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

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

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.

Do Patients Regret Having Received Systemic Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of patients annually receive treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but little is known about their views on the decision to receive that treatment, or regret. This trial prospectively evaluated the incidence of regret and whether baseline characteristics, patient decision-making parameters, or clinical progress early in the treatment course predicts regret. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC completed every 3-week patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment using the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (eLCSS-QL), including the 3-Item Global Index (3-IGI; assessing overall distress, activities, and quality of life [QL]). A prespecified secondary aim was to determine the frequency of regret evaluated at 3 months after starting treatment. Patients were randomized to usual care or enhanced care (which included use of the DecisionKEYS decision aid). RESULTS: Of 164 patients entered, 160 received treatment and 142 were evaluable for regret. In total, 11.5% of patients and 9% of their supporters expressed regret. Baseline characteristics did not predict regret; regret was rarely expressed by those who had a less than 20% decline or improvement in the 3-IGI PRO score after two treatment cycles. In contrast, when asked if they would make the same decision again, only 1% not having a 20% 3-IGI decline expressed regret, versus 14% with a 3-IGI decline (p = .01). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients having regret were identified early using the PRO 3-IGI of the eLCSS-QL measure. Identifying patients at risk for regret allows for interventions, including frank discussions of progress and goals early in the treatment course, which could address regret in patients and their supporters. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report documents prospectively, for the first time, the incidence of treatment-related regret in patients with advanced lung cancer and outlines that risk of regret is associated with patient-determined worsening health status early in the course of treatment. Identifying patients at risk for regret early in treatment (before the third cycle of treatment) appears to be crucial. Counseling at that time should include a discussion of consideration of treatment change and the reason for this change.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. CONCLUSION: IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Predictive value of PD-L1 and other clinical factors for chemoimmunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

We investigate if PD-L1 expression and other clinical characteristics predict chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) benefits versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of CIT versus chemotherapy identified through electronic searches. In seven randomized controlled trials (n = 4170), CIT prolonged progression-free survival over chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.58-0.67; p < 0.00001). The treatment benefits differed between PD-L1-high (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.34-0.49) and PD-L1 low (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.55-0.72; interaction-p = 0.00002) and PD-L1-high and PD-L1-negative (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.65-0.80; interaction-p < 0.00001). Similar benefits were observed regardless of gender, EGFR/ALK status and histological subtype. PD-L1 status is predictive of CIT benefit and may assist patient selection and design of future trials.

Enhancing evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by assessing skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the first lumbar (L1) level on routine chest computed tomography (CT).

PURPOSE: Ongoing cancer cachexia trials evaluate sarcopenia by skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the L3 vertebrae level, commonly used as a standard. Routine chest CT institutional protocols widely differ in including L3. We investigated whether SMI at L1 assessment, rather than L3, would be reliable and more practicable for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: NSCLC patients with routine CT chest had SMI measurements performed at L1 using Slice-O-Matic software. Accuracy of including L1 level, imaging quality, and ability to detect sarcopenia was collected and correlation of L1 SMI with body mass index (BMI) was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with NSCLC (73 CT assessments) were enlisted at three institutions. Characteristics: 47% female; medians: age 59, KPS 80%; BMI 25.49, weight 72.97 kg, SMI 59.24. Sarcopenia was detected in 14.7% of patients; 20% had sarcopenic obesity. Of the 73 CTs, 94.5% included L1 (95% CI 86.6-98.5%). Three images (4%) were difficult to evaluate. Inclusion of L1 was similar among the three participating institutions (90.4 to 96.7% inclusion). BMI correlation with SMI was weak (r = 0.329). CONCLUSIONS: SMI assessment at L1 is achievable in patients with NSCLC receiving routine chest CT, with 96% having acceptable quality evaluations. Similar to results previously reported at L3, BMI showed poor correlation and low sensitivity to detect muscle mass loss. The use of CT at L1 is reliable and presents the opportunity for easier patient evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with lung cancer without the need for additional testing or radiation exposure.

Content validity and electronic PRO (ePRO) usability of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale-Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) in mesothelioma patients.

