2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential. RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs. CONCLUSION: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents-updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendation.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to identify new anticancer agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medical Agency (EMA) since the 2016 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic update and classify their emetic potential. METHODS: The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel classified the emetogenicity of the identified new antineoplastic agents based on nonsystematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, analysis of product labeling, and evaluation of emetic classification in other international guidelines and informal consensus. The emetogenic classification system for oral anticancer agents was revised into two emetic risk categories (minimal-low; moderate-high) to be consistent with the system reported by ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in their 2017 guideline update. The previously employed four emetic risk classification categories for intravenously administered antineoplastic agents were retained for this update. RESULTS: From June 2015 to January 2023, 107 new antineoplastic agents (44 intravenously administered and 63 orally administered agents) were identified. The reported incidence of vomiting varied significantly across studies for many agents, especially for oral anticancer agents. CONCLUSION: The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel acknowledges the limitations of our efforts to classify the emetic potential of anticancer agents, especially the imprecision associated with oral agents. However, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents by searching the available literature and reviewing other available international antiemetic guidelines.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer: efficacy of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron), the first combination antiemetic.

PURPOSE: Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin. METHODS: In each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1-4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: NEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included. CONCLUSIONS: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Employing the same framework as in previous guideline updates, antineoplastic agents were classified into four emetic risk categories. The classification of the emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents, especially for the oral drugs, represents an increasing challenge. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment is rarely available. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for drugs approved after 2009 until June 2015 using EMBASE and PubMed. The search term was "drug name." The restrictions were language (English records only), date (2009 to 2015), and level of evidence ("clinical trial"). RESULTS: From January 2009 to June 2015, 42 new antineoplastic agents were identified and a systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies to help define emetic risk levels. The reported incidence of vomiting varied across studies for many agents, but there was adequate evidence to allow 41 of the 42 new antineoplastic agents to be classified according to emetogenic risk. No highly emetogenic agents were identified. Seven moderately emetogenic agents, 26 low emetogenic, agents and eight minimal emetogenic agents were identified and classified accordingly. The MASCC/ESMO update committee also recommended reclassification of the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) as highly emetogenic. CONCLUSION: Despite several limitations, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents through a comprehensive search of the available literature. Hopefully by the next update, more precise information on emetic risk will have been collected during new agent development process.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life. RESULTS: In the subgroup administered carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0-120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin-treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418-2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures. RESULTS: Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare. CONCLUSION: NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

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.

Sotatercept (ACE-011) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with metastatic breast cancer or advanced or metastatic solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimens: results from two phase 2 studies.

PURPOSE: Sotatercept may represent a novel approach to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). We report the results from two phase 2 randomized studies examining the use of sotatercept for the treatment of CIA in patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: In study A011-08, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 2:2:2:1 to receive sotatercept 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 mg/kg, or placebo, respectively, every 28 days. In study ACE-011-NSCL-001, patients with solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received sotatercept 15 or 30 mg every 42 days. The primary endpoint for both studies was hematopoietic response, defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline. RESULTS: Both studies were terminated early due to slow patient accrual. Among patients treated with sotatercept in the A011-08 and ACE-011-NSCL-001 studies, more patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the combined sotatercept 0.3 mg/kg and 15 mg (66.7 %) group and sotatercept 0.5 mg/kg and 30 mg (38.9 %) group versus the sotatercept 0.1 mg/kg (0 %) group. No patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the placebo group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was low in both studies, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Although both studies were terminated early, these results indicate that sotatercept is active and has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of CIA.

Treatment of Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An ASTRO/ESTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: This joint guideline by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) was initiated to review evidence and provide recommendations regarding the use of local therapy in the management of extracranial oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Local therapy is defined as the comprehensive treatment of all known cancer-primary tumor, regional nodal metastases, and metastases-with definitive intent. METHODS: ASTRO and ESTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions focused on the use of local (radiation, surgery, other ablative methods) and systemic therapy in the management of oligometastatic NSCLC. The questions address clinical scenarios for using local therapy, sequencing and timing when integrating local with systemic therapies, radiation techniques critical for oligometastatic disease targeting and treatment delivery, and the role of local therapy for oligoprogression or recurrent disease. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using ASTRO guidelines methodology. RESULTS: Based on the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach was strongly recommended for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. Integration of definitive local therapy was only relevant if technically feasible and clinically safe to all disease sites, defined as 5 or fewer distinct sites. Conditional recommendations were given for definitive local therapies in synchronous, metachronous, oligopersistent, and oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial disease. Radiation and surgery were the only primary definitive local therapy modalities recommended for use in the management of patients with oligometastatic disease, with indications provided for choosing one over the other. Sequencing recommendations were provided for systemic and local therapy integration. Finally, multiple recommendations were provided for the optimal technical use of hypofractionated radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy as definitive local therapy, including dose and fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, data regarding clinical benefits of local therapy on overall and other survival outcomes is still sparse for oligometastatic NSCLC. However, with rapidly evolving data being generated supporting local therapy in oligometastatic NSCLC, this guideline attempted to frame recommendations as a function of the quality of data available to make decisions in a multidisciplinary approach incorporating patient goals and tolerances.

Aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). METHODS: Patients with breast cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status of ≤ 2, receiving doxorubicin (≥ 60 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (≥ 500 mg/m(2)) for the first time were eligible. Prior to chemotherapy patients received aprepitant 125 mg orally (PO), dexamethasone 8-10 mg PO/intravenously (IV), and palonosetron 0.25 mg IV. On days 2-3, dexamethasone 4 mg PO and aprepitant 80 mg PO were given. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries for the 120-h study period following chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no emesis or rescue) for the 120-h study period. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled and all are evaluable. The median age was 53 (33-75) and 36 are females. Eighteen patients (50%) achieved a complete response during the 120-h study period. Acute (≤ 24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) complete response rates were 81% (27/36) and 61% (22/36), respectively. No emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall study periods were 97% (35/36), 94% (34/36), and 92% (33/36), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron prevented emesis in more than 90% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AC chemotherapy. Nausea was less well controlled. Overall complete response was achieved in one half of the study patients. Further improvement in the prevention of AC-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will require more effective antinausea treatments.

Prospective evaluation of the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study sought to prospectively determine the frequency of delayed nausea and vomiting with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy following day 1 prophylaxis with a 5-HT-(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. METHODS: Patients with colon cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status ≤ 2, receiving oxaliplatin (85-100 mg/m(2)) as part of a standard folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin regimen for the first time were eligible. All patients received a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone 20 mg on day 1 prior to oxaliplatin. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis was given. Antiemetic outcome was recorded in patient-completed diaries for the 120-h study period following oxaliplatin administration. Primary endpoint was frequency of delayed (24-120 h) emesis (vomiting/retching). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled and 39 are evaluable. Median age was 70 (34-85) and the female/male ratio was 20:19. Four patients (10%) experienced vomiting or retching during the delayed period. One patient vomited during the first 24 h after oxaliplatin. The overall (120 h) no emesis rate was 87% (34/39). Twenty-one patients (54%) developed delayed nausea. Nine patients had moderate or severe nausea. Eighteen patients (46%) took rescue antiemetics during the delayed period. Delayed and overall complete response (no emesis or use of rescue antiemetics) rates were 54% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone prior to oxaliplatin results in excellent control of nausea and vomiting (CR-90%) during the 24 h after chemotherapy. However, without further antiemetic treatment, complete response in the delayed period decreased to 54%. This study supports the need for routine antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed nausea and vomiting following oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of palonosetron as salvage treatment in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer who had incomplete control of CINV during their previous cycle of low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC). METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed cancer, ≥18 years of age, with a Karnofsky Performance Scale score of ≥50% who had received LEC that induced vomiting and/or at least moderate nausea during their previous treatment cycle received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV 30 min before chemotherapy. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries over 120 h and at an end-of-study visit on days 6, 7, or 8 after LEC administration. The primary efficacy variable was the complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication at 0-24 h (acute post-chemotherapy phase), 24-120 h (delayed phase), and 0-120 h (overall). RESULTS: Complete responses among the intent-to-treat study population (n = 34) were recorded for 88.2 % of patients in the acute phase, 67.6% in the delayed phase, and 67.6% overall. No emetic episodes occurred in 91.2 and 79.4% of patients during the acute and delayed phases, respectively, and no nausea in 73.5 and 52.9%, respectively. Palonosetron was well tolerated; only two patients experienced treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients with cancer who had a history of CINV with LEC, palonosetron was effective in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed post-chemotherapy phases, and was well tolerated. Randomized comparative studies in larger populations of patients receiving LEC are needed to confirm these findings.

Single-dose intravenous casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two arm, parallel group study.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine if a single dose of casopitant 90 mg added to ondansetron and dexamethasone would improve the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over 0-120 h following initiation of oxaliplatin-based moderately emetic chemotherapy (MEC) compared to ondansetron and dexamethasone alone. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer received either casopitant or placebo intravenously (IV) added to ondansetron 8 mg bid oral on study days 1 to 3 and one dose of dexamethasone 8 mg IV given prior to starting the oxaliplatin on day 1. The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching or use of rescue medication) during 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. RESULTS: No difference in the rate of CR was noted in the casopitant group compared to the placebo group for the overall (placebo 85%, casopitant 86%, p = 0.7273), acute (placebo 96%, casopitant 97%), or delayed phases (placebo 85%, casopitant 86%). The average area under curve (0-∞) of casopitant after a single 90-mg IV dose was 8,390 ng h/mL. At 24 h after casopitant 90-mg IV dosing, the plasma casopitant concentration was 24% lower than the values noted in prior studies with 150 mg oral administration, and the plasma exposure of the major metabolite (GSK525060) was 18% lower. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of single-dose casopitant 90 mg IV did not improve the control of CINV at any time during 120 h following initiation of oxaliplatin-based MEC. Excellent control of CINV was achieved in this study population with the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone alone.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a RET rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a RET rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study sought to prospectively determine the frequency of delayed nausea and vomiting with irinotecan-based chemotherapy following day 1 prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer aged ≥ 18 years with ECOG performance status ≤ 2 receiving irinotecan alone, combined with cetuximab or as part of a standard folinic acid, 5- fluorouracil, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen for the first time were eligible. All patients received a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone 8 mg on day 1 prior to irinotecan. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis was given. Antiemetic outcome was recorded in patient-completed diaries for the 120-h study period after irinotecan administration. Primary endpoint was frequency of delayed (24-120 h) emesis. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, and all are evaluable. The median age was 61 (39-79) years; the male-female ratio was 37:7. Four patients (9%) experienced vomiting or retching during the delayed period. Three patients (7%) vomited during the first 24 h after irinotecan. The overall no emesis rate was 89% (39/44). Fifteen patients (34%) experienced delayed nausea (mildin 11 patients, moderate in four patients). Six patients (14%) took rescue antiemetics during the delayed period. Delayed and overall complete response (no emesis or use of rescue antiemetics) rates were 82% and 77% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone prior to irinotecan results in excellent control of nausea and vomiting (CR 86%) during the 24 h after chemotherapy. Without further antiemetic treatment, most patients (82%) will not experience delayed emesis or require rescue antiemetics. Routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis following irinotecan does not appear to be warranted.

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.