Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT00869310.

Dental caries and bone mineral density: a cross sectional study.

AIM: The relationship between bone mineral density (BMD), age and dental caries has been studied. Quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) is an economic, non invasive, and reproducible method for measuring both bone mineral density and bone elasticity in growing subjects in large populations. METHODS: This study evaluated the relationship between BMD and prevalence of dental caries (Decayed Missing Filled Tooth - DMFT) in 540 healthy adolescent with mean age 12.3 years, age range 10 to 15 years, resident in two provinces in south Italy. BMD was measured using QUS by calculating the speed of sound (m/s) on the last four fingers of the non dominant hand, with the estimate thus obtained being defined as the AD-SoS (Amplitude-Dependent Speed of Sound and categorised as AD-SoS < or = 1900 m/s and AD-SoS > 1900 m/s). Occurrence of dental caries was defined using the DMFT index (DMFT=0 and DMFT > 0). RESULTS: The results of the multifactorial analysis, carried out with logistic model, confirms the expected statistically significant association between response (DMFT) and explicative variables -- AD-SoS (P < 0.006) and Age (P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: Greater bone mineralisation (AD-SoS1900 m/s) and younger age (Age < or =12 years) are dental caries prevention factors: the probability to have caries for the subjects in such conditions is 0.34, about the half of that recorded in the subjects with lower bone mineralisation and older age (0.62).

Improving information to Italian cancer patients: results of a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: It has been widely shown that the provision of adequate levels of information to patients does have a positive effect on quality of life by reducing anxiety and depression levels. The aim of this study was to show how Italian cancer patients rate the information they are given and whether the use of booklets and videotapes can improve their quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients aged between 18 and 80 years who were about to receive their first chemotherapy course were randomized to fill in questionnaires on perceived quality of information, level of psychological distress, perceived severity and curability of the disease, and quality of life. The results were evaluated by means of statistical analyses. RESULTS: Out of 328 consecutive patients enrolled in 21 cancer centers, 86-93% considered the booklets either "very useful" or "useful". The videotape was regarded as "quite" or "much" more complete than the booklets (87%). According to 81%/87% of patients, the information that had been given had improved their knowledge of the disease/chemotherapy either "a lot" or "enough". CONCLUSIONS: The information patients receive from the oncologist was rated the highest, as long as they were devoted enough time. Booklets and videotapes can partially overcome the lack of oral information given by medical doctors. A better informed patient does help the oncologist save time.

Adjuvant systemic therapies in women with breast cancer: an audit of clinical practice in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines, consensus conferences and experts' opinion are rarely promptly transferred to patient care. We audited prescriptions of adjuvant systemic therapies for Italian breast cancer patients and compared them with recommendations of an International Consensus Panel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Disease characteristics and adjuvant therapies for 768 breast cancer patients referred to 87 Italian centers from 16 to 23 March 2000 were evaluated for adherence to the published recommendations. RESULTS: Endocrine therapy was not prescribed for 102 of 541 patients (19%) with endocrine-responsive disease and for 22 of 45 patients (49%) with unknown hormonal receptor status. Instead, endocrine therapy was prescribed for 22 of 182 patients (12%) with endocrine-unresponsive disease. Adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed for 98% of the patients. The type of chemotherapy was the cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil regimen for 453 of 754 (60%), while 253 of 754 (34%) received an anthracycline-based regimen. The proportion of patients with anthracyclines increased with the number of involved axillary nodes and grading, and decreased with age. Endocrine therapy was administered to 482 of 768 (63%) and was mainly represented by an antiestrogen. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of adherence to evidence-based guidelines for adjuvant treatment of Italian breast cancer patients was as high as 19%. It might be wise for national health authorities to promote education on life-saving procedures, like adjuvant systemic treatments, in cancer medicine.

