2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Efficacy and safety of NEPA, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized dose-ranging pivotal study.

BACKGROUND: NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. RESULTS: All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND.

Serotonin antagonists: a new class of antiemetic agents.

Despite a number of significant advances over the past decade, prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis remain formidable problems, particularly with cisplatin-containing regimens. Nearly one third of patients receiving high-dose cisplatin still experience substantial emesis despite the best available conventional antiemetics, and the toxic effects of these agents remain quite troublesome. In recent years, a new class of agents, the serotonin antagonists, has been identified. These agents hold promise for clinical utility in a wide range of areas. Selective antagonists of the serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) type 3 (5-HT3) receptor have proven in early clinical trials to be potent antiemetic agents in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with efficacy comparable to or superior to that of conventional antiemetics. Toxic effects to date with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been modest. The current state of knowledge with respect to these agents as antiemetics for patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy is summarized.

Contribution of dexamethasone to control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized evidence.

PURPOSE: To synthesize the available randomized evidence on the efficacy of dexamethasone when used for protection against acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using trials identified through MEDLINE (1966 to April 1999), Embase, Derwent Drug File, and the Cochrane Library's Database of Controlled Trials. Data on acute and delayed emesis and nausea were collected. All randomized studies comparing dexamethasone to placebo, no treatment, or other antiemetics qualified, including cross-over trials providing first-cycle data. RESULTS: Of 1,200 citations screened, 32 studies with 42 pertinent comparisons and 5,613 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Dexamethasone was superior to placebo or no treatment for complete protection from acute emesis (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89 to 2.60) and for complete protection from delayed emesis (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.56). The results were similar for complete protection from nausea. The pooled risk difference for complete protection from emesis was 16% for both the acute and delayed phases (95% CI, 13% to 19% and 11% to 20%, respectively). The beneficial effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. No trial addressed the efficacy of dexamethasone in the delayed phase without having administered dexamethasone for acute-phase protection as well. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone is clearly effective in protecting from emesis both in the acute and delayed phases, with emesis avoided in one patient out of six treated. Future trials should determine whether the delayed-phase effect is independent of the acute-phase benefit.

GR 38032F (GR-C507/75): a novel compound effective in the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis.

We evaluated, in a multi-center trial, the safety and efficacy of GR 38032F (GR-C507/75), a novel and selective serotonin antagonist, in preventing acute emesis in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving treatment with regimens containing high-dose cisplatin (greater than or equal to 100 mg/m2). Eighty-five patients were randomized to receive GR 38032F, 0.18 mg/kg, either every six or every eight hours for three doses, beginning 30 minutes before cisplatin. Patients were evaluated for emetic episodes (vomiting or retching) over a 24-hour period following cisplatin. All patients were evaluable for toxicity and 83 were evaluable for efficacy. The overall antiemetic response rate was 75% (55% complete response [CR], 20% major response). No difference in antiemetic control between the two administration schedules was noted. Patients with histories of heavy ethanol use had significantly better antiemetic control (74% CR) than modest or non-drinkers (33% CR). Toxicity of GR 38032F was modest and independent of administration schedule. The most common adverse events included mild hepatic transaminase elevations, self-limited diarrhea, dry mouth, headache, and mild sedation. Our data indicate that GR 38032F is a safe and effective agent in the control of acute cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Additional trials exploring dosing, schedule, and comparison to standard antiemetic agents are indicated.

Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To propose a classification of the acute emetogenicity of antineoplastic chemotherapy agents, and to develop an algorithm to define the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted to identify (1) clinical trials that used chemotherapy as single-agent therapy, and (2) major reviews of antiemetic therapy. The search was limited to patients who received commonly used doses of chemotherapy agents, primarily by short (< 3 hours) intravenous infusions. Based on review of this information and our collective clinical experience, we assigned chemotherapy agents to one of five emetogenic levels by consensus. A preliminary algorithm to determine the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens was then designed by consensus. A final algorithm was developed after we analyzed a data base composed of patients treated on the placebo arms of four randomized antiemetic trials. RESULTS: Chemotherapy agents were divided into five levels: level 1 (< 10% of patients experience acute [< or = 24 hours after chemotherapy] emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis); level 2 (10% to 30%); level 3 (30% to 60%); level 4 (60% to 90%); and level 5 (> 90%). For combinations, the emetogenic level was determined by identifying the most emetogenic agent in the combination and then assessing the relative contribution of the other agents. The following rules apply: (1) level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenic level of a combination; (2) adding > or = one level 2 agent increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination; and (3) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification schema provides a practical means to determine the emetogenic potential of individual chemotherapy agents and combination regimens during the 24 hours after administration. This system can serve as a framework for the development of antiemetic guidelines.

