Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea. RESULTS: In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030. CONCLUSIONS: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.

Options in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis.

PURPOSE: The incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced emesis, pathophysiology of the emetic response, and antiemetic treatment of options are reviewed. OVERVIEW: Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and debilitating side effects of cancer chemotherapy. If not controlled, these side effects may interfere with the delivery of potentially life-saving treatment. Acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting may be prevented by appropriate antiemetic therapy. Drug selection is based on the emetogenicity of the patient's cancer treatment and potency of the antiemetic agent. Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic regimen are often improved by combining agents with different mechanisms of action. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By preventing and controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis, clinicians may improve cancer patients' functional status and quality of life significantly. Improved tolerability may lead to greater patient acceptance of chemotherapy and prevent premature withdrawal from or cessation of treatment. Controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis also helps to decrease the direct and indirect costs of managing cancer.

Prevention of acute emesis in cancer patients following high-dose cisplatin with the combination of oral dolasetron and dexamethasone.

PURPOSE: Dolasetron is a 5-HT3 antagonist antiemetic with active oral and intravenous formulations. The effects of this class are enhanced when combined with dexamethasone. This study tested the ability of the combination of oral dolasetron 200 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg to prevent acute emesis in cancer patients receiving initial cisplatin at doses > or = 70 mg/m2. Additionally, patients were randomly assigned to receive a second dosage of the regimen 16 hours later to improve control of acute symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 75 patients were entered, with 38 randomized to the two-dose regimen. Thirty-five percent were women and 77% had lung cancer. RESULTS: Overall, the regimen prevented acute vomiting in 76% (95% confidence interval, 65% to 85%), including 74% of 35 patients who received cisplatin at doses > or = 100 mg/m2. There was no observed difference in emesis prevention between the one-dose (76%) and two-dose (76%) regimens (95% confidence interval for the difference, -20% to 19%). The median time to the onset of emesis was 19 hours for the one-dose regimen and 17 hours for the two-dose regimen in those patients with emesis. Headache occurred in 11% who received one dose and 16% who received two doses. CONCLUSION: The combination of oral dolasetron 200 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg given only once prevented acute emesis in 76% of patients who received cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2. Administration of a second dose of the regimen did not improve the observed prevention rate or delay the time to emesis. This one-dose oral regimen has comparable or better effectiveness than reported results of intravenous combination regimens in preventing cisplatin-induced vomiting and merits further study and use.

Cardioprotection with dexrazoxane for doxorubicin-containing therapy in advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the cardioprotective effect of dexrazoxane (DZR) used in a doxorubicin-based combination therapy in advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 1988 and January 1991, 534 patients with advanced breast cancer were randomized to two multicenter, double-blind studies (088001 and 088006). Patients received fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) with either DZR (DZR-to-doxorubicin ratio, 10:1) or placebo (PLA) every 3 weeks and were monitored with serial multiplegated acquisition (MUGA) scans. RESULTS: The hazards ratio (HR) of PLA to DZR for a cardiac event, which was predefined ejection fraction changes or congestive heart failure (CHF), was 2.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61 to 4.27; P < .001) for 088001 and 2.00 (95% CI, 1.01 to 3.96; P = .038) for 088006. The objective response rates for 088001 were 46.8% for DZR and 60.5% for PLA, a difference of 14% (95% CI, -25% to -2%; P = .019), and for 088006 were 53.7% for DZR and 49.3% for PLA, a difference of 4% (95% CI, -13% to 22%; P = .63). Time to progression and survival were not significantly different between treatment arms in either study. Toxicities on the DZR arms included lower granulocyte and platelet counts at nadir (P = .009 and P = .004, respectively) and more pain on injection (P = .001), with no difference in the rates of fever, infection, or hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: DZR had a significant cardioprotective effect as measured by noninvasive testing and clinical CHF. One of the two studies (088001) showed a lower response rate with DZR, but time to progression and survival were not significantly different. DZR is the first agent shown to reduce cardiotoxicity from doxorubicin.

Oral dolasetron mesylate in patients receiving moderately emetogenic platinum-containing chemotherapy. Oral Dolasetron Dose Response Study Group.

PURPOSE: This double-blind, dose-response study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of four oral doses of dolasetron mesylate for preventing acute emesis in cancer patients receiving their first course of moderately emetogenic platinum-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive a single oral dose of 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg dolasetron 30 minutes before receiving IV carboplatin (275-400 mg/m2)- or cisplatin (20-50 mg/m2)-containing chemotherapy, then monitored for nausea and vomiting for 24 hours. RESULTS: Three hundred seven cancer patients from 32 sites completed the study. There was a statistically significant dose response across the four doses for complete response (no emetic episodes or rescue medication): 44.7%, 71.3%, 73.2%, and 82.5% for the 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg doses of dolasetron, respectively. Patients' nausea severity and patient satisfaction visual analogue scale scores also showed a statistically significant trend with dose. All doses of dolasetron were well tolerated. The most common adverse events were headache (17.6%) and dizziness (2.0%). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates the safety and antiemetic efficacy of oral dolasetron mesylate in patients receiving moderately emetogenic platinum-containing chemotherapy with the highest antiemetic activity observed at 200 mg.