Unsolved problems in evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The current means of evaluating the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, generally employ a multidimensional approach involving validated self-administered questionnaires. In measuring QoL, as well as in interpreting the results of an assessment, the patient, questionnaire, and setting of administration may all give rise to problems. DESIGN: Based on our experience and review of a large number of published papers, the most relevant problems in evaluating QoL of cancer patients are highlighted. RESULTS: The difficulties that patients have with the most frequently used psychometric questionnaires are demonstrated by the fact that more than 10% of patients who gave their consent to be enrolled in a longitudinal study measuring QoL did not fill out the first questionnaire. This percentage is higher among older patients having a low level of education. in patients with disseminated disease, and among those with a low performance status. Moreover, in longitudinal studies, there is a very high incidence of drop-outs, often correlated with the progression of disease, so that the results are sometimes inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life, depending not only on the type and stage of disease, and the administered treatment, but also on patient characteristics, should be assessed only in a randomised clinical trial. In any case, the most relevant problem is connected to the selection bias due to drop-outs. Reasons for this should be sought in the apparent complexity of the questionnaire and inadequate information given to the patient. Simpler instruments, which can be filled out in a shorter period of time, and specific training by research nurses could help minimize this excessive phenomenon.

Quality of life: gynaecological cancers.

The clinical management of gynaecological cancer patients has been mainly focused on prolonging the survival of the patients. Thus, research on MEDLINE using as keywords 'Quality of Life' (QoL) allowed us to identify few papers which reported data on QoL in gynecological oncology. However, the assessment of QoL is becoming one of the most important issues in gynecological oncology, and there is a growing interest in including quality of life measurements in clinical trials. In fact, in several randomised trials on ovarian cancer now ongoing in Europe, the evaluation of QoL has been planned. The one underlying this article focuses on the symptoms and problems particular to gynecologic cancer and the treatments of them that could affect quality of life evaluations. These include limitations of sexual activity and fertility, early menopause, chemotherapy induced toxicity, and loss of body image. In this report, we will discuss the aspects affecting the QoL in gynaecological cancer in relation to surgical treatment, medical therapy, and follow-up.

Cancer patients as 'experts' in defining quality of life domains. A multicentre survey by the Italian Group for the Evaluation of Outcomes in Oncology (IGEO).

Although the subjective nature of quality of life is generally accepted, less attention has been paid to the procedure of selecting domains to be explored with questionnaires. To explore what contributes to cancer patients' quality of life, a survey was conducted with the aim of identifying contents of quality of life using cancer patients as 'experts'. A questionnaire with open-ended items aimed at exploring the meaning of quality of life and at determining the contents of health and not health related quality of life, was submitted to a sample of cancer patients stratified by residence, cancer site and stage of disease. The 248 questionnaires received were transcribed and broken down into phrases to allow coding. A content analysis was performed, using as a conceptual framework, the domains identified by the Italian Society of Psycho-Oncology. Overall, 43 domains and a list of symptoms were identified. The two most frequently reported symptoms were pain (21.4% patients) and fatigue (14.1% patients). Social relationships and psychological domains were heavily represented. Twenty sub-domains related to the domain 'psychological well-being'. This study suggests that information on the content of quality of life questionnaires to be submitted to people affected by a specific disease, should be derived by studying people suffering the specific disease. These results reinforce the criticism that available quality of life instruments are more likely to reflect the perspective of health professionals than patients.

[Planning a statistical inquiry for evaluation of patient information]. / Pianificazione di un'indagine statistica per la valutazione dell'informazione al paziente.

This article deals with the patient package insert and the information to the patient-consumer. The law in force states that the patient package insert is an informative instrument for the consumer so it should be exhaustive, comprehensible and immediate. A statistical investigation has been performed in order to evaluate the clearness of patient package insert and the quality of the drug information. The protocol consists of the methodology of the investigation, the study pilot, the sampling and, finally, the questionnaire.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various antiemetic regimens.

Recently, the availability of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists has provided better protection from chemotherapy-induced emesis. These drugs, in combination with dexamethasone, are more expensive but more cost-effective than the alternative antiemetic regimens in the prevention of acute emesis induced by high single dose and low and repeated doses of cisplatin and, probably, of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the prevention of emesis induced by oral cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-fluorouracil and in the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, the most cost-effective choices are represented, respectively, by a combination of intravenous dexamethasone on day 1 and 8 plus 14-day oral metoclopramide (a combination of oral dexamethasone plus metoclopramide and oral dexamethasone alone). In all cases, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists should be used only in patients in whom the most cost-effective antiemetic regimens either fail or are not tolerated.

Statistical considerations in the design, conduct and analyses of antiemetic clinical trials. An emerging consensus.

Various aspects of trial design and planning for clinical testing of antiemetic therapies administered to cancer patients are considered. It is generally felt that a randomized double-blind parallel-arm design is the best. Ways of achieving adequate power of such studies are discussed briefly, as is the need for previous identification of primary and secondary end-points. Finally, summary recommendations are given.

