2023 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy- and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide up to date optimal antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Through a comprehensive review of the literature concerning RINV and C-RINV, this manuscript aims to update the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis and rescue therapy and provide a new edition of recommendations for the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines for RINV and C-RINV. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including data published from May 1, 2015, to January 31, 2023, was performed. All authors assessed the literature. RESULTS: The searches yielded 343 references; 37 met criteria for full article review, and 20 were ultimately retained. Only one randomized study in chemoradiation had the impact to provide new recommendations for the antiemetic guideline. Based on expert consensus, it was decided to change the recommendation for the "low emetic risk" category from "prophylaxis or rescue" to "rescue" only, while the drugs of choice remain unchanged. CONCLUSION: As for the previous guideline, the serotonin receptor antagonists are still the cornerstone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The guideline update provides new recommendation for the management of C-RINV for radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. To avoid overtreatment, antiemetic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the "low emetic risk" category.

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

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

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

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

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.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC. MAIN RESULTS: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors, or 5-HT3 inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researchedand assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT3 inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT3 inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Storage, Utilization, and Disposal of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Products in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

High-dose chemotherapy (HD-CHT) and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT) represent the standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM) for transplantation-eligible patients. Up to 3 HD-CHT/ABSCT treatments may be administered during the course of disease, including during late-onset relapse. Transplantation centers routinely collect more than 1 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) graft; however, subsequent HD-CHT/ABSCT treatments are often not performed, for various reasons. Currently, little is known about the actual utilization rate of stored PBSCs. The collection, storage, and disposal of PBSC products was analyzed in a large cohort of patients with MM (n = 1114) over a 12-year period with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. The final dataset analysis was performed in March 2019, which was set as the reference date. Based on institution-specific charges, the costs for PBSC collection, processing, and storage were estimated. The median number of sufficient PBSC transplantations per patient was 3 (range, 0 to 6), which were stored in a median of 3 (range, 1 to 11) cryopreserved bags (overall, n = 3644). A total of 95% of all patients (n = 1059) underwent at least 1 HD-CHT/ABSCT treatment. However, multiple ABSCTs were performed in 51% of the patients (n2/3 ABSCTs = 538), and only 14% of the patients underwent ABSCT 3 times (n3 ABSCTs = 149). Only a small proportion of collected PBSC bags (5%; n = 109) were used after being stored for longer than 5 years. Overall, 23% of the products (n = 830) were discarded, and 16% (n = 566) were kept in storage until the reference date. From a retrospective standpoint, the collected and discarded (definitively not used) or stored (potentially not used) cryostored PBSCs were associated with considerable costs for long-term cryostorage of approximately €1,600,000. We identified considerable discrepancies between the collection/storage and utilization of PBSCs. This is associated with significant efforts and costs on the one hand; on the other hand, disposal may raise legal and ethical questions. Therefore, we implemented comprehensive guidelines for the systematic reevaluation of stored PBSC grafts at our institution.

Immunotherapy in Underrepresented Populations of Patients with Cancer: Do We Have Enough Evidence at Present? A Focus on Patients with Major Viral Infections and Autoimmune Disorders.

The safety and activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors have been characterized in interventional and observational studies. However, only small studies have specifically investigated these agents in patients who are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials, frequently referred to as "special populations" or "underrepresented populations." These include older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, patients with a compromised immune function, and those carrying major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases, and major organ dysfunctions. Therefore, there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in these specific settings. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project, with the contribution of oncologists and other specialists, to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in patients with solid and hematological cancers with the final aim to provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort are presented in this article, which is focused on patients with major viral infections or those with immune dysregulation/autoimmune diseases, and could be useful to guide decisions in clinical practice and to design prospective clinical trials focusing on the use of immunotherapy in these populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Substantial uncertainty remains regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in "underrepresented" patients, such as older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, and patients with a compromised immune function, major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases or major organ dysfunctions. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in underrepresented patients with cancer in order provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort, with a focus on patients with major viral infections or those with immune dysregulation/autoimmune diseases, are presented in this article and could be useful to guide decisions both in clinical practice and to design clinical trials.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25-120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers). METHODS: Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0-120 h and 0-24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2-22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01594749 , registered May 9, 2012.

Low-dose peripheral blood stem cell graft after high-dose chemotherapy - an evaluation of hematopoietic reconstitution.

BACKGROUND: High-dose (HD) chemotherapy followed by autologous blood stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. However, the collection of sufficient peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts can be challenging, and the question arises whether reinfusion of low-dose grafts will lead to a hematopoietic recovery. METHODS: The hematopoietic recovery of 148 MM patients who underwent HD melphalan chemotherapy and received PBSC transplants with varying CD34+ cells doses (3-4 × 106 [n = 86], 2-2.5 × 106 [n = 53], < 2 × 106 [n = 9] per kg body weight [bw]) was analyzed in this retrospective single-center study. RESULTS: All patients reached hematopoietic reconstitution, even those who received < 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg bw. 62 (42%) patients received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The median duration to leukocyte recovery ≥1.0 × 109/L was 12 days in every group. The median duration to platelet recovery ≥20 × 109/L was 11, 13 and 13 days, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, a low number of reinfused CD34+ cells was associated with prolonged time until leukocyte reconstitution (p = 0.010, HR 0.607) and platelet recovery (p < 0.001, HR 0.438). G-CSF support significantly accelerated leukocyte (p < 0.001, HR 16.742) but not platelet reconstitution. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, reinfusion of low- and even very-low-dose PBSC grafts leads to sufficient hematopoietic reconstitution. No severe adverse events were observed during or after HD chemotherapy and ASCT in the analyzed cohort. While the impact of CD34+ cell dose is marginal, G-CSF significantly accelerates the leukocyte recovery.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

Nivolumab maintenance after salvage autologous stem cell transplantation results in long-term remission in multiple relapsed primary CNS lymphoma.

