2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Risk-adjusted chemoradiation according to human papilloma viral status for anal cancer: a pilot study.

Background and purpose: HPV-associated or positive (HPV+) anal cancer patients may have better outcome compared to those with HPV negative (HPV-) disease. We report a planned interim analysis of a prospective registry study that tailors chemoradiation (CRT) for anal cancer according to HPV status. Materials and methods: HPV+ patients received de-escalated radiation doses of 45, 50.4 and 55.8 Gy, while HPV- received 50.4, 55.8 and 63 Gy for T1, T2 and T3/T4 disease respectively. Chemotherapy consisted of a single dose of mitomycin-C and oral capecitabine on days of RT. All patients were planned by VMAT following CT, PET/CT and MR simulation. This cohort (n = 24) had a minimum 24-month follow-up. Disease free survival (DFS) and local failure rates (LFR) were compared with 180 patients managed by standard CRT (2 cycles of mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil, radiation doses 50.4-63 Gy based on T-category) from 2011-2018. Propensity score comparison was performed using a retrospective to prospective 2 to 1 match based on tumor size and N-category. Results: In the HPV+ cohort (n = 20), there were 2 local failures. Two of 4 HPV- patients failed locally. The 30-month DFS and LFR were 79% and 17% respectively. Similar DFS and LFR were observed in the retrospective (80% and 15% respectively) and matched patients (76% and 16% respectively). No grade ≥3 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were observed in the registry cohort whereas 19% and 14% respectively were seen in the retrospective patients. Conclusion: De-escalation of CRT for HPV+ anal cancer may result in decreased acute toxicities and similar cancer outcomes compared to standard CRT.

The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (Grastofil®) to the Reference Biologic (Neupogen®) in Breast Cancer and Lymphoma: A Canadian Single-Centre Retrospective Study.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy that may result in poor treatment outcomes. The short acting granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) act to stimulate granulocytes to increase production of white blood cells. The filgrastim biosimilar is useful, as it may provide a cheaper and equally effective treatment to FN. This study explored the usage of the filgrastim biosimilar (Grastofil®) and the reference biologic (Neupogen®) in breast cancer and lymphoma patients. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving Grastofil® from January 2017 to June 2019 or Neupogen® for primary prophylaxis of FN from January 2013 to December 2017 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN and the occurrence of dose reduction (DR) and dose delay (DD). One hundred and fifty-three Grastofil® patients were matched to 153 Neupogen® patients. This cohort was further split into breast cancer (n = 275) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 31) cohorts. After adjusting for chemotherapy cycles, the biosimilar filgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Retrospective analysis of VES-13 questionnaires in the Senior Women's Breast Cancer Clinic at Sunnybrook Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Vulnerable Elder Survey (VES-13) is a screening tool used in assessing older vulnerable patients at risk of functional decline. We sought to evaluate how VES-13 tool would impact oncologist referral pattern to geriatricians as our primary outcome. We also sought to better understand how VES-13 scores impacted referral to additional services (allied healthcare), and modification to oncological treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review of VES-13 questionnaires completed by older women (age 70 or older) with breast cancer referred to the Senior Women's Breast Cancer Clinic (SWBCC) was undertaken. Patients with a VES-13 score of three or greater, who were at significantly higher risk of functional decline, had further retrospective chart review for risk factors that would contribute to functional decline such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, social supports, and current living situation. The primary and secondary endpoints described above were analyzed through bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistical regression to determine if there was any statistical significance (p < 0.05). RESULTS: 701 patients completed VES-13 form, of which 235 (33.5%) had a VES-13 score of three or greater. Less than 5% of oncologists documented VES-13 scores in their notes, with less than 5% of patients being referred for geriatric services. Neither VES-13 (p= 0.900) nor ECOG (p= 0.424) were associated with referral for geriatrics assessment. Referral to allied healthcare services was significantly associated with (ECOG) score (OR 2.24 [1.49-3.37], p < 0.0001), while not significantly associated with VES-13 score (OR 0.89 [0.78-1.02], p= 0.102). VES-13 (OR 1.23 [1.04-1.45], p=0.014) and ECOG (OR 2.37 [1.29-4.37), p=0.005) were both associated with modification in oncology treatment (chemotherapy or radiation). CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of our population was at risk of functional decline. VES-13 scores were infrequently mentioned in oncologists notes from their clinical assessments, with very few patients being referred for geriatric assessment. By not collecting and analyzing VES-13 scores, and relying on performance status alone, there is a missed opportunity in assessing for functional decline and reducing potential complications from treatment for our patients.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®).

