Tailoring neo/adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: "The advent of a personalized approach"-The Breast-Gynecological and Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) consensus and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus. METHODS: During the 14th Breast-Gynecological and Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de-escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.

Opioid metabolism and drug-drug interaction in cancer.

Concomitant use of multiple drugs in most patients with cancer may result in drug-drug interactions (DDIs), potentially causing serious adverse effects. These patients often experience unrelieved cancer-related pain (CRP) during and after cancer treatment, which can lead to a reduced quality of life. Opioids can be used as part of a multimodal pain management strategy when non-opioid analgesics are not providing adequate pain relief, not tolerated, or are contraindicated. However, due to their narrow therapeutic window, opioids are more susceptible to adverse events when a DDI occurs. Clinically relevant DDIs with opioids are usually pharmacokinetic, mainly occurring via metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP). This article aims to provide an overview of potential DDIs with opioids often used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe CRP and commonly used anticancer drugs such as chemotherapeutics, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), or biologics. A DDI-checker tool was used to contextualize the tool-informed DDI assessment outcomes with clinical implications and practice. The findings were compared to observations from a literature search conducted in Embase and PubMed to identify clinical evidence for these potential DDIs. The limited results mainly included case studies and retrospective reviews. Some potential DDIs on the DDI-checker were aligned with literature findings, while others were contradictory. In conclusion, while DDI-checkers are useful tools in identifying potential DDIs, it is necessary to incorporate literature verification and comprehensive clinical assessment of the patient before implementing tool-informed decisions in clinical practice.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study.

PURPOSE: We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6. RESULTS: In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

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.

Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Febrile Neutropenia in the US: A Beast of Burden That Needs to Be Tamed?

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are common complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This review provides an up-to-date assessment of the patient and cost burden of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/FN in the US, and summarizes recommendations for FN prophylaxis, including the interim guidance that was recommended during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review indicates that neutropenia/FN place a significant burden on patients in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. Most patients with neutropenia/FN presenting to the emergency department will be hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 6, 8, and 10 days for elderly, pediatric, and adult patients, respectively. Reported in-hospital mortality rates for neutropenia/FN range from 0.4% to 3.0% for pediatric patients with cancer, 2.6% to 7.0% for adults with solid tumors, and 7.4% for adults with hematologic malignancies. Neutropenia/FN also place a significant cost burden on US healthcare systems, with average costs per neutropenia/FN hospitalization estimated to be up to $40 000 for adult patients and $65 000 for pediatric patients. Evidence-based guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), which have been shown to reduce FN incidence while improving chemotherapy dose delivery. Availability of biosimilars may improve costs of care. Efforts to decrease hospitalizations by optimizing outpatient care could reduce the burden of neutropenia/FN; this was particularly pertinent during the COVID-19 pandemic since avoidance of hospitalization was needed to reduce exposure to the virus, and resulted in the adaptation of recommendations to prevent FN, which expanded the indications for G-CSF and/or lowered the threshold of use to >10% risk of FN.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis.

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

We aimed at further evaluating how well the corticosteroid, dexamethasone (DEX), works as measured in two similar clinical studies of single-day versus multiple-day DEX for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin, a cell-killing drug, which has high potential of triggering nausea and vomiting. In both studies, cancer patients were randomly assigned to 1-day DEX or multiple-day DEX (3­4 days) in combination with palonosetron (this antagonist attaches to a specific receptor for serotonin without triggering nausea and vomiting), and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs; they attach to the NK-1 receptor without triggering nausea and vomiting). The combined analysis of the two studies, which includes 242 patients, showed that a single dose of DEX is as effective as multiple-day DEX in terms of the number of patients achieving complete response (defined as no vomiting and no 'as-needed' use of antiemetics) during the 5 days after cisplatin administration. Therefore, administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in patients undergoing single-day cisplatin.

Changing the landscape of European School of Oncology-European Society for Medical Oncology masterclasses in clinical oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims: This study aimed to assess the participants' evaluation of the European School of Oncology-European Society for Medical Oncology virtual masterclasses in clinical oncology (MCOs) organized during the pandemic in 2021. Materials & methods: The participants answered an online evaluation questionnaire at the end of each MCO to evaluate the content and organization of the MCO. Results: The clinical session and case presentation scores ranged between 4.6 and 4.8 over 5. The participants strongly agreed that the MCOs offered updates to improve their knowledge and practice in 68-83% and 52-76%, respectively; 74-90% of the participants considered the quality of the meetings to be excellent. Conclusion: The participants were satisfied with the virtual MCOs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual MCO may be an acceptable alternative educational modality in specific circumstances.