PURPOSE: Obtaining qualitative data directly from the patient perspective enhances the content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate the content validity of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) and its usability on an electronic device. METHODS: A cross-sectional methodological study, using a qualitative approach, was conducted among patients recruited from four clinical sites. The primary target population included patients with pleural mesothelioma; data were also collected from patients with peritoneal mesothelioma on an exploratory basis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted consisting of concept elicitation, cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) usability. RESULTS: Participants (n = 21) were interviewed in person (n = 9) or by telephone (n = 12); 71% were male with a mean age of 69 years (SD = 14). The most common signs and symptoms experienced by participants with pleural mesothelioma (n = 18) were shortness of breath, fluid build-up, pain, fatigue, coughing, and appetite loss. The most commonly described symptoms for those with peritoneal mesothelioma (n = 4) were bloating, changes in appetite, fatigue, fluid build-up, shortness of breath, and pain. Participants with pleural mesothelioma commonly described symptoms assessed by the LCSS-Meso in language consistent with the questionnaire and a majority understood and easily completed each of the items. The ePRO version was easy to use, and there was no evidence that the electronic formatting changed the way participants responded to the questions. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the content validity of the LCSS-Meso and the usability of the electronic format for use in assessing symptoms among patients with pleural mesothelioma.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK1RAs when combined with 5-HT3RA-dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron-dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin- or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone-metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant-dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK1RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant-granisetron-dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK1RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

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.

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.

Study Design and Rationale for the Phase 3 Clinical Development Program of Enobosarm, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator, for the Prevention and Treatment of Muscle Wasting in Cancer Patients (POWER Trials).

Muscle wasting in cancer is a common and often occult condition that can occur prior to overt signs of weight loss and before a clinical diagnosis of cachexia can be made. Muscle wasting in cancer is an important and independent predictor of progressive functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Although several therapeutic agents are currently in development for the treatment of muscle wasting or cachexia in cancer, the majority of these agents do not directly inhibit muscle loss. Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) have the potential to increase lean body mass (LBM) and hence muscle mass, without the untoward side effects seen with traditional anabolic agents. Enobosarm, a nonsteroidal SARM, is an agent in clinical development for prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in patients with cancer (POWER 1 and 2 trials). The POWER trials are two identically designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, and multinational phase 3 trials to assess the efficacy of enobosarm for the prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in subjects initiating first-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To assess enobosarm's effect on both prevention and treatment of muscle wasting, no minimum weight loss is required. These pivotal trials have pioneered the methodological and regulatory fields exploring a therapeutic agent for cancer-associated muscle wasting, a process hereby described. In each POWER trial, subjects will receive placebo (n = 150) or enobosarm 3 mg (n = 150) orally once daily for 147 days. Physical function, assessed as stair climb power (SCP), and LBM, assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), are the co-primary efficacy endpoints in both trials assessed at day 84. Based on extensive feedback from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the co-primary endpoints will be analyzed as a responder analysis. To be considered a physical function responder, a subject must have ≥10 % improvement in physical function compared to baseline. To meet the definition of response on LBM, a subject must have demonstrated no loss of LBM compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints include durability of response assessed at day 147 in those responding at day 84. A combined overall survival analysis for both studies is considered a key secondary safety endpoint. The POWER trials design was established with extensive clinical input and collaboration with regulatory agencies. The efficacy endpoints are a result of this feedback and discussion of the threshold for clinical benefit in patients at risk for muscle wasting. Full results from these studies will soon be published and will further guide the development of future anabolic trials. Clinical Trial ID: NCT01355484. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355484 , NCT01355497. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355497?term=g300505&rank=1 .

Determining issues of importance for the evaluation of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer: results of a survey of 1072 patients.

