Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.

Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.

Ondansetron.

Ondansetron is the first selective antagonist of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (type 3) marketed for the prevention of emesis induced by antineoplastic agents. Ondansetron has been shown to be more active and less toxic than high-dose metoclopramide in patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy. Furthermore, when dexamethasone was added to ondansetron, its antiemetic efficacy increased significantly. In the prevention of emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin or by repeated low doses, ondansetron combined with dexamethasone has been shown to be the more efficacious and less toxic antiemetic treatment. However, in the prevention of delayed emesis from cisplatin, its role is still to be defined. In patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents, ondansetron has shown an efficacy superior or equal to standard doses of metoclopramide, but is less toxic. Moreover, when compared with dexamethasone, its antiemetic efficacy and tolerability is similar; in this group of patients ondansetron should be used only when steroids fail. Ondansetron toxicity is generally mild; in particular, it does not induce extrapyramidal reactions. The most frequent side-effects are headache and constipation.

Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients.

Two studies were sequentially conducted to validate a new questionnaire which takes into consideration the most important variables which could influence quality of life evaluation. Particular attention was given to the methodology employed to collect data and to the patients' characteristics. In the first study 80 consecutive cancer patients were randomised to twice fill in one of four different types of questionnaire, each one characterised by a different polarisation of semantic and syntactic extreme values of the visual linear analogue (for instance, "very much" always on the right, regardless of the semantic value of the answer; positive semantic value always on the right, regardless of whether it was "very much" or "not at all"; and so on). The second study, conducted on 60 lung cancer patients, consisted in testing the reliability (by measuring the reproducibility in different ways) and the validity (by performing a factor analysis) of the type of questionnaire indicated by the first study as the most reliable. The internal coherence was also evaluated by measuring the effects of physical and psychological conditions on the responses.

A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and acupuncture in women treated with cisplatin.

A total of 26 women who submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy received as antiemetic treatment a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. Acupuncture according to traditional Chinese medicine was also carried out. The results were compared with those obtained in a similar group of women with cancer, who were treated in the same setting with the same antiemetic combination but without additional acupuncture. Acupuncture was shown to increase complete protection from nausea and to decrease the intensity and duration of nausea and vomiting. However, the difficulties of performing acupuncture routinely in daily practice are a hindrance to its wider use.

Antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients.

The antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients was compared in a double-blind crossover study. Regimen A consisted of metoclopramide [2 mg/kg x 4 intravenously (i.v.)] plus methylprednisolone (250 mg x 2 i.v.) plus diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 i.v.). Regimen B consisted of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 i.v.) plus dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.) and diphenhydramine (50 mg i.v.). Both treatments were administered for the first 2 days of 5-day dacarbazine chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) affected by melanoma and sarcoma were entered in the study. Complete protection against nausea and vomiting for the first 2 days of chemotherapy in both antiemetic regimens was not significantly different. Patient preference and tolerance of the two antiemetic treatments were similar. Regimen B, employing a lower dosage of metoclopramide and steroids and using a more simple schedule of administration should be the preferred treatment.

Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin-treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone. A randomized single-blind study.

To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam in prevention of nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated male patients.

In a pilot study we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a four-drug antiemetic combination (metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam) in cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2. Fifty male patients entered the study. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was obtained in 41 patients (82%) (95% confidence limits 71 and 93%). Toxicity was slight except for moderate sedation in 10% of patients necessitating their hospitalization. Only one extrapyramidal reaction (akathisia) was observed. When these results were compared to our previous experience in male patients treated with a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine without lorazepam, used at the same doses and schedule, no clear benefit and higher toxicity was observed.

Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients' performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales.

The Karnofsky (K) and ECOG (E) performance status (PS) scales are widely used to evaluate the functional status of cancer patients to determine their eligibility for clinical trials and their prognosis, but knowledge of inter and intraobserver variability of these scales is scarse. We therefore planned a prospective study on 209 consecutive cancer patients to evaluate this critical point. Two independent observers evaluated the KPS and EPS of each patient by interviewing them on the same day. After their interviews the patients were asked to fill in, again on the same day, a self-evaluation scale concerning their ability to perform the routine activities of daily life. The 209 patient self-evaluation scales were presented twice, randomly and blinded, to the two observers who had participated in the evaluation of PS as well as to one other observer who had not. The interobserver correlation for both scales was very high (K = 0.921 for KPS and K = 0.914 for EPS) as was the intraobserver correlation (for KPS: K = 0.993, K = 0.960, and K = 0.959 and, respectively, for EPS: K = 0.982, K = 0.970, and K = 0.920). On the basis of these results, it appears that evaluation of PS made by a clinical oncologist using K or E scales can be very reliable and is a guarantee of optimal selection of cancer patients for inclusion in clinical trials.