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD) = 3.4%; 95% CI: -2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -3.6, 95% CI: -10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -0.3; 95% CI: -2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle. CONCLUSION: The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Development of a process map for the delivery of virtual clinical pharmacy services at Odette Cancer Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virtual methods have been innovatively utilized to provide clinical and supportive care to patients with cancer. Oncology pharmacists have been actively involved in this movement, in order to minimize patient contact and decrease the risk of viral transmission for this high-risk group. In response to COVID-19 restrictions, the Odette Cancer Centre pharmacy modified the delivery of clinical pharmacy services (CPS), including medication histories and patient education/counseling, to a remote telephone-based model. Process maps were created to visualize workflow before and after the pandemic. Process metrics were tracked over a 6-week period. From March 25th to May 1st, 2020, 202 best-possible medication histories and baseline assessments were completed; 149 of these (74%) were completed remotely. For medication therapy counsels, 72 of 199 were completed remotely (36%). Despite workflow disruptions caused by the pandemic, these results demonstrate that clinical pharmacy service levels could be maintained by incorporating remote delivery approaches without significant investment in resources. Challenges included acceptance by patients and lack of technology to support system-level processes. Further research to develop, refine, and individualize virtual clinical pharmacy care models will help to consolidate the role of these approaches in the post-COVID-19 era.

Pain descriptors of taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in breast cancer patients-a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is a clinically significant side-effect of taxane chemotherapy, often described as arthralgia and myalgia that occurs 2-3 days after infusion. The aim of this study was to assess pain descriptors used by patients during their experience of TAPS. METHODS: A clinical prospective cohort study was conducted on breast cancer patients who had not received prior chemotherapy and were asked to complete diaries on three consecutive docetaxel treatment cycles on days 1-7, 14, and 21 (acute phase). Questionnaires to assess pain severity, descriptors of pain, and the interference in activities due to pain were adapted from the Brief Pain Inventory and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Telephone questionnaire follow-up was done at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following docetaxel (delayed phase). RESULTS: The most commonly used descriptor for acute and chronic pain was "aching" (90-96%). However, in the delayed phase of the study, "burning" (32-50%), "radiating" (39-48%), and "sharp" (40-69%) were used more often. In both acute and chronic pain phases, most patients experienced moderate/severe pain regardless of the location. Pain in cycle 1 was predictive of pain in subsequent taxane cycles (p < 0.0001). Pain in cycle 3 was predictive of chronic pain (p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The descriptors used by patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced pain (ChIP) may be reflective of the underlying mechanisms. It is suspected that TAPS initiates as an acute inflammatory pain, which over time develops into neuropathic pain, known as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). However, the subjective pain experience varies from patient to patient.

Gait Speed vs. VES-13: A Pilot Study Comparing Screening Tools to Determine the Need for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Senior Women with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients aged 70 years and older may be suboptimally treated with cancer therapy because of the lack of clinical trial data in this population. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment can be time consuming, and access to geriatricians is limited. This study aims to determine whether gait speed (GS) analysis is equivalent to the widely accepted Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 (VES-13) in identifying vulnerable or frail patients in need of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. METHODS: A pilot prospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, in a radiation oncology breast follow-up clinic. GS analysis and VES-13 were completed by each patient at the same clinic visit. GS of <1 meter/second (m/s) and VES-13 score ≥3 were considered abnormal. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Kappa characteristic were calculated for GS compared with VES-13. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Twenty-nine participants aged 70 years and older with any stage of breast cancer were included. The GS was 67% sensitive and 95% specific for abnormal VES-13 scores. The GS had an 86% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for abnormal scores on VES-13. Overall, the GS showed a substantial strength of agreement with the VES-13 (kappa 0.66, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The GS analysis compared very well with VES-13 scores, and this may be a reasonable alternative to VES-13 screening. This pilot data warrant further study in a larger group of patients.

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.