Identifying key issues for patients is central to assessing treatment for cancer, especially when evaluating health-related quality of life (QL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study was conducted to provide enhanced content validity support by incorporating the views of a large number of patients with breast cancer. This methodological study used an anonymous, cross-sectional, electronic web-based survey of 1072 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Patients ranked the importance of 21 issues on a 5-point scale. Issues included general, physical, functional, psychosocial, and summative items. Analysis was also performed by four key factors (age group, time since diagnosis, adjuvant treatment or not, and tumor extent). All of the top five issues rated as either "very important" or "important" were global issues-rather than symptoms-such as maintaining quality of life (ranked in these two highest categories by 99 % of patients), maintaining independence (97 %), and ability to perform normal activities (97 %). The abilities to concentrate and to be able to sleep (97 and 96 %, respectively) were ranked above specific breast cancer symptoms. Specific symptoms included within the top ten highest ranked items were fatigue, depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and pain. This is the largest analysis of evidence-based data determining support for content validity for QL and PROs provided by patients with breast cancer. While symptoms are important to patients, the survey also demonstrates that PRO measures that only evaluate symptoms are not fully responding to patient-expressed needs. These results provide confidence in the content of quality of life measures for large groups of patients with breast cancer, including the new Breast Cancer Symptom Scale (BCSS) questionnaire.

Slow-release granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting: analysis by American Society of Clinical Oncology emetogenicity criteria.

BACKGROUND: APF530 is a novel sustained-release formulation of granisetron. In a Phase III trial, APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron 0.25 mg in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV after MEC, but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Emetogenicity was classified by Hesketh criteria; this reanalysis uses newer American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria. METHODS: Complete responses (no emesis or rescue medication) after cycle one were reanalyzed after reclassification of MEC and HEC by American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria. RESULTS: APF530 maintained noninferiority to palonosetron. CONCLUSION: Single-dose APF530 is a promising alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. The Clinicaltrials.gov identifier for this study is NCT00343460.

Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority. RESULTS: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation. CONCLUSIONS: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.

Preferences for cancer support group topics and group satisfaction among patients and caregivers.

This study investigated patients living with cancer and caregivers of patients living with cancer with regard to cancer support group content and satisfaction with this model of support (N = 3,723). Using a cross-sectional survey design participants were recruited through registered users of the NexCura Cancer Profiler website. Demographic and clinical variables, including perceived social support, were compared between patients and caregivers. Topic importance questions, and the proportion of patients and caregivers who selected those topics identified as very important and important, was calculated and compared. Group satisfaction was elicited and compared between patients and caregivers. This research can be used to inform, guide, and support group work helping address patient and caregiver need improving their quality of life.

Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL).

PURPOSE: This trial assessed the ability to enhance health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation in trials and patient management using computer assistance with a handheld device, called a personal digital assistant. The study assessed ease of use and psychometric properties of this approach, comparing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) paper form with the electronic (eLCSS-QL). Objectives were to: (1) measure completion times; (2) evaluate acceptability by patients, nurses, and physicians; (3) determine the correlation of the eLCSS-QL with the paper version; and (4) determine the feasibility of using a shorter visual analogue scale (VAS) in the electronic version. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were entered at 12 COMET clinics. All had: (a) stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, (b) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60, (c) no prior chemotherapy, and (d) received initial courses of docetaxel + platinum. Of the 148 patients enrolled, characteristics were: men, 57 %; median, KPS 80 %; and median age, 67 years. Of these, 131 patients completed the evaluation form. RESULTS: The eLCSS-QL had excellent acceptance by patients, nurses, and physicians. Patients required 2.2 min (mean) to complete the eLCSS-QL. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach's alpha were high for the paper (0.84) and electronic (0.88) versions. The correlation coefficient between forms was high (0.92). The length of the VAS on the handheld pc (53 mm versus 100 mm on the paper format) resulted in nearly identical scores. CONCLUSIONS: The high acceptance rate by patients and professionals, the rapid completion time, ease of use, and strong psychometric properties confirm that the electronic LCSS (eLCSS-QL) is practical for use in trials and patient management. This study indicates that computer assistance helps overcome barriers associated with evaluating HRQL and PROs.

A theory-based decision aid for patients with cancer: results of feasibility and acceptability testing of DecisionKEYS for cancer.