Adjusting the dose of intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone to the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen.

PURPOSE: This pilot, open-label study evaluates the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a single 20-mg intravenous (IV) dose of dexamethasone combined with a single IV dose of ondansetron (32, 24, or 8 mg) in patients receiving highly emetogenic (HE), moderately high emetogenic (MHE), or moderately emetogenic (ME) chemotherapy, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-six patients received a single 20-mg IV dose of dexamethasone over 15 minutes beginning 45 minutes before chemotherapy and either a single 32-, 24-, or 8-mg IV dose of ondansetron over 15 minutes beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Patients were evaluated for emetic episodes, extent of nausea, and adverse events for 24 hours after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Complete response (no emetic episodes) was noted in 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60% to 84%), 88% (95% CI, 79% to 97%), and 77% (95% CI, 63% to 92%) of patients in the HE, MHE, and ME categories, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced no nausea on the posttreatment assessment was 51% (95% CI, 37% to 64%), 69% (95% CI, 56% to 81%), and 47% (95% CI, 29% to 65%), respectively. The antiemetic regimens were all well tolerated. The proportion of patients with any drug-related adverse events did not vary across the three study groups despite the range of ondansetron doses and variety of chemotherapy regimens. Mild headache was noted in 28% of patients. Other adverse events, all of which were noted in fewer than 10% of patients, included lightheadedness, fatigue, dizziness, and constipation. CONCLUSION: A single IV dose of either 8, 24, or 32 mg of ondansetron combined with a single 20-mg IV dose of dexamethasone resulted in good control of acute emesis across a wide spectrum of chemotherapy regimens. Nausea control proved somewhat more difficult, with approximately 50% of patients in the HE and ME emetogenic categories experiencing some degree of nausea. The results of our pilot study suggest that adjusting the dose of ondansetron to the intrinsic emetogenicity of the chemotherapy regimen permits a more efficient use of ondansetron while maintaining good antiemetic control. Such an approach appears worthy of further investigation.

Randomized phase II study of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist CJ-11,974 in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of the neurokinin type 1 receptor antagonist CJ-11,974 for the control of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, phase II design with a group sequential stopping rule was used in this study. Sixty-one patients with cancer who were receiving cisplatin at a dose of at least 100 mg/m2 for the first time were enrolled. All patients received granisetron 10 microg/kg and dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously 30 minutes before they were given cisplatin. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 received CJ-11,974 100 mg, and group 2 received placebo orally 30 minutes before and 12 hours after cisplatin and then twice daily on days 2 through 5 after cisplatin. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who developed delayed emesis (emesis on the second to fifth days after cisplatin). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in group 1, and 31 patients were enrolled in group 2. Fifty-eight patients were assessable for efficacy. Complete control of emesis (expressed as the percentage of patients who had no emesis) was as follows: day 1, 85.7% (group 1) and 66.7% (group 2) (P = .090); days 2 through 5, 67.8% (group 1) and 36.6% (group 2) (P = .0425, adjusted); days 1 through 5, 64.3% (group 1) and 30% (group 2) (P = .009). Patients in group 1 experienced significantly less nausea than patients in group 2 on day 1 (P = .024). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude from this exploratory phase II trial that CJ-11,974 is superior to placebo in controlling cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and may provide additive benefit in acute emesis and nausea control when combined with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Additional larger trials are indicated to confirm the clinical value of CJ-11,974.