5-HT3 receptor antagonists: differences and similarities.

Differences among 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been reported in pharmacological studies with regard to selectivity of receptor binding, potency, duration of action and dose-response curves. However, whether these pharmacological differences can affect clinical efficacy and safety remains to be determined. A careful analysis of the literature revealed 22 comparative studies among the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists available for review. Unfortunately, several of these trials have some important shortcomings especially in the study design, the size of population studied and the type of anti-emetic treatment selected, making their conclusions often difficult to interpret. However, among these studies, seven large, double-blind clinical trials have clearly shown that the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron is almost identical at least in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Therefore, from the efficacy and safety point of view, there is no reason to prefer one with respect to the other compound. From the economic perspective, instead, differences may exist and they are strictly related to the dose and schedule of administration chosen for each compound. The information available on the use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is at best scant. Contrasting results have been reported and only one well-conducted study has been published in full. Therefore, the possible differences among the various compounds are difficult to evaluate. More studies should be carried out in this group of patients.

Clinical and methodological issues in antiemetic therapy: a worldwide survey of experts' opinions. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

During the 1995 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Congress, a consensus conference was planned by the Subcommittee for Antiemetics. To define the topics to be discussed, a questionnaire containing both clinical and methodological issues was sent to 118 experts in 31 countries. The questionnaire contained 33 items on clinical and 19 items on methodological issues, and each response was rated on a 4-level categorical scale. The clinical issues were evaluated for interest, that is clinical importance, and feasibility, that is availability of sufficient data to make them suitable topics for the consensus conference. About 60% of questionnaires were returned, with a small number of missing responses. The responses to the items of clinical interest showed that about two-thirds of the issues identified by the Subcommittee were found by the experts to be of at least high interest, but often the availability of data was found to be insufficient for their discussion. Prevention of acute emesis induced by cisplatin and by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and the optimal intravenous dose and schedule of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were the items with the highest interest and feasibility. The issues in the methodological section were also mostly found to be of at least high interest. The distinction between acute and delayed emesis, the evaluation of the persistence of antiemetic efficacy in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy and the statistical analysis of delayed emesis were the methodological issues in which the highest interest was recorded. Data collected will be used to define the main topics to be discussed during the planned consensus conference.

[Evaluation of quality of life in oncology. Rationale and objectives of the first phase of the Quality of Life in Oncology project]. / La valutazione della qualità di vita in oncologia. Razionale ed obiettivi della prima fase del progetto QvOnc.

Although the subjective nature of quality of life perception is generally accepted, less attention has been paid to the procedure of selecting domains to be explored with questionnaires. In most cases domains are selected by panel of experts. It is not known whether these domains are relevant for the patients. Moreover, questionnaires developed in 'foreign' countries may not be culturally sound or relevant for patients living in different cultural background. In order to explore what really contributes to quality of life of Italian patients, a survey was conducted with the aim of identifying any dimension of quality of life, positively or negatively impacted on from the illness and therapies. A sample of two hundred and eighty eight cancer patients with previously specified characteristics (primary tumor, stage of disease and place of residence) were identified. After consenting to partecipate to the study, a staff member (a physician, a nurse or a psychologist) asked the patient to complete an open-ended questionnaire in the out-patient clinic or at home. This questionnaire, partially derived from a study by Padilla et al. made up of 5 questions: 'What does the term quality of life mean to you?', 'What contributes to a good quality of life?', 'What contributes to a poor or bad quality of life?', 'Which either physical or psychological symptom interferes with your quality of life?', 'State any positive or negative change in your quality of life, due to illness or treatments'. The first question was asked to explore the meaning of quality of life for the patient; the second and third question were asked to determine the contents of quality of life not health related; the fourth question and the diary provided information about quality of life contents related to his own experience of disease. Two hundred and forty eight questionnaires (86.1%) were obtained from 7 Cancer Centres participating to the study (Genova, Milano, Roma, Perugia, Napoli, Cagliari, Palermo). All the questionnaires were transcribed and subsequently broken down in phrases on a form that allowed coding. Three raters (a research nurse, an oncologist and a clinical psychologist) made the content analysis using as conceptual framework the list of domains identified by the Italian Society of Psycho-Oncology. The present study shows the possibility to define the content domain of quality of life attributes for cancer patients, using patients as experts.