Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Using BMI and Inflammatory Response for Deciding Sequence of Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT-AC) and induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC-CRT) are among the best treatments in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). This study aimed to develop a model for deciding the sequence of chemotherapy in NPC. METHODS: Data were separated into two cohorts. The CRT-AC cohort had 295 patients, while the IC-CRT cohort had 112. The predictors were standard factors with BMI and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) to predict overall survival (OS). A flexible parametric survival model was used. RESULTS: A total of 132 (44.7%) and 72 patients (64.3%) died in the CRT-AC and IC-CRT cohorts, respectively. The predictors in the final models were age, sex, T, N, NLR, and BMI. The models of OS for CRT-AC and IC-CRT had concordance indices of 0.689 and 0.712, respectively, with good calibration curves. When changing the burden of disease along with NLR and BMI, we found that CRT-AC was not significantly different OS from IC-CRT when low NLR (<3) and high burden of disease (T3N3). By contrast, CRT-AC was remarkably more effective when there were high levels of NLR (≥3) and BMI (≥25) with any burden of disease (anyT anyN). CONCLUSION: With additional BMI and NLR in model, it could be easier to decide between CRT-AC and IC-CRT in countries with limited health care resources.

Central Nervous System Outcomes of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: A LASER301 Subset Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib, a third-generation mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival compared with gefitinib in the phase 3 LASER301 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248829). Here, we report the efficacy of lazertinib and gefitinib in patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response. RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.

Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Treatment-Naíve Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: Analysis of the Asian Subpopulation in LASER301.

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib is a third-generation central nervous system-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting mutant EGFR in NSCLC. Lazertinib exhibited improved efficacy versus gefitinib in the LASER301 study; this subset analysis compared lazertinib with gefitinib among Asian patients. METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.

Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From LASER301.

PURPOSE: Lazertinib is a potent, CNS-penetrant, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This global, phase III study (LASER301) compared lazertinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion [ex19del]/L858R) locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles. CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.

Real-world evidence of cisplatin versus carboplatin in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Though concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with cisplatin remains a standard of care for patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC), carboplatin has alternatively been used without sufficient supportive evidences. Thus, we evaluated an efficacy and tolerability of carboplatin CCRT compared with cisplatin in LA-NPC patients. METHODS: Patients with LA-NPC treated with CCRT were identified through the Thai multicenter head and neck cancer database. Patient tolerability and survival were analyzed and compared between regimens. Survivals were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared by the log-rank test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 135 of 980 patients (13.8%) were treated with carboplatin. Patients treated with carboplatin were significantly associated with older age (p < 0.001), smoking (p = 0.003), more comorbidity (p = 0.014), kidney disease (p = 0.016), and lower baseline creatinine clearance (p < 0.001). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was used significantly more in the cisplatin group than carboplatin group (p < 0.001). Patients who received carboplatin were associated with delay (p = 0.049) and hospitalization (p = 0.006), whereas cisplatin CCRT had more dose reduction (p = 0.001). Patients treated with cisplatin had CCRT interruption from grade 3-4 mucositis (p = 0.019) more than carboplatin, whereas carboplatin had more grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (p < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients treated with cisplatin and carboplatin was 59% and 49%, respectively (p = 0.128). Cisplatin or carboplatin CCRT was not a significant predictor for OS and locoregional recurrence-free survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin CCRT provided acceptable efficacy and tolerability profiles in real-world practice. Carboplatin should be considered as an alternative regimen, particularly in cisplatin-ineligible patients with LA-NPC treated with CCRT.

