Proposal for Classifying the Emetogenicity of Oral Anticancer Agents with a Focus on PARP Inhibitors: A Prospective, Observational, Multicenter Study (JASCC-CINV 2002).

Background: Olaparib and niraparib (poly adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase [PARP] inhibitors) have significant antitumor action in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting among patients on these drugs in clinical trials is rather high. There are no guidelines on antiemetic treatment for nausea caused by oral anticancer agents. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of nausea and vomiting caused by PARP inhibitors and the actual situation of antiemetic therapy in patients with gynecologic cancer. Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancer who were scheduled to receive PARP inhibitors were enrolled. Data on PARP inhibitor-induced nausea and vomiting were collected from patient diaries for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the 21 days after starting olaparib and niraparib. Results: Overall, between January 2020 and March 2023, 134 patients were enrolled. Of the 129 patients who were evaluated, 28 (21.7%) received prophylactic antiemetics for 21 days, and 101 (78.3%) did not. The overall incidence of PARP inhibitor-induced vomiting was 16.3%. The incidence of vomiting in the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis was 13.9%. On dividing the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis into the olaparib and niraparib subgroups, the incidence of vomiting was found to be 18.6% for the olaparib group and 10.3% for the niraparib group. Conclusion: The incidence of emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis among patients on olaparib and niraparib ranged from 10% to 30%. Therefore, olaparib and niraparib can be classified in the low emetogenic risk and prophylactic antiemetic therapy at the time of treatment initiation may be unnecessary.

Association between CYP2C19 genotype and the additional effect of cilostazol to clopidogrel resistance in neuroendovascular therapy.

We investigated the association between CYP2C19 genotype and additional effect of cilostazol on clopidogrel resistance (CR) in neuroendovascular therapy. Between January 2012 and January 2016, 447 consecutive patients were administered with 75-mg cilostazol/day. The VerifyNow System was used for evaluating P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) > 230 and/or percentage inhibition of platelet function (% Inhibition) ≤ 20 as CR. Among 158 patients with CR, 31 were administered with additional 100- or 200-mg cilostazol/day and their platelet function was evaluated. According to CYP2C19 genotypes revealed using the Spartan RX and DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit, patients were classified into three phenotypic groups: extensive metabolizer (EM, three patients), intermediate metabolizer (IM, 12 patients), and poor metabolizer (PM, 16 patients). Administration of additional cilostazol decreased PRU (EM group: 160.7 ± 85.2 after vs 278.3 ± 40.1 before, P = 0.15; IM group: 205.6 ± 74.0 vs 254.3 ± 35.0, P = 0.02; and PM group: 227.8 ± 52.2 vs 282.1 ± 30.4, P = 0.003), and increased % Inhibition (EM group: 40.0 ± 27.9 vs 9.3 ± 3.8, P = 0.25; IM group: 31.4 ± 18.0 vs 11.8 ± 8.2, P = 0.001; and PM group: 24.6 ± 15.0 vs 10.4 ± 9.3, P = 0.001). However, the rate of normalized-clopidogrel response, thromboembolic lesions, and bleeding complications were not significantly different among the three groups. Thus, the addition of cilostazol was effective on CR in terms of PRU, % Inhibition, rate of change of normalized-clopidogrel response, thromboembolic events, and bleeding complications irrespective of phenotype.

[Analysis of Nedaplatin Dose in Patients with Impaired Renal Function].

Nedaplatin(NDP)is a platinum derivative anticancer drug.An NDP dose of 100mg/m2 every 4 weeks is recommended in non-elderly Japanese patient because a higher dose may lead to myelosuppression, such as thrombocytopenia.In a pharmacokinetic analysis, thrombocytopenia was significantly correlated with renal function.However, the correct dose in patients with impaired renal function remains unclear.To evaluate the usefulness of dose reduction in patients with renal dysfunction, we conducted a retrospective study.This study included Japanese solid cancer patients who received NDP monotherapy in Nagoya University Hospital between April 2011 and March 2014. Eighty three patients were evaluated and divided into 2 groups based on renal function: a creatinine clearance(Ccr; mL/min)≥60 group and a Ccr<60 group.The frequency of B Grade 3 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia was significantly higher in the Ccr<60 group than that in the Ccr≥60 group (3.4% vs 32.0%; p=0.001 and 6.8% vs 32.0%; p=0.005, respectively).In the Ccr<60 group, the frequency of BGrade 3 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia was lower in the reduced dose group than that in standard dose(100mg/m2)group (41.7% vs 23.1%; p=0.410 and 41.7% vs 23.1%; p=0.410, respectively).A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that NDP dose and serum creatinine were risk factors for the incidence of BGrade 3 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia.These results suggest that NDP dose should be reduced to achieve safe drug treatment in patients with Ccr<60.

Incidence of and risk factors associated with nedaplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Nedaplatin (NDP)-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) trigger adverse clinical events. Prediction and prevention of NDP-HSRs are thus essential to minimize the risk and maximize the benefit of NDP therapy. However, the incidence of NDP-HSRs and the associated risk factors remain unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively examined patients who received NDP monotherapy between April 2011 and July 2015 in Nagoya University Hospital. HSRs severity was defined according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 (CTCAE ver.4). Risk factors for NDP-HSRs were determined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 111 patients who received NDP monotherapy, 90 (81%) were female; median age was 59 years (range, 29-78 years). Eighty-eight patients had gynecological cancer and 20 suffered from head and neck cancer. Eight of 111 patients (7.2%) experienced NDP-HSRs, six of which developed in the second NDP cycle. However, all patients with NDP-HSRs were treated with carboplatin (CBDCA) for more than three cycles. Grade 3 and 4 HSRs developed in 2 patients. NDP-HSRs were significantly associated with a history of CBDCA-HSRs (odds ratio 37.5, 95% confidence interval 5.38-262, p < 0.001) and with the interval between NDP administration and the previous platinum treatment (odds ratio 13.9, 95% confidence interval 1.23-158, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: The risk of NDP-HSRs increases in patients with a history of CBDCA-HSRs and in those administered NDP for more than 6 months after previous platinum treatment. Such individuals must be closely monitored if given NDP, even if they are expected to benefit from the treatment.