In 2002, the European School of Oncology (ESO) established masterclasses in clinical oncology (MCOs) and provided 41 in-person courses over the past two decades. As the COVID-19 pandemic forced travel restrictions and social distancing, the ESO and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) adapted the traditional MCOs to create virtual MCOs presented on e-ESO, an ESO e-learning platform. To date, five virtual MCOs have been organized for oncologists from western Europe, Latin America, Arab countries and southern Europe, the Baltic and Eurasia, eastern Europe and the Balkans. This study aimed to assess the participants' evaluation of the ESO-ESMO virtual MCOs organized during the pandemic in 2021 and to compare the participants' evaluation with that of previous in-person MCOs conducted between 2002 and 2019.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Eight-Year Experience of the Certificate of Competence and Advanced Studies Program Organized by the European School of Oncology.

The Certificate of Competence and Advanced Studies Program is an academically recognized postgraduate program that is organized by the European School of Oncology in collaboration with the University of Ulm and the University of Zurich. It is a part-time educational activity that aims to provide physicians and scientists with advanced knowledge in the management of patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, and lung cancer. The program encloses three attendance seminars and four to five e-learning modules that extend over 12 to 14 months. To be certified, participants have to pass an online test after each module followed by a final certification exam at the end of the program. This article reports on the 8-year experience of the 166 graduated fellows who have attended the program.

The Contribution of the European School Of Oncology Education to the Central Asian and Caucasian Regions.

The European School of Oncology (ESO) organizes educational activities within Europe, the Mediterranean region, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. In this paper, we report on the participation of oncologists from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia in various ESO activities including the masterclass, courses, refresher courses, conventions, conferences, consensus conferences, clinical training centers fellowship program, and the medical students' courses in oncology. Over the last 15 years, 428 oncologists and medical students have successfully attended one or more of the above activities organized in various European countries. This article details the implementation and coordination of the ESO educational events in the Central Asian and the Caucasian regions.

Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin. METHODS: The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines. RESULTS: Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification. CONCLUSION: Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Educational contribution of the College of the European School of Oncology to the Latin American Oncologists.

The European School of Oncology (ESO) offers a wide range of educational activities in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. International experts are invited to provide proper education in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer according to a holistic model of care. This activity is currently structured in the ESO College (ESCO) through masterclasses in clinical oncology, international conferences, clinical training centers fellowship programs, certificate of competence and advanced studies, patients' advocacy events, e-learning sessions and medical students' courses in oncology. This institutional profile highlights the ESO-ESCO educational activities dedicated to Latin American oncologists and reports on the experience of the 869 participants that have attended these programs.

The management of patients with cancer of unknown primary in middle-income countries: an ESO-AROME survey.

Aim: To report on the management strategies in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) in middle-income countries. Methods: We conceived a survey of 20 items concerning the management of patients with CUP in daily clinical practice. Only participants from lower- and higher-middle-income countries, as per the World Bank Classification, were eligible for this study. Results: The indications for the first-line treatment did not differ between the two economic regions, whereas those for second-line treatment were more prevalent in higher-middle-income countries. The use of targeted therapy based on immunohistochemistry alone was higher in lower-middle-income countries, although the access to CUP classifiers was similar between the two regions. Conclusions: Proper recommendations must ensure that the economic burden is minimized and that other benefits outweigh the limited survival benefit achieved in patients with CUP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients.

PURPOSE: Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV. RESULTS: Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. RESULTS: Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

ESO-ESMO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology: Analysis and Evaluation of the Learning Self-Assessment Test.

Masterclass in Clinical Oncology (MCO) represents the "key educational event" of European School of Oncology's (ESO) teaching program. MCO in collaboration with European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is a multidisciplinary and clinical oriented educational event offered mainly to young oncologists worldwide. It provides full immersion in oncology with clinical case presentations and a Learning Self-Assessment Test (LSAT).LSAT is consisting of 45 multiple choice questions on an electronic platform referring to the material taught during the MCO. Three questions related to their topics are requested in advance from each faculty member. The major intentions of LSAT are the following: (a) the learning reflection of the massive information given during 4-5 days of intensive teaching and (b) to offer the opportunity to the participants to prepare themselves for their National Boards or for ESMO examination.In this article, we are analyzing and evaluating the results of LSAT from the ESO-ESMO Central European MCOs. We used the information of Central European MCOs for analysis due to the homogeneity of the available data. We assessed the level of participants' knowledge in relation to their oncology specialty or to their country of origin and the level of the quality of faculty teaching.

Clinical Case Presentation and Discussion During ESO-ESMO Masterclass: a 10-Year Interactive Educational Experience.

In this article, we report on the clinical case presentations that have been delivered during the ESO or ESO-ESMO Masterclasses in Clinical Oncology in the last 10 years. Masterclasses have been held in three different geographical continents including Europe, Middle East, and Latin America, in which participants had to submit a clinical case and present it either in front of a tumor board (multidisciplinary-like sessions) or in small groups. Clinical case presentation is a unique part of the educational program preparing young oncologists to present and discuss their own patients with distinguished experts. In each Masterclass, between 40 and 55 clinical cases-depending on the number of participants-are presented. All presentations are assessed and evaluated by faculty members as well as by the rest of the participants.