2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations.

Background: Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources. Methods: A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions. Findings: Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1-2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy. Interpretation: An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding. RJC received investigator grant support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).

Quality of life in patients with malignant spinal cord compression: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is an oncological emergency that may result in a devastating combination of malignancy and disability. Existing quality of life (QoL) questionnaires commonly used in MSCC literature (EORTC QLQ-C30, BM-22, Brief Pain Inventory, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes) may not capture all the commonly reported symptoms and lack specificity to MSCC. The primary objective of this systematic review is to determine unmet patient needs and underreported QoL issues and compile a comprehensive list of QoL issues. The secondary objective of this review is to compile all existing QoL tools and questionnaires and determine whether any QoL issues are not addressed in the existing tools currently used in the literature. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and February 6, 2023, to compile all QoL issues and existing questionnaires used to assess QoL in patients with MSCC. All study designs were included given that they discussed QoL issues specific to patients with MSCC. RESULTS: The results of this systematic review identified the most frequently discussed QoL issues in the literature studying MSCC. This included direct symptoms of MSCC such as back pain, paralysis, limb weakness/numbness, and urinary/bowel incontinence. Indirect symptoms coming from radiotherapy treatment such as dysphagia, painful swallowing, mouth pain, dry mouth, diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting were also noted. Other symptoms resulting from corticosteroid treatment included difficulty sleeping, blurring of vision, weight gain, and mood disturbance. Patients also experienced psychosocial issues such as anxiety, depression, emotional distress, low self-esteem, concerns about dependence on others, concerns about getting home, and fear about their prognosis and future. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the QoL issues specific to patients with MSCC and QoL tools capturing these issues. Relevance of QoL issues identified in this systematic review must be prospectively validated by patients and healthcare professionals with experience in treating MSCC.

Quality of life issues in patients with bone metastases: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Bones are frequent sites of metastatic disease, observed in 30-75% of advanced cancer patients. Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint in studies evaluating the treatments of bone metastases (BM), and many patient-reported outcome tools are available. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a list of QoL issues relevant to BM and its interventions. The secondary objective was to identify common tools used to assess QoL in patients with BM, and the QoL issues they fail to address. METHODS: A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and 27 January 2023 with the keywords "bone metastases", "quality of life", and "patient reported outcomes". Specific QoL issues in original research studies and the QoL tools used were extracted. RESULTS: The review identified the QoL issues most prevalent to BM in the literature. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, interference with ambulation and daily activities, and fatigue. Psychological symptoms, such as helplessness, depression, and anxiety were also common. These issues interfered with patients' relationships and social activities. Items not mentioned in existing QoL tools were related to newer treatments of BM, such as pain flare, flu-like symptoms, and jaw pain due to osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights that QoL issues for patients with BM have expanded over time due to advances in BM-directed treatments. If they are relevant, additional treatment-related QoL issues identified need to be validated prospectively by patients and added to current assessment tools.

Latest clinical research in leptomeningeal disease (LMD)-a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is associated with poor survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is an urgent need for clinical research in this area to improve the outcomes. The purpose of this study is to summarize the areas of active clinical research in LMD, identify the knowledge gap, and suggest future research directions. METHODS: A narrative review of clinical trials in LMD was conducted based on a search in clinicatrials.gov using the search term "leptomeningeal" under "condition or disease". Clinical trials in patients with LMD arising from solid malignancy that were labelled as "not yet recruiting", "recruiting", "enrolling by invitation" or "active, not recruiting" were included. Studies which were deemed to have significant impact on future research direction in LMD were selected for discussion. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: A total of 38 clinical trials were included. Of these 38 trials, 19 are discussed in this review, with focus on their research questions and impact on future research directions. Most of the studies that were not selected for discussion focused on biomarker-driven interventions. Four key areas of research were identified, namely the (I) diagnosis, response assessment or molecular profiling of LMD (n=2); (II) advances in radiotherapy (n=3); (III) intrathecal treatment (n=13); (IV) novel drug carrier for systemic treatment (n=1). The research questions in the 19 discussed clinical trials included the tumour microenvironment of LMD, the role of novel molecular techniques in LMD, combination of radiotherapy with drugs, and cell-based immunotherapy. Among these 19 studies, 11 were phase 1 trials, 3 were phase 2 or phase 1/2 trials, 2 were phase 3 or phase 2/3 trials and the study phase was not reported in the remaining 3 studies. The existing knowledge gaps are discussed, including the lack of primary site-specific prognostic tools, cost-effectiveness studies, dedicated HRQoL assessment tools for LMD and sequencing of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The current clinical trials in LMD offer the promise to improve the diagnosis and treatment outcomes of patients with LMD. More research is needed to overcome the potential hurdles in the current treatment and bridge the knowledge gaps as identified in this review, to improve patients' quantity and quality of survival.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97-1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58-4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23-4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of Mepitel Film in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched on 5 March 2023 to identify relevant RCTs. RD assessment tools and outcomes were compared across studies. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated based on random-effects analysis using RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Three RCTs conducted between 2018 and 2020 were included. Mepitel Film decreased RD severity when compared to Sorbolene or Biafine but not when compared to mometasone. A per-protocol analysis of two of the trials revealed that, overall, Mepitel Film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 2-3 RD (odds ratio (OR), 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.65; p = 0.005) and moist desquamation (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.46; p < 0.0001) and decreased average patient, researcher, and combined components of the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (the standardized mean difference (SMD) for patient ratings, - 2.56; 95% CI, - 3.15 to - 1.96, p < 0.00001; SMD for researcher ratings, - 3.47; 95% CI, - 6.63 to - 0.31, p = 0.03; SMD for combined scores, - 3.68; 95% CI, - 6.43 to - 0.92, p = 0.009). Noted issues with Mepitel Film included itchiness and poor adherence. CONCLUSION: While there were discrepancies across studies, Mepitel Film demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of grade 2-3 RD and moist desquamation. These findings emphasize the need for further examining Mepitel Film's efficacy across diverse patient groups and the importance of standardizing RD severity assessment methodologies and control arms.