Ambulatory Toxicity Management (AToM) Pilot: results of a pilot study of a pro-active, telephone-based intervention to improve toxicity management during chemotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is associated with a significant risk of toxicity, which often peaks between ambulatory visits to the cancer centre. Remote symptom management support is a tool to optimize self-management and healthcare utilization, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations (ED+H) during chemotherapy. We performed a single-arm pilot study to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of a telephone symptom management intervention on healthcare utilization during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: Women starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for EBC at two cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, received standardized, nurse-led calls to assess common toxicities at two time points following each chemotherapy administration. Feasibility outcomes included patient enrollment, retention, RN adherence to delivering calls per the study schedule, and resource use associated with calls; acceptability was evaluated based on patient and provider feedback. Impact on acute care utilization was evaluated post hoc by linking individual patient records to provincial data holdings to examine ED+H patterns among participating patients compared to contemporaneous controls. RESULTS: Between September 2013 and December 2014, 77 women were enrolled (mean age 55 years). Most commonly used regimens were AC-paclitaxel (58%) and FEC-docetaxel (16%); 78% of patients received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis. 83.8% of calls were delivered per schedule; mean call duration was 9 min. The intervention was well received by both patients and clinicians. Comparison of ED+H rates among study participants versus controls showed that there were fewer ED visits in intervention patients [incidence rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.36, 0.81)] but no difference in the rate of hospitalizations [IRR (95% CI) = 1.02 (0.59, 1.77)]. Main implementation challenges included identifying eligible patients, fitting the calls into existing clinical responsibilities, and effective communication to the patient's clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-based pro-active toxicity management during chemotherapy is feasible, perceived as valuable by clinicians and patients, and may be associated with lower rates of acute care use. However, attention must be paid to workflow issues for scalability. Larger scale evaluation of this approach is in progress.

Developing recommendations for the safe handling of oral anti-cancer drugs in community pharmacies: A pan-Canadian consensus approach.

PURPOSE: To create a set of consensus-based and evidence-informed recommendations to provide guidance around the safe dispensing and handling of oral anti-cancer drugs in low-volume settings unique to the community pharmacy setting. METHODS: A review of published and grey literature (published in non-commercial domains such as national organizations and associations) documents and nine key informant interviews were conducted and a modified Delphi approach was taken to achieve consensus. The final list of 47 candidate recommendations was reviewed by a task force and validated by multi-disciplinary stakeholders. A draft of the statements was circulated broadly within the community pharmacy community in an effort to assess relevance and implementation feasibility. RESULTS: The final report included 44 recommendations that addressed 11 key areas germane to the safe handling of oral anti-cancer drugs in community pharmacies. Mean agreement increased from 70% to 95%. Early feedback from community pharmacy leaders during the external review suggests that many of the proposed recommendations can be feasibly implemented within a reasonable timeframe when released with appropriate education and resource materials. CONCLUSIONS: A modified-Delphi approach supplemented by key informant interviews and a comprehensive external review resulted in a set of evidence-informed, community-driven recommendations for community pharmacies. The recommendations address a gap in existing literature to improve understanding of the risks associated with handling and dispensing oral anti-cancer drugs for both community pharmacy staff and management and offer mitigating strategies to reduce those risks. Incorporating feasibility assessment actions early (through the key informant interviews) and late (through the external review) ensures recommendations are grounded in practicality and support broad and early knowledge translation strategies.

Evaluation of the 3-day recall period for the Functional Life Index-Emesis (FLIE).

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are commonly experienced by cancer patients, and can be assessed by the Functional Life Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument which employs a three-day recall period. However, it is unknown whether patients' responses to the FLIE better correlate with the average or the worst symptom severity of the recall period, or the severity of an individual day. METHODS: Patients receiving emetogenic radiotherapy for painful bone metastases who were enrolled in one of three trials for anti-emetic medications (ondansetron, aprepitant/granisetron, or palonosetron) completed the FLIE at baseline, and days 3, 5, 7, or 10 during treatment and follow-up. The concordance correlation coefficient (rc) was calculated between FLIE overall nausea and vomiting and daily nausea, vomiting, and quality of life (QoL) using the average responses of the 3-day recall period and with each of the three days' responses. RESULTS: Responses from eighty-nine patients who experienced nausea or vomiting were analysed. The highest concordance for FLIE nausea was with the 3-day average [during treatment: rc =0.698, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.495, 0.829; follow-up: rc =0.821, 95% CI: 0.711, 0.892]. FLIE vomiting had the highest concordance with worst day vomiting (during treatment, rc =0.310, 95% CI: 0.194, 0.417) or two day-prior vomiting (follow-up, rc =0.902, 95% CI: 0.832, 0.944). FLIE nausea and vomiting had inconsistent concordances with daily assessments of QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Responses to the FLIE questionnaire are most representative of average nausea severity. Larger cohorts to validate these findings are warranted to address the lack of power in this present study and to confirm the wording and justification of a three-day recall period for the FLIE.