Safe and effective treatment of venous Thromboembolism associated with Cancer: focus on direct Oral Anticoagulants in Asian patients.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses a significant disease burden and the incidence in Asian populations is increasing. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment, but can be challenging due to the high bleeding risk in some cancers and the high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with malignancies. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are well established as first-choice treatments for VTE in non-cancer patients, offering a more convenient and less invasive treatment option than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Asian patients have exhibited comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with other races in trials of DOACs for VTE in the general population. Although no specific data are available in Asian patients with CAT, results from randomized controlled trials of apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban versus the LMWH, dalteparin, indicate that DOACs are a reasonable alternative to LMWH for anticoagulation in Asian patients with CAT. This is further supported by analyses of real-world data in Asian populations demonstrating the efficacy and safety of DOACs in Asian patients with CAT. Apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are recommended in the most recently updated international guidelines as first-line therapy for CAT in patients without gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers and at low risk of bleeding. An increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding was evident with edoxaban or rivaroxaban, but not apixaban, versus dalteparin in the clinical trials, suggesting that apixaban could be a safe alternative to LMWH in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Determining the optimal anticoagulant therapy for patients with CAT requires careful consideration of bleeding risk, tumor type, renal function, drug-drug interactions, financial costs, and patients' needs and preferences.

Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic NSCLC with high blood-based tumor mutational burden: primary analysis of BFAST cohort C randomized phase 3 trial.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is being explored as a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. BFAST (NCT03178552)-an open-label, global, multicohort trial-evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies or immunotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who were selected for biomarker status using blood-based targeted next-generation sequencing. In the Phase 3 cohort C evaluating blood-based (b)TMB as a biomarker of atezolizumab efficacy, patients with bTMB of ≥10 (N = 471) were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy per local standard of care. Cohort C did not meet its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the population with bTMB of ≥16 (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.00; P = 0.053). Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events of special interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm. A prespecified exploratory analysis compared the bTMB clinical trial assay with the FoundationOne Liquid Companion Diagnostic assay and showed high concordance between assays. Additional exploration of bTMB to identify optimal cutoffs, confounding factors, assay improvements or cooperative biomarkers is warranted.

Benefits of prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: A multicenter analysis.

PURPOSE: Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PPEG) is widely used for patients with head and neck cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT). Nevertheless, the necessity of its use in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of PPEG on prevention of weight loss and treatment tolerance in patients with NPC receiving CCRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multicenter chart review of 904 patients, 378 in the PPEG group and 526 in the non-PPEG group, was conducted. Baseline characteristics, weight loss, and treatment tolerance were analyzed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean baseline body mass index (BMI) between the groups. At the end of CCRT, no difference in weight loss was found between the 2 groups (non-PPEG group, 6.6%; PPEG group, 5.9%). Nonetheless, the subgroup analysis demonstrated that a baseline BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (underweight) and non-intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique were independent factors associated with prevention of weight loss by PPEG. More patients in the PPEG group were able to complete planned cycles of chemotherapy (73.3% vs. 49.0%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Although the benefits of PPEG on prevention of weight loss were not observed for the entire cohort, we found a potentially protective effect of PPEG in some subgroups of patients. Additionally, PPEG significantly enhanced chemotherapy tolerance. Therefore, PPEG tube insertion should be strongly considered for patients with NPC receiving CCRT, particularly for underweight patients and those undergoing a non-IMRT technique.

Prospective observational study on Pazopanib in patients treated for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in countries in Asia Pacific, North Africa, and Middle East regions: PARACHUTE study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical effectiveness and safety data of pazopanib in patients with advanced or mRCC in real-world setting from Asia Pacific, North Africa, and Middle East countries are lacking. METHODS: PARACHUTE is a phase IV, prospective, non-interventional, observational study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining progression free at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were ORR, PFS, safety and tolerability, and relative dose intensity (RDI). RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients with a median age of 61 years (range: 22.0-96.0) were included. Most patients were Asian (70%), clear-cell type RCC was the most common (81%), with a favourable (9%), intermediate (47%), poor (10%), and unknown (34%) MSKCC risk score. At the end of the observational period, 78 patients completed the observational period and 112 discontinued the study; 60% of patients had the starting dose at 800 mg. Median RDI was 82%, with 52% of patients receiving < 85%. Of the 145 evaluable patients, 56 (39%) remained progression free at 12 months, and the median PFS was 10 months (95% CI: 8.48-11.83). 19% of patients (21/109) were long-term responders (on pazopanib for ≥18 months). The best response per RECIST 1.1 was CR/PR in 24%, stable disease in 44%, and PD in 31%. Most frequent (> 10%) TEAEs related to pazopanib included diarrhoea (30%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (15%), and hypertension (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of the PARACHUTE study support the use of pazopanib in patients with advanced or mRCC who are naive to VEGF-TKI therapy. The safety profile is consistent with that previously reported by pivotal and real-world evidence studies.

