Should palonosetron be a preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT3RAs. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT3RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT3RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT3RA of choice.

Impact of multi-gene mutational profiling on clinical trial outcomes in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has identified recurrent genomic alterations in metastatic breast cancer (MBC); however, the clinical utility of incorporating routine sequencing to guide treatment decisions in this setting is unclear. We examine the frequency of genomic alterations in MBC patients from academic and community hospitals and correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS: MBC patients with good performance status were prospectively recruited at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Canada. Molecular profiling on DNA extracted from FFPE archival tissues was performed on the Sequenom MassArray platform or the TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel (TSACP) on the MiSeq platform. Clinical trial outcomes by RECIST 1.1 and time on treatment were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: From January 2012 to November 2015, 483 MBC patients were enrolled and 440 were genotyped. At least one somatic mutation was identified in 46% of patients, most commonly in PIK3CA (28%) or TP53 (13%). Of 203 patients with ≥ 1 mutation(s), 15% were treated on genotype-matched and 9% on non-matched trials. There was no significant difference for median time on treatment for patients treated on matched vs. non-matched therapies (3.6 vs. 3.8 months; p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world outcomes on hotspot genotyping and small targeted panel sequencing of MBC patients from academic and community settings. Few patients were matched to clinical trials with targeted therapies. More comprehensive profiling and improved access to clinical trials may increase therapeutic options for patients with actionable mutations. Further studies are needed to evaluate if this approach leads to improved clinical outcomes.

Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across different categories of chemotherapeutic emetogenicity. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and OVID databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized, controlled trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy end points were no emesis, no nausea, and complete response (CR) rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (N = 11,814) were identified. Based on absolute differences (AD) for no emesis (21 %), no nausea (8 %), CR (16 %), and odd ratios (OR) of 2.62, 1.43, and 2.16, respectively, NK1RA regimens provided better CINV protection versus control groups (all p < 0.00001) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based HEC, respective ADs and ORs were 14, 4, and 11 % and 1.97 (p < 0.0001), 1.17 (p = 0.04), and 1.62 (p < 0.00001). In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (3 trials), no statistically significant benefit of NK1RAs was found; however, positive trends were detected for CR and no emesis. NK1RAs were effective for CINV prevention in a small number of studies using high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning prior to stem cell transplant and cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (MDC). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of NK1RA in preventing vomiting in patients receiving HEC (including AC), with smaller effects on prevention of nausea. Efficacy is also seen with high-dose chemotherapy and cisplatin-based MDC.

Efficacy and safety of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT(3)RA) with a strong binding affinity and long half-life, has been used in numerous trials for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron compared to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or taking no rescue medications. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients suffering from 5-HT(3)RA-related adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were identified with 2,896 patients randomized to palonosetron and 3,187 patients randomized to other 5-HT(3)RAs. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior in CR, CC, no emesis, or no nausea and was sometimes superior in no rescue medication. Subgroup analyses demonstrated similarity in efficacy between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy cohorts. In the acute phase, statistical superiority of palonosetron was found for trials that did not allow dexamethasone; conversely, RCTs that administered dexamethasone to all patients were nonsignificant. Palonosetron was statistically significantly safer in dizziness and mean QTc interval change and similar in constipation, headache, and diarrhea. Clinical superiority of palonosetron was reached in 3 of 19 analyzed efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron is safer and more efficacious than other 5-HT(3)RAs. Future antiemetic guidelines should discuss the merits of including palonosetron as a first-line treatment.

Evaluation of risk factors predictive of nausea and vomiting with current standard-of-care antiemetic treatment: analysis of phase 3 trial of aprepitant in patients receiving adriamycin-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy.

GOALS OF WORK: A number of prognostic factors have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post-hoc analysis addressed whether: (1) these prognostic factors can identify a low-risk group for whom ondansetron plus dexamethasone alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis); (2) the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improves antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients in a phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to antiemetic regimens including ondansetron and dexamethasone, or aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis (but not nausea) of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0-4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Treatment with aprepitant (P < 0.0001), older age (P = 0.006), ethanol use (P = 0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (P = 0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis. The proportion of patients with one, two, or three risk factors who remained emesis free was significantly higher with the aprepitant-containing regimen than with the active control (70.2-82.8% vs. 38.6-66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant markedly improved control of emesis in patients with one or more risk factors. This analysis did not support using risk factors for modifying the antiemetic approach. A low-risk group with zero risk factors for whom aprepitant provided little benefit was of questionable clinical utility, since they comprised less than 3% of patients.

Differential time course of action of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC).

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns. METHODS: Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.