Single-dose oral granisetron has equivalent antiemetic efficacy to intravenous ondansetron for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of a single dose of an oral antiemetic (granisetron 2 mg) with a single dose of an intravenous (i.v.) antiemetic (ondansetron 32 mg) given before cisplatin-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (N = 1,054) scheduled to receive cisplatin (> or = 60 mg/m2)-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive either 2 mg of oral granisetron tablets 1 hour before chemotherapy (n = 534) or i.v. ondansetron (32 mg) 30 minutes before chemotherapy (n = 520). The primary efficacy end point was total control (no emesis, no nausea, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication) over the initial 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone or methylprednisolone were permitted, but not required, as concomitant prophylactic antiemetics. RESULTS: Total control was equivalent 24 hours after cisplatin chemotherapy for single-dose oral granisetron (54.7%) and i.v. ondansetron (58.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.6 to 2.4). Similar proportions of patients remained nausea-free in the granisetron group (55.4%) and the ondansetron group (59%) (95% CI, -9.6 to 2.4). The rate of complete control of emesis was 61.2% in the granisetron group and 67.1% in the ondansetron group (95% CI, -11.7 to -0.1). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, with similar patterns of adverse reactions, generally of a mild degree. The most common side effects included constipation (14%), headache (15%), and diarrhea (10%). CONCLUSION: Oral granisetron, administered as a single 2-mg dose, provided equivalent total antiemetic control when compared with i.v. ondansetron (32 mg) in patients who received highly emetogenic, cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron alone and in combination with intravenous dexamethasone in the prevention of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis.

PURPOSE: This study compares the efficacy and safety of ondansetron alone with that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter study used a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design. Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran, Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg for three doses every 4 hours beginning 30 minutes before cisplatin administration either alone or in combination with dexamethasone 20 mg administered 45 minutes before cisplatin. Cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2) was administered as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes (EEs), adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were enrolled. Of these, 245 were assessable for efficacy. Patients who received ondansetron plus dexamethasone had a higher complete antiemetic response rate (61% v 46%, P = .02) and less nausea (posttreatment visual analog scale mean 18.2 v 32.8, P < .001) than did those who received ondansetron alone. The time to the first EE was longer for patients in the group that received ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P = .005). Headache (12%), diarrhea (2%), and abdominal colic (1%) were the most common antiemetic-related adverse events reported. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: IV ondansetron in combination with dexamethasone is safe and more effective than ondansetron alone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.

Stratified, randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron administered as a multiple-dose regimen versus two single-dose regimens in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This study compares the efficacy and safety of two single-dose regimens with the approved three-dose regimen of ondansetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter study was a stratified, randomized, double-blind, and parallel group design. Chemotherapy-naive inpatients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran; Glaxo Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg times three doses, every 4 hours or a single 8-mg or 32-mg dose followed by two saline doses that began 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Cisplatin (high-dose > or = 100 mg/m2 or medium-dose 50 to 70 mg/m2) was given as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes, adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients (359 high-dose, 340 medium-dose) were enrolled. Of these, 618 were assessable for efficacy (15 ineligible, 66 protocol deviations). The 32-mg dose was superior to the 8-mg single dose with regard to total number of emetic episodes (high-dose, P = .015; medium-dose, P < .001), complete response (no emetic episodes: high-dose, 48% v 35%; P = .048; medium-dose, 73% v 50%; P = .001) and failure rate (> 5 emetic episodes, withdrawn or rescued: high-dose, 20% v 34%; P = .018; medium-dose, 9% v 23%; P = .005). The 32-mg single dose was also superior to the 0.15 mg/kg times three dose regimen with regard to total number of emetic episodes (medium-dose, P = .033) and failure rate (high-dose, 20% v 36%; P = .009; medium-dose, 9% v 22%; P = .011). Ondansetron was well tolerated. The most common adverse event was headache. An approximate 10-fold increase in the incidence of clinically significant transaminase elevations was observed in the high-dose versus medium-dose cisplatin strata (aspartate aminotransferase [AST], 6.5% v 0.7%; serum alanine aminotransferase [ALT], 5.0% v 0.3%). CONCLUSION: A 32-mg single dose of ondansetron is more effective than a single 8-mg dose and is at least as effective as the standard regimen of 0.15 mg/kg times three doses in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis.

Paclitaxel and concurrent radiation for locally advanced pancreatic and gastric cancer: a phase I study.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and potential antitumor activity of weekly paclitaxel with concurrent radiation (RT) for locally advanced pancreatic and gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas or stomach were studied. The initial dose of paclitaxel was 30 mg/m2 by 3-hour intravenous (I.V.) infusion repeated every week for 6 weeks with 50 Gy RT. Doses were escalated at 10-mg/m2 increments in successive cohorts of three new patients until dose-limiting toxicity was observed. RESULTS: The dose-limiting toxicities at 60 mg/m2/wk were abdominal pain within the RT field, nausea, and anorexia. Of 23 patients with assessable disease, 11 (seven with gastric, four with pancreatic cancer) had objective responses for an overall response rate of 48%. CONCLUSION: Concurrent paclitaxel with upper abdominal RT is well tolerated at dosages that have substantial activity. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant paclitaxel and RT at the MTD of 50 mg/m2/wk is underway.

