, which accounted for 1.3% of all recorded glucose values. None of the patients had severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple-dose insulin therapy initiated at 1-1.2 units/kg/day, distributed as 25% basal and 75% prandial, reduced hyperglycemia in patients who were receiving high-dose dexamethasone as part of hyper-CVAD.

A Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Ramosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Preventing Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Chemotherapy-Naïve Cancer Patients

Purpose

Combination therapy with aprepitant, serotonin receptor antagonist, and steroids improves the complete response rate of both acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, it is not known whether ramosetron is suitable for administration in combination with aprepitant. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter, open-label, prospective, phase II study in order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) for prevention of cisplatin-based CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid cancers.

Materials and Methods

Forty-one patients with various solid cancers (31 male and 10 female; median age, 59 years) who received treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (median cisplatin dose, 70 mg/m²; range 50 to 75 mg/m²) were enrolled in this study. Oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2 and 3), intravenous ramosetron (0.6 mg on day 1), and oral dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2-4) were administered for prevention of CINV.

Results

The complete response (no emesisand retching and no rescue medication) rate was 94.9% in the acute period (24 hours post-chemotherapy), 92.3% in the delayed period (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy), and 92.3% in the overall period (0-120 hours). The absolute complete response (complete response plus no nausea) rate was 74.4% in the acute period, 51.3% in the delayed period, and 46.2% in the overall period. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities related to these antiemetic combinations.

Conclusion

RAD regimen is a safe and effective antiemetic treatment for prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Antiemetic guideline consistency and incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in US community oncology practice: INSPIRE Study

PURPOSE

Consensus guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are variably implemented in practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of guideline-consistent/guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP/GICP) on the incidence of no CINV after cycle 1 of highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled chemotherapy-naive adult outpatients who received single-day HEC or MEC at four oncology practice networks, all using electronic health record (EHR) systems, in Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Results from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a validated tool to measure CINV, administered 5 to 8 days postchemotherapy, were merged with EHR data. The primary end point, no CINV, defined as no emesis and no clinically significant nausea (score < 3 on 0-10 scale), was compared between cohorts using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1,295 patients were enrolled (mean age, 59.3 years; 70.0% female; 35.5% HEC). The overall prevalence of GCCP was 57.3%. When corticosteroids were prescribed on days 2 to 4 after all HEC, GCCP for HEC increased from 28.7% to 89.8%; when NK1-receptor antagonists were prescribed after all MEC, GCCP for MEC increased from 73.1% to 97.8%. Over 5 days postchemotherapy, the incidence of no CINV was significantly higher in the GCCP cohort than the GICP cohort (53.4% v 43.8%; P < .001). The adjusted odds of no CINV with GCCP was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.69; P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Increased adherence to antiemetic guidelines could significantly reduce the incidence of CINV after HEC and MEC.

Antiemetic prescribing practices using a computerized physician order entry system

PURPOSE

Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, managed clinician orders for the prevention of CINV.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of scheduled institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-4) CINV. A descriptive analysis was performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was completed to determine the predictors of noncompliance.

RESULTS

The incidence of compliance on days 1-4 was 94 %. Half of the noncompliant events (three of six, 50 %) occurred on day 1 alone and involved patients receiving low-emetogenic chemotherapy. There was a high degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for the treatment of delayed CINV (97 %). Patients receiving minimally emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 70) were observed to be 100 % compliant. Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guidelines, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR, 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p value, 0.05). The nurse survey suggested significant variability amongst the involved institutions with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician-prescribing practices, according to institutional guidelines, for acute and delayed CINV.

Current pharmacotherapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most frequent and troubling side effects patients experience during chemotherapy, interfering with compliance with cancer therapies and quality of life. While newly available treatments have improved our ability to manage nausea and vomiting, anticipatory and delayed nausea and vomiting are still major problems for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many cancer patients consider delaying future chemotherapy cycles and some contemplate stopping chemotherapy altogether because of their fear of experiencing further nausea and vomiting.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the pathopsychophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the recommended guidelines for treatment, and current agents in late-stage clinical trials, and future research needs to address the continued challenges of treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite advances in pharmaceutical and behavioral therapies, and the provision of standard clinical guidelines for effectively managing CINV, patients continue to experience it. Moreover, control of nausea, acute and delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting remains an important, unmet need among cancer patients. It is critical to focus attention on better understanding the mechanisms underlying nausea, anticipatory symptoms and delayed symptoms.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains both a feared side effect of cancer treatment and a focus of many supportive care initiatives/guidelines. The class of medications known as serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are integral in the prevention of CINV from both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron (ALOXI(®)), a second-generation 5-HT3RA, has a higher affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor, has a longer half-life and has unique interactions with the 5-HT3 receptor compared with the current first-generation 5-HT3RA such as ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron and tropisetron. This may allow palonosetron an advantage in control of CINV. This review article examines the available evidence, the pharmacokinetics and the safety and tolerability of palonosetron in the prevention of CINV.

A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of aprepitant in nondrinking women younger than 70 years receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the efficacy of aprepitant plus granisetron and an increased dose of dexamethasone in selected patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Nondrinking women <70 years undergoing MEC were randomly assigned to aprepitant (day 1, 125 mg; days 2 and 3, 80 mg) or placebo. Dexamethasone on days 1-3 was 12, 4, and 4 mg with aprepitant and 20, 8, and 8 mg with placebo. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis or rescue therapy) during 120 h of the first cycle. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of overall CR.

RESULTS

Of the 94 patients enrolled, 91 were assessable. Most received carboplatin-based chemotherapy. In the aprepitant (n=45) and placebo (n=46) groups, the overall, acute (day 1), and delayed (days 2-5) CR rates were 62% and 52%, 98% and 96%, and 62% and 52%, respectively. Although not statistically significant, the overall CR rate was 10% higher in the aprepitant group. Both regimens were well tolerated. On multivariate analysis, advanced ovarian cancer (OR, 0.26 (0.10-0.72)) was independently associated with a lower CR.

CONCLUSION

Even with an increased dose of dexamethasone, aprepitant seemed more effective than placebo in these selected patients undergoing MEC; however, delayed phase management remains a significant problem.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.