PURPOSE: Appropriate utilization of treatment is a goal for all patients undergoing cancer treatment. Proper treatment maximizes benefit and limits exposure to unnecessary measures. This report describes findings of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a short, clinic-based decision aid and presents an in-depth clinical profile of the participants. METHODS: This descriptive study used a prospective, quantitative approach to obtain the feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid (DecisionKEYS for Balancing Choices) for use in clinical settings. It combined results of trials of patients with three different common malignancies. All groups used the same decision aid series. Participants included 80 patients with solid tumors (22 with newly diagnosed breast cancer, 19 with advanced prostate cancer, and 39 with advanced lung cancer) and their 80 supporters as well as their physicians and nurses, for a total of 160 participants and 10 health professionals. RESULTS: The decision aid was highly acceptable to patient and supporter participants in all diagnostic groups. It was feasible for use in clinic settings; the overall value was rated highly. Of six physicians, all found the interactive format with the help of the nurse as feasible and acceptable. Nurses also rated the decision aid favorably. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention provides the opportunity to enhance decision making about cancer treatment and warrants further study including larger and more diverse groups. Strengths of the study included a theoretical grounding, feasibility testing of a practical clinic-based intervention, and summative evaluation of acceptability of the intervention by patient and supporter pairs. Further research also is needed to test the effectiveness of the decision aid in diverse clinical settings and to determine if this intervention can decrease overall costs.

Investigating the benefit of adding a vena cava filter to anticoagulation with fondaparinux sodium in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adding a vena cava filter to anticoagulation in treating cancer patients with venous thromboembolism remains controversial. We initiated this study as the first prospectively randomized trial to evaluate the addition of a vena cava filter placement to anticoagulation with the factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux sodium in patients with cancer. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with deep vein thrombosis (86 %) and/or pulmonary embolism (55 %) were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulation with fondaparinux sodium with or without a vena cava filter. Endpoints included rates of complications by treatment arm, recurrent thromboembolism, complete resolution of thromboembolism, and survival rates. RESULTS: No patient had a recurrent deep vein thrombosis; two (3 %) patients had new pulmonary emboli, one in each randomized cohort. Major bleeding occurred in three patients (5 %). Two patients on the vena cava filter arm (7 %) had complications from the filter. Median survivals were 493 days in the anticoagulation only arm and 266 days for anticoagulation + vena cava filter (p < 0.57). Complete resolution of venous thromboembolism occurred in 51 % of patients within 8 weeks of initiating anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: No advantage was found for placement of a vena cava filter in addition to anticoagulation with fondaparinux sodium in terms of safety, recurrent thrombosis, recurrent pulmonary embolism, or survival in this prospective randomized trial evaluating anticoagulation plus a vena cava filter in cancer patients. Favorable complete resolution rates of thrombosis were observed on both study arms.

Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity--state of the art.

Antiemetic drug development can follow the same logical path as antineoplastic drug development from appropriate preclinical models through Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III testing. However, due to the marked success of antiemetic therapy over the last 25 years, placebo antiemetic treatment against highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is not acceptable. Promising antiemetic agents therefore rapidly reach Phase III testing, where they are substituted into or added to effective and accepted regimens. One challenge of antiemetic drug development is determining whether substitution is indeed acceptable or whether prior regimens must be maintained intact as a basis for further antiemetic drug development. An additional challenge is the classification of emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of such antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment may not be available. However, at the 2009 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Consensus Conference, an expert panel used best available data to establish rankings of emetogenicity. Oral chemotherapeutic agents are ranked separately from intravenous agents, recognizing intrinsic differences in emetogenicity as well as differing schedules of administration. Since oral chemotherapeutic agents are often administered in extended regimens, the distinction between acute and delayed emesis is less clear, and cumulative emesis must be considered. As control of vomiting has improved, attention has shifted to control of nausea, a related but distinct and equally important problem. Additional efforts will be necessary to understand mechanisms of nausea and to identify optimal remedies.

Delayed emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (single-day chemotherapy regimens only).

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy discussed during the third Perugia Consensus Conference (June 2009) sponsored by MASCC-ESMO was presented. The review considered new studies published since the second consensus conference (April 2004). METHODS: An online search was used conducting PubMed and the search terms moderately, chemotherapy, and emesis with a restriction to papers in English. RESULTS: Overall, nine randomized controlled studies were included: four evaluating NK1 receptor antagonists, one palonosetron, and four dopamine receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a combination of anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide treated with a combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute nausea and vomiting, aprepitant is suggested to prevent delayed emesis. In patients who do not receive aprepitant for the prophylaxis for acute emesis and in which palonosetron is recommended, a multiday oral dexamethasone is the preferred treatment for the prevention of delayed emesis. Levels of evidence and of consensus for both recommendations are moderate.