Efficacy of Combination Docetaxel and Nintedanib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Thailand: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: The mainstay systemic treatment for non-oncogenic addictive advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer is chemotherapy. Anti-angiogenic agents are additive compounds that enhance disease control and lead to improvement of overall survival benefit. Recently PD-(L)1 blockage, a checkpoint inhibitor, has been adopted as another line of treatment. A sequential strategy to enhance the efficacy of combination docetaxel and nintedanib after immunotherapy, correlated with genomic mutation, has been explored. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study of 56 patients from 8 centers in Thailand who received combination docetaxel and nintedanib via the Thai nintedanib Named Patient Use program was conducted. Demographic characteristics, treatment details, and treatment responses were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: The majority of patients were male (62.5%) with adenocarcinoma subtype (88%). Thirty-five percent had sensitizing EGFR mutation. Combination docetaxel and nintedanib was given as second to fourth line of treatment. Median PFS of docetaxel/nintedanib was 5.6 months [95% CI 4.8-6.9]. Median OS of the entire cohort was 22.5 months [95% CI 20.2-31.1]. Among them, only four patients received this combination after immunotherapy which limited the validity of efficacy analysis. Median PFS of those four patients was 7.9 months [range 5.2-9.1] which was slightly higher than the remaining cohort (median PFS 4.5 months, 95% CI: 4.0-6.0, p-value 0.09). Among the adenocarcinoma subtype, a relapse-time of platinum-doublet chemotherapy of more than 6 months was solely indicated as a benefit of combination docetaxel/nintedanib treatment compared to the relapse-time of platinum-doublet chemotherapy of less than 6 months by multivariate HR of PFS 0.32 [95% CI: 0.14-0.68, p-value 0.003]. CONCLUSION: Combination docetaxel and nintedanib provided more benefit in relapse-time of platinum-doublet chemotherapy of more than 6 months in advanced stage adenocarcinoma lung cancer. Neither EGFR nor ALK alteration influenced the outcome of treatment.

Optimal cumulative dose of cisplatin for concurrent chemoradiotherapy among patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter analysis in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with high cumulative doses (CDs) of cisplatin has been considered the standard of care for non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, given most patients' inability to tolerate high CDs due to cisplatin-related toxicities, the optimal CD of cisplatin during CRT remains undetermined. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic NPC who received CRT with cisplatin between 2007 and 2017 were identified through the Thai head and neck cancer multicenter database and then categorized according to cisplatin CD (mg/m2) received. All complications and cisplatin-related toxicities during CRT were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 779 non-metastatic NPC patients receiving low (≤150; n = 97), intermediate (151-250; n = 411), and high (> 250; n = 271) CDs of cisplatin. Low CD patients had significantly lower mean actual radiation dose (p < 0.001) and more radiotherapy delay (p = 0.010), while intermediate CD patients had the least hospitalization (p < 0.001). Overall, 39.3% of the patients experienced cisplatin-related toxicity, which was associated with poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.001). Acute kidney injury was observed in 7% in all patients, which was highest among low CD patients (15.5%; p = 0.002). Intermediate CD patients had significantly longer median OS than the low and high groups (64 vs. 49.8 vs. 53.2, respectively; p = 0.015). Univariate, but not multivariate, analysis showed that CD of cisplatin was significantly associated with OS. CONCLUSION: CD of cisplatin during CRT was not an independent prognostic factor for OS. An intermediate CD induced minimal toxicity without compromising survival and should be considered the optimal CD. Nonetheless, a randomized phase 3 study evaluating the optimal CD of cisplatin is warranted.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aprepitant versus two dosages of olanzapine with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Phase I Study of Dalteparin in Combination With Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Based on the tumor-driven concomitant activation of angiogenesis and coagulation we conducted a phase I combination study of sunitinib with the low molecular weight heparin dalteparin in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received standard treatment with sunitinib (50 mg daily, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). During the second week of no sunitinib in the first cycle (week 6) patients received dalteparin monotherapy (in escalating doses). Combination therapy of the 2 agents was administered from the second cycle onward. Seventeen patients were enrolled at 3 dose levels of dalteparin. RESULTS: Diarrhea and fatigue were the most frequent reported drug-related toxicities (41%). One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 anemia) was observed at the highest dose level of dalteparin. There were 4 partial responses (24%) and the median progression-free survival in this study was 14 months (95% confidence interval, 8.0-23.4). Anti-factor Xa levels were increased during combination therapy compared with dalteparin monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy of sunitinib with therapeutic doses of dalteparin is safe and well tolerated. The increased anti-factor Xa levels during combination treatment suggest that sunitinib might increase the anticoagulation activity of dalteparin. The positive safety profile warrants prospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of this combination strategy in patients with ccRCC.