High-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell infusion in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of outpatient treatment in community cancer centers.

The outcomes for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) treated with high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) infusion by practicing oncologists in community cancer centers in the United States were determined. Eighty-three patients with NHL, who had failed conventional chemotherapy, underwent mobilization of PBSC with chemotherapy and a recombinant growth factor in an outpatient facility. At a median of 40 days (range 26-119) after mobilization chemotherapy all received carmustine (300 mg/m2 x 1), etoposide (150 mg/m2 twice a day x 4 days), cytarabine (100 mg/m2 twice a day x 4 days) and cyclophosphamide (35 mg/kg x 4 days) (BEAC) followed by infusion of unmanipulated PBSC in an outpatient facility. The probabilities of treatment-related mortality, relapse/progression, overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years for all 83 patients were 0.07, 0.57, 0.49 and 0.38, respectively. The probabilities of relapse/progression, OS and EFS at 3 years for 28 patients who had failed primary induction chemotherapy were 0.55, 0.42 and 0.38, respectively. The probabilities of OS and EFS for 27 patients in untreated first relapse were 0.52 and 0.44, respectively, as compared to 0.56 and 0.32, respectively, for 18 patients who had reinduction attempts prior to receiving mobilization chemotherapy (P = 0.81 for OS and 0.99 for EFS). No significant risk factors for the outcomes of TRM, relapse/progression, OS or EFS could be identified. These data demonstrate that approximately 40% of patients with NHL who have failed conventional chemotherapy become long-term disease-free survivors after mobilization chemotherapy, high-dose BEAC and PBSC infusion administered in an outpatient setting in community cancer centers, with the major cause of failure being relapse. Results obtained in this study are comparable to published data in similar patient populations receiving therapy as inpatients, suggesting that clinical trials involving well-tested HDC regimens can be carried out safely in this setting.

Randomized phase III study of 5-fluorouracil plus high dose folinic acid versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid plus methyl-lomustine for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer is generally incurable. The most active regimen available, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid (Leucovorin), produces response rates of approximately 25% to 30%. Methyl-lomustine is a nitrosourea with modest activity against colorectal cancer. A randomized trial was undertaken to evaluate the impact the addition of methyl-lomustine would have on response, duration of survival, and survival rates in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: The methyl-lomustine/5-FU/Leucovorin (MFL) regimen consisted of methyl-lomustine (110 mg/m2), administered on Day 1 of each 8-week cycle with six weekly boluses of 5-FU (600 mg/m2), and Leucovorin (500 mg/m2). The FL treatment arm consisted of the administration of 5-FU and Leucovorin as described above. Patients were evaluated for response and toxicity after each 8-week cycle. RESULTS: Of 319 patients included in this trial, 297 (93.1%) had disease evaluable for response and toxicity: 145 received MFL, and 152 received FL. In this trial, 526 courses of MFL and 529 courses of FL were administered. Methyl-lomustine/5-FU/Leucovorin treatment resulted in 4 complete and 30 partial responses (response rate, 21.9%), and FL treatment resulted in 9 complete and 33 partial responses (response rate, 26.4%). There was no significant difference in median survival duration between patients in the two arms (MFL = 48 weeks, FL = 51 weeks). However, MFL was significantly more toxic with greater myelosuppression than was FL (Grade 3-4 neutropenia: MFL = 56 patients, FL = 27 patients, P < 0.001; Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia: MFL = 49 patients, FL = 2 patients, P < 0.001; Grade 3-4 anemia: MFL = 15 patients, FL = 6 patients, P < 0.001; and more prolonged median duration of granulocytopenia: MFL = 9 days, FL = 7 days, P < 0.001; and thrombocytopenia: MFL = 14 days, FL = 7.5 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Because the addition of methyl-lomustine in the MFL schedule markedly increased the toxicity of the regimen and because the FL regimen was as effective as MFL, the authors recommend that Leucovorin and 5-FU remain the treatment choice for treating patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Efficacy of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapies. Ondansetron Study Group.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy (> 500 mg/m2). In this trial 324 chemotherapy-naive cancer patients, mostly females with breast cancer, were randomized to receive either placebo or ondansetron 1 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg three times per day for 3 days. There were no differences in the doses of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and methotrexate between the study groups. All ondansetron dose groups were superior to the placebo control group (p < .001) for all measured efficacy parameters (complete response, number of emetic episodes, therapeutic failures, need of rescue antiemetics). No emetic episodes were reported by 9 (12%), 29 (37%), 48 (64%), and 47 (66%) of the placebo patients and the 1-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg dose of ondansetron patients, respectively. Nausea was reduced and food intake was improved for all the ondansetron groups. A more severe emetic response was observed in patients receiving cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin combination chemotherapy. In this subgroup of patients, 66%, 38%, 25%, and 16% of the placebo group and 1-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg ondansetron patients, respectively, required rescue antiemetics. No significant toxic effects were observed in this study. A higher incidence of headaches and gastrointestinal complaints (constipation, abdominal pain) were observed in the three ondansetron groups. In conclusion, oral ondansetron is an effective and well-tolerated antiemetic treatment in the management of cancer patients receiving ambulatory cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. These results support the view that serotonin and 5-HT3 receptors play an important role in cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting.

