MASCC 2023 Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements: an evidence-based and consensus resource for patients.

PURPOSE: The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Patient Antiemetic Guideline Committee aimed to (1) adapt the updated evidence-based, clinical guidelines to patient-centered antiemetic guidelines and (2) develop patient education materials and statements. METHODS: The MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines were created and reviewed by antiemetic experts and patient advocates by incorporating the 2023 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines into patient-friendly language. Patient Education Statements were developed based on current literature and by utilizing an expert modified Delphi consensus (≥ 75% agreement). Patient advocate/focus group input and patient survey results were further integrated into Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements. RESULTS: Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines were created using patient-friendly language and visual slides. Patient-friendly language was also utilized to communicate the Educational Statements. Key content categories identified for the Educational Statements included the following: nausea/vomiting definitions, causes, risk factors, categories, complications, accompanying symptoms, prophylactic antiemetic treatment, general management, when to call/what to ask the healthcare team, what caregivers can do, and available resources. All identified content met the ≥ 75% expert agreement threshold. Fifteen (15) items demonstrated 100% agreement, 11 items achieved ≥ 90% agreement, and three content items demonstrated 80 ~ 82% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The inaugural MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines can help patients and caregivers understand the prevention of nausea and vomiting related to their cancer treatment. Educational Statements provide further patient information. Educating patients on how to utilize guideline antiemetics and the education statements can contribute improvements in the control of anticancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Toxicity of immunotherapy combinations with chemotherapy across tumor indications: Current knowledge and practical recommendations.

Chemotherapy associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors is currently the standard of care in several tumor indications. This combination approach improves progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and complete pathological response (pCR) in several cancer types both in the early and metastatic approaches. However, the distinct spectrum of toxicities between cytotoxic side effects and immune related adverse events (irAEs) with similar clinical presentations and different management strategies remains a challenge in daily practice for healthcare professionals. This review summarizes the most common toxicities reported in the randomized clinical trials that led to the subsequent FDA approval of these combinations, across tumor indications. We cite in particular: non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, triple negative breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, gastric carcinoma, esophageal carcinoma, cervical carcinoma and biliary tract carcinoma. We found that the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy was associated with an increased incidence of all grade adverse events (RR 1.11 [1.09; 1.12]) without an excess in treatment related mortality when compared to chemotherapy alone. We report also an increase in the incidence of serious adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.16 [1.10;1.24]); in particular: high grade diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, rash and elevated liver enzymes. Together with the collaboration of our institutional network of organ specialists with expertise in irAEs, we propose practical recommendations for physicians to enhance clinical care and management of patients undergoing treatment with combined ICI immunotherapy and chemotherapy.

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations. METHODS: In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic). RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric oncology patients: 2023 recommendations from the Supportive Care Committee of the French Society of Cancer in Children and Adolescents]. / Nausées et vomissements chimio-induits en oncohématologie pédiatrique : actualisation 2023 des recommandations du comité soins de support de la SFCE.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are frequent and dreaded side effects in cancer treatments. CINV has a major impact on patient's condition and quality of life. Prophylaxis is tailored to patient's profile and the emetogenic level of their chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to update the recommendations for CINV prevention and management in pediatric onco-hematology for use in France, by adapting the guidelines of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO). Clinical practice guideline adaptation is a recognized method for tailoring existing clinical practice guidelines to local context. A multidisciplinary French-speaking panel was formed to discuss about POGO guideline recommendations for the acute and delayed phases, breakthrough, refractory and anticipatory CINV and the evidence supporting them. Panel members were asked whether they wanted to adopt, modify or reject each of the POGO guideline recommendations. Panel members translated each recommendation and adapted recommendations for an implementation in France. Their acceptance required agreement at least 80 % of panel members. Algorithms and tables were created, listing all the recommendations and providing a better overview for decision-making process adapted to the patient's profile. These recommendations should be reviewed for implementation at French institutions caring for pediatric cancer patients and once implemented, the rates of adherence to recommendations and CINV control should be reported.

Supportive Care Needs of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Identifying Care Profiles and Future Perspectives.