Management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting with palonosetron in patients with pre-existing emesis: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Approved almost 15 years ago for use in the chemotherapy setting, palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-hydroxtryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated efficacy in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, its utility in the prophylaxis and treatment of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) has yet to be evaluated. In this pilot study, we investigated the rates of control in RINV in patients with pre-existing emesis. METHODS: Patients with pre-existing emesis undergoing palliative radiotherapy to sites with emetic risk were prescribed palonosetron 0.5 mg before the start of radiation treatment, and every other day until completion of treatment. Patients were followed up in acute (day 1 of treatment to day 1 after treatment) and delayed phases (days 2-10 after treatment). Prophylaxis and rescue (PR) was defined as a decrease in anti-emetic use, or episodes of nausea and/or vomiting from baseline. Complete prophylaxis (CP) was defined as no increase in anti-emetic use, or episodes of nausea and/or vomiting. Secondary endpoints included control of nausea and quality of life (QOL), as assessed with the Functional Living Index-Emesis and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled. Rates of control were higher in the acute phase (n=14) for nausea (PR =42.9%, CP =42.9%) and vomiting (PR =21.4%, CP =71.4%) compared to the delayed phase (n=13) for nausea (PR =42.9%, CP =7.7%) and vomiting (PR =15.4%, CP =53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron appears to be safe and patients with pre-existing emesis receiving palliative radiotherapy. More studies are needed to investigate its efficacy in this patient population.

A pilot study with palonosetron in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Palonosetron is an effective antiemetic in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but has yet to be studied in the radiation setting. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS: Patients without existing nausea and vomiting undergoing palliative radiotherapy to sites with emetic risk were prescribed palonosetron 0.5 mg orally before the start of radiation treatment, and every other day until completion of treatment. Patients were followed up in acute (day 1 of treatment to day 1 after treatment) and delayed phases (days 2-10 after treatment). The primary endpoint was control of vomiting. Complete control was defined as no use of rescue medication and no episodes of nausea or vomiting. Secondary endpoints included control of nausea and quality of life (QOL). QOL was assessed with the Functional Living Index-Emesis and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative (C15-PAL). RESULTS: In all evaluable patients (n=75), complete control of vomiting was 93.3% in the acute phase and 93.2% in the delayed phase. Complete control of nausea was 74.7% in the acute phase and 74.0% in the delayed phase. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest improved control in RINV compared to historical reports with first generation serotonin receptor antagonists (RA). A randomized study will be needed to confirm this finding.

Impact of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting on quality of life.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of radiotherapy. It is well-established that nausea and vomiting have a negative impact on quality of life, but the relative influence of each of symptom is infrequently reported. This study aimed to compare the effects of nausea and vomiting on quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative radiotherapy. METHODS: The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) is a quality of life questionnaire developed in the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting setting. The FLIE consists of 18 questions, half of which address nausea and half of which address vomiting. Three prospective studies on the efficacy of various anti-emetic medications conducted at our center used the FLIE to assess radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting at various time points during and after palliative radiotherapy. FLIE data from these three studies were combined for the present analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between nausea and vomiting, time of FLIE completion, and patient-reported quality of life. RESULTS: Nausea and vomiting scores both decreased patients' quality of life. Multivariate modeling showed that both symptoms significantly influenced patients' ability to enjoy meals. Nausea was also associated with increased hardship for the patient, while vomiting imposed more difficulty on the patients' loved ones. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea and vomiting both significantly influence quality of life. Nausea seems to impact the patient more directly, whereas vomiting affects those closest to the patient.

A prospective study of docetaxel-associated pain syndrome.