Stratified, randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron administered as a multiple-dose regimen versus two single-dose regimens in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This study compares the efficacy and safety of two single-dose regimens with the approved three-dose regimen of ondansetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter study was a stratified, randomized, double-blind, and parallel group design. Chemotherapy-naive inpatients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran; Glaxo Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg times three doses, every 4 hours or a single 8-mg or 32-mg dose followed by two saline doses that began 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Cisplatin (high-dose > or = 100 mg/m2 or medium-dose 50 to 70 mg/m2) was given as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes, adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients (359 high-dose, 340 medium-dose) were enrolled. Of these, 618 were assessable for efficacy (15 ineligible, 66 protocol deviations). The 32-mg dose was superior to the 8-mg single dose with regard to total number of emetic episodes (high-dose, P = .015; medium-dose, P < .001), complete response (no emetic episodes: high-dose, 48% v 35%; P = .048; medium-dose, 73% v 50%; P = .001) and failure rate (> 5 emetic episodes, withdrawn or rescued: high-dose, 20% v 34%; P = .018; medium-dose, 9% v 23%; P = .005). The 32-mg single dose was also superior to the 0.15 mg/kg times three dose regimen with regard to total number of emetic episodes (medium-dose, P = .033) and failure rate (high-dose, 20% v 36%; P = .009; medium-dose, 9% v 22%; P = .011). Ondansetron was well tolerated. The most common adverse event was headache. An approximate 10-fold increase in the incidence of clinically significant transaminase elevations was observed in the high-dose versus medium-dose cisplatin strata (aspartate aminotransferase [AST], 6.5% v 0.7%; serum alanine aminotransferase [ALT], 5.0% v 0.3%). CONCLUSION: A 32-mg single dose of ondansetron is more effective than a single 8-mg dose and is at least as effective as the standard regimen of 0.15 mg/kg times three doses in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis.

A single-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron, a selective serotonin antagonist, with intravenous metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Ondansetron (GR 38032F), a selective antagonist of serotonin subtype 3 receptors, is effective in the prevention of emesis associated with cisplatin as well as other chemotherapeutic agents. In this randomized, single-blind, multicenter, parallel group study, we compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) ondansetron with IV metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose (greater than or equal to 100 mg/m2) cisplatin chemotherapy. Three hundred seven patients receiving their first dose of cisplatin, either alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents, were randomized to receive ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg IV every 4 hours for three doses or metoclopramide 2 mg/kg IV every 2 hours for three doses, then every 3 hours for three additional doses. The study prohibited the concurrent administration of other antiemetics or dexamethasone. Patients receiving ondansetron had a higher rate of complete protection from emesis (40% v 30%, P = .07), a higher complete plus major response rate (65% v 51%, P = .016), a lower rate of failure (21% v 36%, P = .007), and a lower median number of emetic episodes (one v two, P = .005) than did those receiving metoclopramide. The median time to the first emetic episode was longer on ondansetron (20.5 v 4.3 hours, P less than .001). Adverse events occurred in 48% of patients receiving ondansetron and 69% of those receiving metoclopramide (P less than .001). Akathisia and acute dystonic reactions occurred only on metoclopramide; headache (controlled with acetaminophen) was significantly more frequent with ondansetron. Ondansetron is more effective, produces fewer adverse events, and is easier to administer than metoclopramide for the prevention of emesis associated with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Unfavorable histologies of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ProMACE-CytaBOM: a groupwide Southwest Oncology Group study.

Chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, cytarabine, bleomycin, vincristine, methotrexate with leucovorin, and prednisone (ProMACE-CytoBOM) for patients with intermediate- and high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas was tested by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) to confirm the activity of the regimen and to test the feasibility and safety of administering third-generation drug regimens in a cooperative group setting. On day 1, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide were administered, followed by cytarabine, bleomycin, vincristine and methotrexate with leucovorin given on day 8. There were 51 complete remissions (CRs) among 78 previously untreated patients (65%) having clinical stage II-IV disease. The median length of follow-up is 37.9 months with 57% of patients alive at 3 years and 50% of CR patients free of disease at 3 years. Patients with diffuse large-cell lymphoma have the best survival (63% at 3 years) and relapse-free survival (RFS; 68% at 3 years with no relapses seen after 14 months). Administration of ProMACE-CytoBOM is feasible and safe in a cooperative group setting with 84% of 537 courses of treatment given exactly according to schedule and fatal toxicities seen in five patients (6%). ProMACE-CytaBOM may represent improved treatment for diffuse large-cell lymphoma, but the modest differences compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) indicate the need for a prospective randomized comparative trial.