Production of erythroid burst-promoting activity (BPA) and granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating activity (GM-CSA) by isolated human T-lymphocyte subpopulations.

T-lymphocytes and monocytes are prominent among the classes of normal human cells that have been implicated in the production of the hemopoietic growth factors granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating activity (GM-CSA) and erythroid burst-promoting activity (BPA). To investigate the nature of the cooperativity that occurs during the elaboration of these growth factors by activated T-lymphocytes and monocytes in vitro, and to define the subsets of T cells involved in this response, we studied the production of GM-CSA and BPA by populations of T-lymphocytes isolated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, using the monoclonal antibodies OKT3, OKT4, and OKT8. When OKT3+, OKT4+, or OKT8+ cells were incubated for five days in liquid suspension cultures, their production of GM-CSA and BPA was undetectably low. When 5% autologous monocytes were added to the cultures, no increase in the secretion of either of these classes of growth factors was noted. In the presence of concanavalin A (Con A), measurable quantities of both GM-CSA and BPA were elaborated by all three populations of T cells in the absence of monocytes; however, when autologous monocytes were added to the Con A-stimulated T cells, the secretion of both GM-CSA and BPA was markedly enhanced. In addition, we found that supernates of unfractionated T cells incubated with Con A contained not only GM-CSA and BPA but also a potent inhibitor(s) of BPA that could be demonstrated by dilution of the media and removed by gel filtration. In contrast, no inhibitor of GM-CSA was found. By molecular sieve chromatography of the supernates, GM-CSA and BPA coeluted as a single peak. However, the two biologic activities could be separated on the basis of heat stability, since GM-CSA proved to be heat labile whereas BPA did not. Our data indicate that GM-CSA and BPA derived from human T cells are similar in their apparent molecular weights and in the pattern of their production in suspension cultures in response to lectin stimulation. The secretion of both GM-CSA and BPA by Con A-stimulated T cells is facilitated by the presence of autologous monocytes, and is not restricted to either the OKT4- or the OKT8-defined subset.

Paclitaxel and concurrent radiation therapy for locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, stomach, and gastroesophageal junction.

An effective locoregional therapy is needed for adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, stomach, and gastroesophageal junction. Paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) may enhance the effect of radiation therapy (RT). Paclitaxel synchronizes cells at G2/M, a relatively radiosensitive phase of the cell cycle. We have shown that response to paclitaxel and concurrent RT (paclitaxel/RT) was not affected by p53 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. This finding suggested that paclitaxel/RT was a rational treatment approach for other malignancies that frequently harbor p53 mutations, such as upper gastrointestinal malignancies. We completed a phase I study of paclitaxel/RT for locally advanced pancreatic and gastric cancer. The maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel was 50 mg/m2/wk for 6 weeks with abdominal RT. The dose-limiting toxicities were abdominal pain within the radiation field, nausea, and anorexia. Phase II studies are now under way. Twenty-five patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer have been entered at the phase II dose level of paclitaxel 50 mg/m2/wk with concurrent RT (total dose, 50 Gy). Thus far, the only grade 3/4 toxicities have been hypersensitivity reactions (n = 2), asymptomatic grade 4 neutropenia (n = 3), and nonneutropenic biliary sepsis (n = 1). Of the first 18 assessable patients with pancreatic cancer treated on the phase II study, six obtained a partial response, for a preliminary response rate of 33%. In the phase II study for locally advanced gastric cancer, 20 patients have been enrolled. Of the first 19 patients who have completed treatment, nine (47%) had grade 3/4 toxicities, including nausea, anorexia, esophagitis, and gastritis. Of the first 16 patients with gastric cancer, complete and partial responses have been observed in one and eight patients, respectively, for a preliminary response rate of 56%. We have also completed treatment on 24 patients with potentially resectable adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction with neoadjuvant paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2, weekly for 4 weeks, with concurrent RT (total dose, 40 Gy) followed by surgical resection. Ten patients (41%) had grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, nausea, and dehydration. Of 24 patients, four complete responses (17%) and 14 partial responses (58%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 75%. Severe esophagitis was uncommon, making this a well-tolerated outpatient regimen for adenocarcinomas of the distal esophagus. These findings demonstrate that paclitaxel-based chemoradiation for locally advanced upper gastrointestinal malignancies is well-tolerated with substantial activity.

