Low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine with triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumours: a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who were receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0-120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. RESULTS: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference -1·0% [one-sided 95% CI -100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. FUNDING: Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

Treatment Outcome and Patterns of Failure in Patients with Maxillary Sinus Cancer: Clinical Experience from a Regional Cancer Centre in North India.

Treatment of maxillary sinus cancer poses several challenges because of its complex anatomy, close proximity to critical structures and majority of patients presenting at an advanced stage. Despite presence of several treatment approaches, the outcome in these cancers has remained dismal. This article examines its clinical behaviour and treatment outcome of these patients treated at our centre in past 7 years. In this retrospective study, 67 patients with carcinoma of maxillary sinus presented from January 2011 to December 2017 were analysed. All the patients reporting during this period were included except those who did not turn up after first visit. Of all the patients, 64.2% had squamous cell carcinoma. The majority of patients presented with advanced stage (IVA and IVB, 83.58%). Nodal disease at presentation was seen in seven patients (10.4%). Treatment to the primary site comprised of surgery and radiotherapy in 24 patients, radiotherapy alone in 22 patients and surgery alone in 12 patients. Statistical program for social sciences (SPSS) version 16 was used for all statistical analyses. The mean follow-up time was 25 months (range 3-72 months). Overall, 17 out of 41 patients who were treated with curative intent (41.5%) developed recurrence. Patients who underwent surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy did fairly better in terms of recurrence. Seven patients out of 17 (41.2%) could be salvaged by surgery or radiation. Only one patient developed distant metastasis to D8 vertebra. Patients who were treated with surgery and radiotherapy (either preoperative/adjuvant setting) had better disease-free survival. The results of the current study regarding the treatment of carcinoma of the maxillary sinus show feasibility and efficacy of multimodal therapy. Radical radiotherapy appears to be a feasible alternative in cases of inoperable tumours. Loco regional relapse remains a significant pattern of failure.