PURPOSE: To investigate the natural history of taxane-associated acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in a docetaxel patient cohort and to examine the long-term manifestation of TAPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For three consecutive treatment cycles, taxane-naive breast cancer patients completed diaries on days 1-7, 14, and 21 and telephone questionnaires 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following treatment. Questionnaires to assess pain and interference were adapted from the Brief Pain Inventory. To examine the experience of arthralgia and myalgia as one syndrome, information on patient experiences with arthralgia or myalgia was elicited separately in order to determine how closely experiences of each toxicity correlated with each other. A ≥2 point increase from baseline was defined as an arthralgia or myalgia "pain flare," and only those with "flare" were included in calculations of incidence. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were accrued. Thirty-eight patients were omitted due to missing information, and 24 patients were omitted due to metastatic disease, for a total of 216 patients overall and 188 in the docetaxel cohort. A total of 74.5% of docetaxel patients experienced joint pain flare, and 78.2% experienced muscle pain flare at some point in the overall course of three treatment cycles. Joint and muscle pain peaked on days 4-5 for each cycle, and median pain severity for both joint and muscle pain was 4/10 during the 21-day period. Median onset of joint pain flare was 3 days for cycle 1 and 4 days for cycles 2 and 3, with an average median duration of 4 days. Median onset of muscle pain flare was 4 days for all three cycles, with a median duration of 4 days for cycles 1 and 2, and 5 days for cycle 3. Both joint and muscle pain persisted 1 year after treatment in approximately half of responding patients. CONCLUSION: This study documents the significant incidence of TAPS in patients treated with docetaxel chemotherapy and shows a long-term persistence of the syndrome.

Managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy with concurrent radiation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to retrospectively examine the anti-emetic regimens prescribed for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for head and neck cancer patients receiving moderate- or high-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC) along with concurrent radiation treatment at an outpatient ambulatory care center to determine the efficacy of anti-emetics prescribed. METHODS: Consecutive patients with head and neck cancers who initiated cisplatin chemotherapy with concurrent radiation treatment between January 2013 and June 2015 were investigated. Patients' anti-emetic use and occurrence of CINV was extracted from available clinical documentation. Patients were divided into two cohorts: CISPL-HIGH (n=161), and CISPL-WEEKLY (n=38). RESULTS: A total of 199 head and neck cancer patients (158 male, 41 female) were included in the analysis (mean age =59 years). In the CISPL-HIGH cohort, 33 males (26%) and 16 females (49%) experienced CINV. In the CISPL-WEEKLY cohort, four males (13%) and two females (25%) experienced CINV. Nausea occurred in 71 patients (62 HEC and 9 MEC). The odds of achieving complete response (no nausea or vomiting) were 3.5 (P<0.0016) times more likely for patients receiving MEC. Overall, the complete response rate for the prophylaxis in MEC and HEC was 61% and 31%, respectively. Anti-emetic changes occurred in 34% and 11% of patients receiving HEC and MEC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study CINV control for patients receiving HEC was sub-optimal. Changes to our prophylactic antiemetic regimens may help improve patient outcomes.

Do patients receiving pelvic radiation and anti-emetics experience diarrhea and/or constipation?

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation may cause radiation enteritis, which commonly manifests as diarrhea. Radiation to the abdomen or pelvis may also cause radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) which is often treated with anti-emetics such as serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RA). However, a common side effect of these anti-emetic medications is constipation. Both diarrhea and constipation can have a significant impact on patient quality of life (QOL). The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of diarrhea and constipation in patients receiving pelvic radiation and anti-emetics. METHODS: Patients undergoing pelvic radiation between January 2011 and March 2017 at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre were enrolled in three prospective clinical trials studying the efficacy of various anti-emetics for RINV prophylaxis. Patients completed QOL questionnaires which included a single question about severity of constipation at baseline, day 5 and 10 during radiation if applicable, and day 5 and 10 after completion of radiation; severity was measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1= "not at all" to 4= "very much". Patients also recorded severity of diarrhea throughout baseline, treatment, and 10 days follow-up via daily diaries; responses were qualitative ranging from "no diarrhea" to "severe diarrhea" on a 4-point scale. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients received pelvic radiation across the three trials. The average constipation score at baseline was 1.69 [standard deviation (SD) 0.93], and increased up to 2.33 (SD 1.03) at day 10 during treatment. Following treatment, the average score decreased to 1.61 (SD 0.80) at day 10 follow-up with the majority of patients reporting no constipation at this time (57.7%). The average diarrhea score at baseline was 1.03 (SD 0.18) and remained stable throughout treatment and follow-up. A vast majority of patients reported no diarrhea after day 10 follow-up (96.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Constipation was more prevalent than diarrhea during radiation treatment and up to day 10 after radiation to the pelvis. Approximately 42% of patients will have constipation on day 10 post radiation. Further research is needed to assess the causes of constipation including analgesics, and the effect on QOL during and shortly after palliative radiation to the pelvis.