Delayed emesis following high-dose cisplatin: a double-blind randomised comparative trial of ondansetron (GR 38032F) versus placebo.

Despite recent advances in control of acute emesis, delayed nausea and vomiting following cisplatin-based chemotherapy remain a significant cause of treatment-related morbidity. Ondansetron, a selective 5HT3 receptor antagonist, is effective in preventing acute emesis in the initial 24-h period following high-dose cisplatin. The efficacy and safety of ondansetron in preventing the delayed emesis syndrome during days 2-5 after cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2) were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial. 50 patients having two or fewer emetic episodes during the first 24 h were randomised to receive ondansetron (16 mg) or placebo orally three times daily beginning 24 h after cisplatin. Rates of complete control of emesis were higher in ondansetron-treated patients during each study day, 59-78%, compared with 39-50% in placebo-treated patients, but the differences were statistically superior only on the third study day (P = 0.009). 40% of patients in the ondansetron treatment arm and 33% treated with placebo had complete control of emesis during the entire 4-day study period (P = 0.648). Withdrawal from study due to nausea and vomiting occurred in 13% of ondansetron-treated patients compared with 33% in the placebo arm (P = 0.102). Control of nausea was better with ondansetron, but differences were not statistically significant. Adverse effects of oral ondansetron given in this dose schedule were minimal. These data suggest that the delayed emesis syndrome may be partially mediated through the 5HT3 receptor, but that a serotonin antagonist alone provides inadequate control. Further investigation of ondansetron-based therapy in this clinical setting is warranted.

Differential involvement of neurotransmitters through the time course of cisplatin-induced emesis as revealed by therapy with specific receptor antagonists.

Advances in antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced emesis have resulted in improved protection against symptoms occurring within 24 h of chemotherapy. However, the vomiting which tends to occur beyond 24 h after chemotherapy (delayed-phase vomiting) is still relatively poorly controlled by the currently available drugs, suggesting that more than one mechanism may mediate these symptoms. The standard antiemetic regimen currently recommended for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis includes a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist and a corticosteroid. The neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant represents a new class of antiemetic currently in clinical development. Using data obtained in 2 Phase II clinical trials of aprepitant in patients receiving chemotherapy based on the highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin, we compared the time course of antiemetic effect of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) antagonist, or a combination of both. Over the entire observation period (up to 7 days post-cisplatin), patients who received the NK(1) antagonist had a superior prevention of emesis. However, in the first 24 h after cisplatin, emesis occurred in fewer patients who received the 5-HT(3) antagonist than in patients who did not receive this class of drug. Furthermore, the majority of treatment failures in patients who received the NK(1) antagonist occurred within the first 8-12 h of chemotherapy, whereas the treatment failures in patients who received a 5-HT(3) antagonist were more evenly distributed over time. Patients who received both drugs had superior control of symptoms compared with patients who received one or the other. The difference in the time course of emesis blockade observed with two different classes of receptor antagonists provides substantial evidence for involvement of separate pathophysiological mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Serotonin mediates the early vomiting process that occurs within 8-12 h following cisplatin-based chemotherapy, after which time substance P acting at NK(1) receptors becomes the dominant mediator of vomiting

Comparative trials of ondansetron versus metoclopramide in the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis.

A logical outgrowth of the early clinical success with ondansetron in phase I and phase II trials has been an interest in comparative antiemetic trials using conventional agents. Metoclopramide is generally acknowledged to be the single most effective conventional drug for the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis and, therefore, was considered an appropriate agent for inclusion in comparative trials with ondansetron. Three phase III trials comparing metoclopramide with ondansetron for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin administration have been completed to date. One was a single-blind, parallel-group trial conducted in the United States, and the other two were double-blind, crossover trials performed in Europe. The efficacy results of these studies demonstrated either a consistent trend or clear superiority of ondansetron in comparison with metoclopramide. Treatment failure consistently developed much later with ondansetron than with metoclopramide. Less antiemetic toxicity was noted with ondansetron. With the exception of headache, there was a lower incidence of neurologic adverse events in the ondansetron group. No dystonic reactions were observed with ondansetron in any of the trials. In all three trials, patients expressed greater overall satisfaction with ondansetron for emesis control.