Mepitel film for the prevention and treatment of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mepitel film in preventing or treating acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with breast cancer in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Embase, APA PsychInfo, Journals@Ovid Full Text, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Trials were searched until December 12, 2022, to identify RCTs on the use of Mepitel film for preventing or treating acute RD from breast cancer radiotherapy. Per-protocol analysis was used to compare outcomes, calculate pooled effect sizes, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to create forest plots using random effects analysis in RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included in this review. Mepitel film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3 RD (OR 0.15 95% CI 0.06, 0.37, p<0.0001) and grade 2 or 3 RD (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.04, 0.65, p=0.01) as scored on either the CTCAE or the RTOG scale. Additionally, Mepitel film significantly reduced RISRAS mean scores assessed by patients and combined researcher and patient (standardized mean difference (SMD) -7.59, 95% CI -14.42, -0.76, p=0.03; SMD -15.36, 95% CI -30.01, -0.71 p=0.04) but not the researcher component of the assessment tool (SMD -17.55, 95% CI -36.94, 1.84, p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Mepitel film reduced the incidence of acute RD and improved patient-reported outcomes with minimal side effects, the main one being itchiness. Future research should assess the feasibility of Mepitel film with respect to specific patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life issues associated with its use.

A critical appraisal of the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis on stereotactic body radiation therapy versus external beam radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and where we go from here.

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for pain control in patients with bone metastases. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which allows delivering a much higher dose per fraction while sparing critical structures compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT), has become more widely used, especially in the oligometastatic setting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the pain response rate of SBRT and cEBRT for bone metastases have shown conflicting results, as have four recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses of these trials. Possible reasons for the different outcomes between these reviews include differences in methodology, which trials were included, and the endpoints examined and how they were defined. We suggest ways to improve analysis of these RCTs, particularly performing an individual patient-level meta-analysis since the trials included heterogeneous populations. The results of such studies will help guide future investigations needed to validate patient selection criteria, optimize SBRT dose schedules, include additional endpoints (such as the time to onset of pain response, durability of pain response, quality of life (QOL), and side effects of SBRT), and better assess the cost-effectiveness and trade-offs of SBRT compared to cEBRT. An international Delphi consensus to guide selection of optimal candidates for SBRT is warranted before more prospective data is available.

MASCC clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: part 1) systematic review.

Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the current evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of ARD. Databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify all original studies that evaluated an intervention for the prevention or management of ARD, with an updated search conducted in January 2023. A total of 235 original studies were included in this review, including 149 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most interventions could not be recommended due to a low quality of evidence, lack of supporting evidence, or conflicting findings across multiple trials. Photobiomodulation therapy, Mepitel® film, mometasone furoate, betamethasone, olive oil, and oral enzyme mixtures showed promising results across multiple RCTs. Recommendations could not be made solely based on the published evidence due to limited high-quality evidence. As such, Delphi consensus recommendations will be reported in a separate publication.

Should endovascular stenting be used routinely as first-line treatment for malignant superior vena cava syndrome?-a critical review in the context of recent advances in oncological treatments.

Malignant superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is no longer considered a medical emergency in most cases because it rarely leads to life-threatening complications. However, it results in disturbing symptoms that can significantly affect patients' quality of life. Treating this condition effectively while minimising treatment-related morbidity is of increasing importance as cancer patients are living longer from advances in oncological treatments. This clinical practice review discusses the implications of these advances on the decision to consider stenting as the initial treatment for SVCS. Stenting is increasingly popular as it provides quick symptomatic relief with low rates of complications. Systemic treatments have evolved in the past two decades with the development of immunotherapy and targeted therapies that have different response patterns compared to conventional chemotherapy. Furthermore, major changes have also been seen in radiotherapy techniques that allow treatments to better conform to targets while sparing normal tissues. These advances have changed practice patterns for stent placement in SVCS patients in both the localised and metastatic settings. Prospective studies using standardised patient-reported outcome tools are needed to determine the optimal treatment sequence for SVCS patients, as current recommendations are mainly based on retrospective single-arm studies. An individualized approach with multidisciplinary input is therefore important to optimize patient outcomes before more robust evidence is available.