Recurrence of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) usually has a poor overall prognosis with limited treatment options. Data on repeated ASCT are sparse. Checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy has also not been reported in PCNSL. Here, we report the first documented case of a successful third ASCT in second relapse of PCNSL. Whole-exome sequencing identified a hypermutated tumor genotype. Additionally, immunohistochemistry on pretreatment tumor tissue revealed infiltrates of PD-1+ cytolytic T cells. These alterations provided a rationale for subsequent nivolumab maintenance treatment. Therapy led to a long-term, ongoing complete remission. In eligible patients with recurrent MTX-sensitive PCNSL, multiple long-term remissions can be induced by repetition of high-dose MTX-based chemotherapy followed by autologous retransplantation. Subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy might be able to prolong or maintain remission.

Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on fosaprepitant.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a challenge in cancer care. Improved understanding of CINV pathophysiology has triggered the development of new antiemetic therapeutic options, such as selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), which effectively prevent CINV when added to a standard antiemetic regimen (serotonin-3 RA and dexamethasone). Aprepitant and its water-soluble prodrug, fosaprepitant dimeglumine, are the most widely used NK1 RAs, with extensive clinical use worldwide. Recently, a Phase III trial prospectively evaluated fosaprepitant-based antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention in a large, well-defined nonanthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population. Fosaprepitant demonstrated significantly improved efficacy outcomes compared with a control regimen and was generally well tolerated, indicating that NK1 RAs are a valuable therapeutic option in this setting.

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%. CONCLUSION: Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

Evaluation of factors contributing to the response to fosaprepitant in a heterogeneous, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population: an exploratory analysis of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Fosaprepitant improved prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (PN031). This post hoc analysis explored factors that may have influenced response. METHODS: Adult subjects (N = 1000) scheduled to receive non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) on day 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single-dose, 150-mg intravenous fosaprepitant regimen or a control regimen. Both regimens included dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1, with ondansetron continuing through day 3 in the control arm only. Complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases (0-25, 25-120, and 0-120 h, respectively) were analyzed by chemotherapy type (carboplatin-based vs non-carboplatin-based), chemotherapy duration (single-day vs multiple-day), and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Most subjects received single-day chemotherapeutic regimens (70.6%), which were mainly carboplatin-based (67.6%). CR with fosaprepitant was consistent (76-80%) during the delayed and overall phases in carboplatin-based and non-carboplatin-based subgroups and in subgroups receiving single-day or multiple-day MEC regimens. Treatment effects favored fosaprepitant for the carboplatin-based versus the non-carboplatin-based group during the delayed phase (14.1 vs 6.5%; p = 0.06), and for the single-day versus the multiple-day subgroup during the delayed (13.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.02) and overall phases (12.8 vs 4.0%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis confirms that single-dose fosaprepitant is effective for the prevention of CINV in subjects receiving carboplatin or non-carboplatin in both single- and multiple-day non-AC MEC chemotherapy regimens. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01594749.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron), the First Fixed-Combination Antiemetic, in Patients With Gynecological Cancers Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with gynecological cancers are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). NEPA (300-mg netupitant, 0.50-mg palonosetron) is the first oral fixed-combination antiemetic. Pivotal trials demonstrated the superiority of oral NEPA over intravenous palonosetron in preventing CINV after highly emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based [AC] and cisplatin-based [non-AC]) CT. This post hoc subset analysis considered patients with gynecological cancer receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT from 1 pivotal trial and from 1 multicycle safety trial to evaluate the efficacy of oral NEPA in preventing CINV. METHODS: Single-dose NEPA was given before CT in combination with dexamethasone. The efficacy end points for the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) CINV phases after CT included complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (<25 mm on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: For cisplatin-induced CINV, NEPA achieved high CR rates (acute phase: >90%; delayed, overall phases: ≥85%). For carboplatin-induced CINV, NEPA was also highly effective, with high acute, delayed, and overall CR rates (cycle 1: >75%; cycles 2-4: >95%). No significant nausea rates were more than 90% and more than 80% in the acute and delayed phases, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin or carboplatin. NEPA was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that oral NEPA is effective and safe in preventing CINV in patients with gynecological cancers treated with cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT. Single fixed-combination NEPA is a convenient option for CINV prevention in high-risk CINV patients.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are distressing symptoms. Evidence-based guidelines should facilitate the prescription of the best possible antiemetic prophylaxis. As part of the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update 2016, a thorough review of the literature concerning RINV since the 2009 update was required. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including data published from June 2009 to May 2015 was performed. Committee VII (RINV) under the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update Committee assessed the literature. RESULTS: The searches yielded 926 records, 906 records were excluded, leaving 20 records for full text assessment, and 18 publications were finally included. The only fully published randomized studies in prevention of RINV were two negative studies in acupuncture and green tea, respectively. No data to support new recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis in RINV was available. However, based on expert opinions, the committee agreed on changes in emetic risk level for certain sites of irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The serotonin receptor antagonists are still the corner stone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The studies available since the last update did not change recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis. The emetogenicity of craniospinal radiotherapy was reclassified from low to moderate emetic level along with some other minor changes. In the future, RINV prophylaxis in single fraction, multiple fraction, and in concomitant chemo-radiotherapy still need to be explored with regard to the different classes and combinations of antiemetic drugs.

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

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

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

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

Bisphosphonates for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal-related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens. PRIMARY OUTCOME: there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I2 = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I2 = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer).We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I2 = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more).Outcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta-analysis.Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I2 = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer).Findings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal-related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.

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

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