Clinical Correlates of Benefit From Radium-223 Therapy in Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify potential clinical variables associated with outcomes after radium-223 therapy in routine practice. METHODS: Consecutive non-trial mCRPC patients who received ≥1 dose of radium dichloride-223 at four academic and one community urology-specific cancer centers from May 2013 to June 2014 were retrospectively identified. Association of baseline and on-therapy clinical variables with number of radium doses received and clinical outcomes including overall survival were analyzed using chi-square statistics, cox proportional hazards, and Kaplan-Meier methods. Bone Scan Index (BSI) was derived from available bone scans using EXINI software. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five patients were included. Radium-223 was administered for six cycles in 74 patients (51%). One-year survival in this heavily pre-treated population was 64% (95%CI: 54-73%). In univariate and multivariate analysis, survival was highly associated with receiving all six doses of Radium-223. Receipt of six doses was associated with ECOG PS of 0-1, lower baseline PSA & pain level, no prior abiraterone/enzalutamide, <5 BSI value, and normal alkaline phosphatase. In patients who reported baseline pain (n = 72), pain declined in 51% after one dose and increased in 7%. PSA declined ≥50% in 16% (18/110). Alkaline phosphatase declined ≥25% in 48% (33/69) and ≥50% in 16/69 patients. BSI declined in 17 (68%) of the 25 patients who had bone scan available at treatment follow-up. Grade ≥3 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 4% (n = 114), 4% (n = 125), and 5% (n = 123), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients earlier in their disease course with <5 BSI, low pain score, and good ECOG performance status are optimal candidates for radium-223. Radium-223 therapy is well tolerated with most patients reporting declines in pain scores and BSI. Prostate 77:479-488, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Efficacy of ginger for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving adriamycin-cyclophosphamide regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of ginger for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in breast cancer patients receiving adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens. METHODS: We enrolled breast cancer patients receiving AC who experienced moderate to severe nausea or vomiting during the first chemotherapy cycle. Subjects were randomized to receive a 500-mg ginger capsule or placebo twice a day for 5 days starting on the first day of the second AC cycle and were switched to the other treatment in the third cycle. All participants also received ondansetron and dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis. Nausea severity was recorded once a day during the first 5 days of each cycle. The primary outcome was reduction in nausea score. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects (68 cycles of AC) were enrolled. Mean (range) maximum nausea score in the first AC cycle was 58 (40-90). Thirty-three subjects (97 %) received the same AC doses in the second as in the third cycle. Mean (±standard error) maximum nausea scores in patients receiving ginger and placebo were 35.36 (±4.43) and 32.17 (±3.71), respectively. The difference in mean maximum nausea scores was 3 (95 % confidence interval, -3 to 9; P = 0.3). There were no significant differences between ginger and placebo in terms of vomiting incidence and severity, rescue medication use, chemotherapy compliance, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ginger (500 mg) twice daily was safe, but conferred no additional benefit in terms of reducing nausea severity in breast cancer patients receiving AC and ondansetron and dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis.