A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of a ginger extract in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: The activity of ginger in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been suggested, but design inadequacies, heterogeneity of the population, small numbers and poor quality of tested products limit the possibility to offer generalizable results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study in patients planned to receive ≥2 chemotherapy cycles with high dose (>50 mg/m2) cisplatin. Patients received ginger 160 mg/day (with standardized dose of bioactive compounds) or placebo in addition to the standard antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, starting from the day after cisplatin administration. CINV was assessed through daily visual-analogue scale and Functional Living Index Emesis questionnaires. The main objective was protection from delayed nausea; secondary end points included intercycle nausea and nausea anticipatory symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 121 patients received ginger and 123 placebo. Lung (49%) and head and neck cancer (HNC; 35%) were the most represented tumors. No differences were reported in terms of safety profile or compliance. The incidence of delayed, intercycle and anticipatory nausea did not differ between the two arms in the first cycle and second cycle. A benefit of ginger over placebo in Functional Living Index Emesis nausea score differences (day 6-day 1) was identified for females (P = 0.048) and HNC patients (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with high-dose cisplatin, the daily addition of ginger, even if safe, did not result in a protective effect on CINV. The favorable effect observed on nausea in subgroups at particular risk of nausea (females; HNC) deserves specific investigation.

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT00869310.

The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER).

BACKGROUND: While guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are widely available, clinical uptake of guidelines remains low. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive adults initiating single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer. Patients completed 6-day daily diaries beginning with cycle 1 for up to three chemotherapy cycles. The primary study end point, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue therapy) during 120 h after cycle 1 chemotherapy, was compared between GCCP and guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) cohorts using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In cycle 1 (N=991), use of GCCP was 55% and 46% during acute and delayed phases, respectively, and 29 % for the overall study period (acute plus delayed phases). Complete response was recorded by 172/287 (59.9%) and 357/704 (50.7%) patients in GCCP and GICP cohorts, respectively (P=0.008). The adjusted odds ratio for complete response was 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.97; P=0.027) for patients receiving GCCP versus GICP. CONCLUSION: GCCP reduces the incidence of CINV after single-day HEC and MEC.

Cardiovascular toxicity induced by chemotherapy, targeted agents and radiotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Cardiovascular (CV) toxicity is a potential short- or long-term complication of various anticancer therapies. Some drugs, such as anthracyclines or other biological agents, have been implicated in causing potentially irreversible clinically important cardiac dysfunction. Although targeted therapies are considered less toxic and better tolerated by patients compared with classic chemotherapy agents, rare but serious complications have been described, and longer follow-up is needed to determine the exact profile and outcomes of related cardiac side-effects. Some of these side-effects are irreversible, leading to progressive CV disease, and some others induce reversible dysfunction with no long-term cardiac damage to the patient. Assessment of the prevalence, type and severity of cardiac toxicity caused by various cancer treatments is a breakthrough topic for patient management. Guidelines for preventing, monitoring and treating cardiac side-effects are a major medical need. Efforts are needed to promote strategies for cardiac risk prevention, detection and management, avoiding unintended consequences that can impede development, regulatory approval and patient access to novel therapy. These new ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines are the result of a multidisciplinary cardio-oncology review of current evidence with the ultimate goal of providing strict criteria-based recommendations on CV risk prevention, assessment, monitoring and management during anticancer treatment.

Juvenile papillomatosis of the breast in young male: a case report.

Juvenile papillomatosis of the breast ("Swiss cheese disease'') is a benign localized proliferative condition of the breast which occurs almost exclusively in young adult women. Patients with this lesion often have a family history of breast carcinoma, but rarely carcinoma may coexist with the lesion at the time of diagnosis. We present a case of a young male with juvenile papillomatosis of the breast. The pathology and clinical management of this rare lesion is discussed.

Upfront pembrolizumab as an effective treatment start in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% non-oncogene addicted non-small cell lung cancer and asymptomatic brain metastases: an exploratory analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with brain metastases (BMs) from non-oncogene addicted non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is under investigation. Here, we sought to determine the optimal management of NSCLCs with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and asymptomatic BMs who were treated with first-line pembrolizumab. METHODS: Thirty patients from 15 institutions with PD-L1 ≥ 50% NSCLC had asymptomatic BMs, and met inclusion criteria. Patients were classified based on whether they had undergone upfront local radiotherapy for BMs as well as on the type of brain radiotherapy received. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated with upfront pembrolizumab alone, 8 patients with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) followed by pembrolizumab and 13 patients with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) followed by pembrolizumab. Patients' characteristics were similar among the three groups of patients except for a higher number of BMs ≥ 3 in the WBRT group. One complete and 4 partial intracranial responses were observed with upfront pembrolizumab alone. The median survival was not reached for the pembrolizumab and WBRT (n = 8) groups, and it was 7.6 months for the SRS (n = 13) group (P = 0.09), with 12-month survival rates being 55.5%, 62.5%, and 23.0%, respectively. Salvage WBRT was delivered in 1 patient in the upfront pembrolizumab group and in 4 patients in the SRS group. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront pembrolizumab showed efficacy in selected patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% non-oncogene addicted NSCLC and asymptomatic BMs. Prospective studies should address whether pembrolizumab alone, and deferral of radiotherapy, could be pursued in this patient population.

Double-blind, randomised, controlled study of the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 1 day with or without dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To reduce side-effects of corticosteroid-containing antiemetic regimens, tailoring antiemetic schedules to specific requirements of different patients could be of benefit. We evaluated the possibility to reduce the total dose of corticosteroids when palonosetron, a long-acting second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, is used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Double-blind, multicentre, noninferiority study of chemotherapy-naive breast cancer patients receiving 0.25 mg palonosetron and 8 mg dexamethasone on day 1, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 151) or 4 mg b.i.d. dexamethasone (n = 149) on days 2 and 3. Primary end point was complete response (CR) rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) in the overall (days 1-5) period. Secondary end points were CR rates in the acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) periods, rates of no emesis and no nausea and impact on daily functioning (Functional Living Index-Emesis). RESULTS: Noninferiority between the two treatments was demonstrated by similar CR rates (P = 0.487) in the overall period. Most parameters showed that palonosetron and dexamethasone on day 1 only offer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting protection similar to multiple-day dexamethasone administration. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with a single injection of palonosetron on day 1, reducing dexamethasone is an option that is not associated with significant reduction in antiemetic control during the 5-day period or an impact on patient functioning.

Invasive ductal carcinoma arising in ectopic breast tissue of the axilla. Case report and review of the literature.

Mammary carcinoma arising in ectopic breast tissue is an uncommon occurrence. Most reported cases have involved ductal carcinoma, but other types, such as medullary, papillary, and lobular carcinomas, have been described. For pathologists, the diagnosis of mammary carcinoma arising in ectopic breast tissue can be difficult, especially in the axilla, where carcinoma of adnexal origin must be excluded. We describe a 51-year-old woman who developed invasive secretory ductal carcinoma in ectopic left axillary breast tissue and micrometastatic carcinoma in an ipsilateral axillary lymph node. The carcinoma arose in a left axillary mass that had been present for several years, from which she had secreted fluid during prior menstrual periods.

Randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging trial of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Casopitant mesylate is a novel, oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist with demonstrated antiemetic efficacy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase II trial to evaluate three casopitant doses as part of a triple-therapy regimen for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin. The aim of the study was to detect a dose response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 493 patients with solid tumors receiving a first cycle of cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomly assigned among six treatment arms. The primary analysis compared a control arm [ondansetron/dexamethasone (Ond/Dex)] with three investigational treatments (Ond/Dex plus oral casopitant 50, 100, or 150 mg administered daily for 3 days). Two exploratory arms were included: one evaluating a single oral casopitant dose of 150 mg added to standard Ond/Dex and another with 3-day oral aprepitant-based therapy (Ond/Dex plus aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3). RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rate (defined as no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) was significantly increased in each casopitant arm relative to control over the 120-h evaluation period: 76% (50 mg), 86% (100 mg), 77% (150 mg), and 60% with control (P = 0.0036). The CR rate for the single oral dose regimen was similar to the CR rate reported for the 3-day regimens. No differences were observed in the incidence of nausea or significant nausea among groups in the primary analysis. The most common adverse events related to treatment included headache (n = 10) and hiccups (n = 14). CONCLUSION: All doses of oral casopitant as a 3-day regimen (and likely as a 150-mg single oral dose) in combination with Ond/Dex provided significant improvement in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

Antiemetic activity of high doses of metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in cisplatin-treated cancer patients: a randomized double-blind trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.

We designed a multicenter, double-blind randomized study to determine the safety and antiemetic effectiveness of intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone (P) combined with high-dose IV metoclopramide (MTC) v MTC alone in 200 untreated cancer patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. One hundred eighty-five patients were evaluable for treatment efficacy. MTC plus P was significantly superior to MTC alone in reducing the number and length of vomiting episodes (P = .001 and P = .0008, respectively) and the maximal intensity of nausea (P = .0124 with a score system; P = .0155 with a linear analogue scale) and length of nausea (P = .0056). The subgroup with a major incidence of nausea and vomiting was women, especially young women, outpatients, and those treated with higher doses of cisplatin. Side effects were low and equally distributed between the two treatment groups. We conclude that MTC plus P has greater antiemetic activity than MTC alone in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

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.