A Phase 2 study of perifosine in advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: First- and second-line chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes in metastatic breast cancer yield a modest improvement in survival with potentially significant toxicity. Subsequent lines of chemotherapy yield response rates of 20-25%, with an unknown impact on survival. Perifosine, an oral alkylphospholipid structurally related to miltefosine, has marked activity against breast cancer cell lines and xenograft models, with broad spectrum cellular effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of perifosine in patients with metastatic breast cancer patients after up to 2 lines of prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. METHODS: 18 patients were enrolled, and 17 treated, using a loading/maintenance dose schedule, (day 1, 300 mg, maintenance 150 mg days 2-21) every 28 days, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 54 (28-69), 16/17 were female, ECOG performance status was 0/1 in 16 patients. Fifteen received at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease (maximum 2). A median of 2 cycles (range 1-13) was administered per patient. Sixteen were evaluable for response: 2 had SD for 4 cycles, 1 SD for 13 cycles, 13 progressed by cycle 2. Grade 3/4 drug-related non-hematologic toxicities include: diarrhea (2), vomiting (2), nausea (2), fatigue (2) and anorexia (1). No grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were seen. Median time to progression was 8 weeks (7-15 weeks). CONCLUSION: No objective responses were seen in this group of pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients. Disease stabilization was observed in 19% at 2 months.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating dextromethorphan plus slow-release morphine for chronic cancer pain relief in terminally ill patients.

This multicenter trial examined the efficacy and safety of dextromethorphan (DM) as an enhancer of analgesia and modulator of opioid tolerance in cancer patients with pain. Eligible patients were randomized to slow-release morphine plus DM or slow-release morphine plus placebo. The initial DM dose was 60 mg four times daily for seven days, with an increase to 120 mg four times daily, if tolerated, for another seven days. During the study, patients recorded medications and scores for pain, nausea, drowsiness, and insomnia. Sixty-five patients were randomized. Although average pain scores (12.6 vs. 15.8), number of breakthrough doses (9 vs. 11.3), and change in total morphine consumption (550.9 mg vs. 597.1mg) were less in the DM group than placebo group, the differences were not statistically significant (P=0.31-0.33). Side-effect scores were not statistically significantly different. Dizziness was greater in the DM (58%) than placebo (36%) group. This study showed a statistically nonsignificant enhancement of analgesia or modulation of opioid tolerance in cancer patients with pain when DM was added to morphine. Participants receiving the DM also had more toxicity, particularly dizziness. This toxicity and the limited evidence of effect do not support the use of DM to enhance opioid analgesia or to modulate opioid tolerance in cancer patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis over multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles. METHODS: The authors performed a randomized, double-blind study. Eligible patients with breast carcinoma were naïve to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide alone or with doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomized to receive either an APR regimen (Day 1: APR 125 mg, ondansetron [OND] 8 mg, and dexamethasone [DEX] 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: APR 80 mg every day) or a control regimen (Day 1: OND 8 mg and DEX 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: OND 8 mg twice per day). Data on nausea, emesis, and use of rescue medication were collected. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue therapy) in Cycle 1. Efficacy end points for the multiple-cycle extension were the probabilities of a CR in Cycles 2-4 and a sustained CR rate across multiple cycles. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 744 (85.9%) entered the multiple-cycle extension, and 650 (75.1%) completed all 4 cycles. Overall, the CR was greater with the APR regimen over the 4 cycles: 53.8% versus 39.4% for Cycle 2, 54.1% versus 39.3% for Cycle 3, and 55.0% versus 38.4% for Cycle 4. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was greater with the APR regimen (P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The APR regimen was more effective than a control regimen for the prevention of nausea and emesis induced by MEC over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials.

In this work, data from two phase III studies were pooled to further evaluate the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for prevention of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. One thousand and forty three patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomised to receive either a control regimen (32 mg intravenous ondansetron [O] and 20 mg oral dexamethasone [D] on day 1; 8 mg D twice daily on days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (125 mg A plus 32 mg O and 12 mg D on day 1, 80 mg A and 8 mg D once daily on days 2-3, and 8 mg D on day 4). The primary endpoint was no emesis and no rescue therapy. Potential correlations between acute and delayed emesis were assessed, as were frequency of emetic episodes by time interval and effects on nausea and quality of life as measured by the functional living index emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. In the aprepitant group, there was statistically significantly less nausea over the study period as well as higher functioning on the FLIE questionnaire in both the nausea and vomiting domains. Patients without acute emesis were more likely to have no emesis in the delayed phase. Compared with control, the aprepitant regimen improved prevention of delayed emesis by 16% points in patients without acute emesis, and by 17% points in patients with acute emesis. Among patients who did not have complete response, the frequency of emesis at various intervals over 5 days was consistently lower in patients receiving aprepitant. Analyses of this combined Phase III population further characterized the clinical profile of the aprepitant regimen, showing that delayed emesis is correlated with, but not entirely dependent on, the presence of acute emesis, and that aprepitant has a favorable effect against nausea throughout 5 days postchemotherapy. In addition, even among patients who had emesis or needed rescue therapy, aprepitant was associated with a lower frequency of these events compared with the control regimen.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

PURPOSE: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.