The prompt introduction of supportive care for patients with cancer leads to a better quality of life, potential survival benefits, and improvements in treatment safety. Considering that patients' needs vary, descriptive assessments could serve as a compass for an efficient and prompt healthcare response. The aim of this study was to identify supportive care needs in newly diagnosed patients according to cancer type. A retrospective study was conducted by collecting data from the case consultation and medical records of a comprehensive cancer center in France. Patients' needs were divided into twelve domains: nutrition, psychological support, psychiatric support, social care, physiotherapy, addictology, pain management, palliative care, pharmacology, complementary and alternative practice (CAM), sexual health, and speech therapy. Out of 6217 newly diagnosed patients of various cancer types who sought medical care at Gustave Roussy in 2021, 2541 (41%) required supportive cancer care (SCC), and of them, 1331 patients (52%) required two or more different SCC specialist interventions. The top five interventions were dietary (for 60% of patients), physiotherapy (33%), psychology (29%), social care (28%), and pain management (16%). Subgroup analysis according to cancer department highlighted additional specific needs: CAM for breast cancer patients (11%), speech specialist (27%) and addictologist (22%) interventions for ENT patients, psychiatry consultations for neurological patients (16%), and palliative care for dermatology patients (23%). The aforementioned data suggest that an early, multidisciplinary supportive care intervention should be required. Assembling human resources at the time of diagnosis within a dedicated day unit would be the next appropriate step in developing personalized care pathways related to the highlighted needs.

Management of Pain Medication in Patients With a History of Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Obesity prevalence is persistently increasing worldwide. Among surgical therapeutic procedures, bypass surgery and sleeve gastrectomy have shown the best results regarding weight loss, prevention, and treatment of secondary complications. However, these surgeries are associated with an increased risk of malabsorption and metabolic changes that could further affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs. On the other hand, patients with a history of such surgeries are more likely to experience pain and request analgesic initiation or adaptation. The question of how to manage pain medication in these patients is challenging due to their narrow therapeutic indexes. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current literature on the impact of bariatric surgery on the subsequent pharmacokinetics of analgesics and propose a multidisciplinary therapeutic attitude to optimize pain management in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review that included all pharmacological studies published after 2000. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, these surgeries seem to increase the bioavailability of drugs by long-term improvement of hepatic function. Yet, the medical community drastically lacks robust guidelines for pain management in those patients. This systematic review aims to bring together pharmacological studies related to the use of pain treatments in patients who underwent bypass surgery or sleeve gastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Caution should be exercised regarding the risk of overdose in every circumstance: treatment initiation, change of doses, or change of molecule. More prospective trials comparing the pharmacokinetics of medications in obese patients with and without prior bariatric surgery are needed.

Care pathways for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: From diagnosis to long-term follow-up.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with a high risk of bleeding complications and hospitalisation, as well as with increased mortality. Good practice recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer have been developed by a number of professional bodies. Although these guidelines provide consistent recommendations on what treatment should be offered to patients presenting with cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT), many questions remain unanswered, in particular about the modalities of management (Who? When? Where?) and, for this reason, we have developed a consensus proposal for an appropriate multidisciplinary care pathway for patients with CAT, which is presented in this article. The proposal was informed by the recent scientific literature retrieved through a systematic literature review. This proposal is centred on the development of a shared care plan individualised to each patient's needs and expectations, patient information and shared decision-making to promote adherence, involvement of all relevant hospital- and community- based healthcare providers in the development and implementation of the care plan, and regular re-evaluation of the treatment strategy.

Anticoagulant treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and potentially fatal complication in patients with cancer. During the initial period after the thromboembolic event, a patient receiving anticoagulant treatment is exposed both to a risk of VTE recurrence and also to an elevated bleeding risk conferred by the treatment. For this reason, the choice of anticoagulant is critical. The choice should take into account patient-related factors (such as functional status, age, body mass index, platelet count and renal function), VTE-related factors (such as severity or site), cancer-related factors (such as activity and progression) and treatment-related factors (such as drug-drug interactions), which all potentially influence bleeding risk, and patient preference. These should be evaluated carefully for each patient during a multidisciplinary team meeting. For most patients, apixaban or a low molecular-weight heparin is the most appropriate initial choice for anticoagulant treatment. Such treatment should be offered to all patients with active cancer for at least six months. The patient and treatment should be re-evaluated regularly and anticoagulant treatment changed when necessary. Continued anticoagulant treatment beyond six months is justified if the cancer remains active or if the patient experienced recurrence of VTE in the first six months. In other cases, the interest of continued anticoagulant treatment may be considered on an individual patient basis in collaboration with oncologists.

Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in patients under palliative care.

Many patients with cancer require palliative care at some stage and the vast majority of people followed in palliative care are cancer patients. Patients with cancer are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and this is particularly true during the advanced palliative phase when mobility is limited or absent. Patients with cancer in palliative cancer are at higher bleeding risk compared to non-cancer patients. Decisions to treat VTE or withhold anticoagulation for these patients have proven to be difficult and depend largely on an individual clinician's judgment. For this reason, we have developed a consensus proposal for appropriate management of cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT) in patients in palliative care, which is presented in this article. The proposal was informed by the recent scientific literature retrieved through a systematic literature review. In cancer patients in advanced palliative care, the benefit-risk ratio of anticoagulation seems unfavourable with a higher haemorrhagic risk than the benefit associated with prevention of CAT recurrence and, above all, in the absence of any benefit on quality of life. For this reason, we recommend that patients should be prescribed anticoagulants on a case-by-case basis. The choice of whether to treat, and with which type of treatment, should take into account anticipated life expectancy and patient preferences, as well as clinical factors such as the estimated bleeding risk, the type of VTE experienced and the time since the VTE event.

2023 MASCC/ESMO consensus antiemetic guidelines related to integrative and non-pharmacological therapies.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to propose suggestions or recommendations for controlling nausea and vomiting through integrative and non-pharmacological treatments for the MASCC/ESMO 2023 update of its antiemetic guidelines. METHODS: The authors identified available systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses for 12 integrative therapies, including acupressure, acupuncture, auricular therapy, electrical stimulation of point PC6, ginger use (i.e., Zingiber officinale), guided imagery, hypnosis, inhalation aromatherapy, music therapy, food-based interventions, progressive muscle relaxation, and reflexology. Reviews were assessed for quality through the AMSTAR2 tool. A consensus committee reviewed recommendations as per MASCC/ESMO established processes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were used. There were major methodological flaws for many of the trials used as the bases for the reviews. No recommendation for ingested ginger could be made because of conflicting evidence. Recommendations were possible for acupuncture/electroacupuncture treatments, food-based interventions, and progressive muscle relaxation training alone or combined with guided imagery. No recommendations could be reached for a number of food-based approaches, inhalation aromatherapy, hypnosis in adults, music therapy, and reflexology. CONCLUSION: While a limited number of suggestions are provided, there is a need for significantly higher quality trials in many of the therapeutic approaches assessed, before stronger recommendations and a wider range of approaches are made.

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.

The role of dermocosmetics in the management of cancer-related skin toxicities: international expert consensus.

Skin toxicities are very common in patients undergoing cancer treatment and have been found to occur with all types of cancer therapeutic interventions (cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy). Further, skin toxicities can lead to interruption or even discontinuation of anticancer treatment in some patients, translating to suboptimal outcomes. Dermocosmetics (or cosmeceuticals)-defined as skincare solutions incorporating dermatologically active ingredients (beyond vehicle effects) that directly improve symptoms of various skin conditions-are increasingly being used in cancer care to prevent and manage skin toxicities. The active ingredients in these products have a measurable biological action in skin; they typically improve skin integrity (barrier function/hydration and other factors) while relieving skin symptoms. The Association Francophone des Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS) and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) partnered to select a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients with cancer and skin toxicities. The group reviewed existing literature and created a summary of recommendations for managing these toxicities through online meetings and communication. In this publication, the group (1) reviews new skin toxicities seen with oncology drugs and (2) evaluates the role of dermocosmetics in improving patient outcomes and minimizing cancer treatment interruptions. We provide general recommendations for initiation and selection of skin care in all oncology patients as well as recommendations for what factors should be considered when using dermocosmetics in specific types of skin toxicities.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase. RESULTS: The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

Supportive Care: The "Keystone" of Modern Oncology Practice.

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) defines supportive care as "the prevention and management of the adverse effects of cancer and its treatment. This includes management of physical and psychological symptoms and side effects across the continuum of the cancer journey from diagnosis through treatment to post-treatment care. Supportive care aims to improve the quality of rehabilitation, secondary cancer prevention, survivorship, and end-of-life care". This article will provide an overview of modern supportive care in cancer, discussing its definition, its relationship with palliative care, models of care, "core" service elements (multi-professional/multidisciplinary involvement), the evidence that supportive care improves morbidity, quality of life, and mortality in various groups of patients with cancer, and the health economic benefits of supportive care. The article will also discuss the current and future challenges to providing optimal supportive care to all oncology patients.

Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal comprehensive survivorship care is insufficiently delivered. To increase patient empowerment and maximize the uptake of multidisciplinary supportive care strategies to serve all survivorship needs, we implemented a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer at the end of primary treatment phase. METHODS: Pathway components included (1) a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), (2) face-to-face survivorship education seminars and personalized consultation for supportive care referrals (Transition Day), (3) a mobile app delivering personalized education and self-management advice, and (4) decision aids for physicians focused on supportive care needs. A mixed-methods process evaluation was performed according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework including administrative data review, pathway experience survey (patient, physician, and organization), and focus group. The primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway (predefined progression criteria for pathway continuation ≥70%). RESULTS: Over 6 months, 321 patients were eligible for the pathway and received a SCP and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day. Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded. 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app. 96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway, whereas perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app. Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization. CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs. This study can inform the implementation of survivorship care pathways in other centers.

Contribution of collegial support meetings (CSM) in the management of complex situations of patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Collegial support meetings (CSM) have been set up in the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center for inpatients whose complex care requires a multi-professional approach involving many participants: oncologists but also health-caregivers, a member of the palliative care team, an intensivist, and a psychologist. This study is aimed at describing the role of this newly multidisciplinary meeting implemented in a French Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: Each week, the health-caregivers decide which situations should be examined, depending on the difficulty of a case. The discussion goes on to include the goal of treatment, the intensity of care, ethical and psychosocial issues, and the patient's life plan. Finally, to obtain feedback from the teams, a survey has been distributed to assess the interest in the CSM. RESULTS: In 2020, 114 inpatients were involved, and 91% were in an advanced palliative situation. During the CSMs, 55% of the discussions focused on whether to continue specific cancer treatment-29% about whether to continue invasive medical care-50% about optimizing supportive care. We estimate that between 65 and 75% of CSMs influenced further decisions. Death occurred during the hospitalization for 35% of the patients that were discussed. The lapse of time between last chemotherapy and death was 24 days (IQR, 28.5). CSMs were well received, since 80% of the teams find these meetings useful. CONCLUSIONS: CSMs reach conclusions for medical and nursing staff involved, in order to improve the management of inpatients with cancer in advanced palliative situation and to define the better goals of care.

Motivation of patients with chronic cancer during COVID-19: a qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: Motivation to treat cancer and prevent its negative impact has been largely explored in a non-pandemic context. However, little is known about the motivation to comply with the treatment, especially during a pandemic. To fill this gap, we have explored the individual and contextual factors impacting patients' motivation during the COVID-19 period using the integrated model. METHODS: We have conducted two qualitative studies before (study 1) and during the COVID-19 (study 2) period in a cancer centre. We respectively interviewed 30 and 22 patients with various chronic cancers in study 1 and also with COVID-19 in study 2. Data analysis was based on content analysis and grounded theory approach identifying the factors affecting patient motivations during both periods, and then comparing them. RESULTS: Our results show the mechanisms that allow patients to maintain their motivation despite the threats related to COVID-19. They underline the importance of respecting the rules and laws for patients' motivation. CONCLUSION: Compliance with legislation fuels the psychological need of protection in patients, which is a key determinant of motivation in the context of the pandemic. Considering patients' self-regulatory activities to assess motivational factors, going beyond clinical aspects, to include organisational and quality-of-life-related aspects throughout their care pathway is crucial.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response. CONCLUSION: In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

COVID-19 impact on an oncologic emergency department visits: observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on emergency department (ED) visits in a tertiary cancer centre and providing information on the features of the unplanned events during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective observational study based on data from ED reports was divided into three periods of 2 months each around the first lockdown announcement of 17 March 2020: pre-lockdown, lockdown and post-lockdown. RESULTS: A total of 903 ED visits were included in the analyses. The mean (±SD) daily number of ED visits did not change during the lockdown period (14.6±5.5) when compared with the periods before (13.6±4.5) and after lockdown (13.7±4.4) (p=0.78). The proportion of ED visits for fever and respiratory disorders increased significantly to 29.5% and 28.5%, respectively (p<0.01) during lockdown. Pain, the third most frequent motive, remained stable with 18.2% (p=0.83) throughout the three periods. Symptom severity also showed no significant differences in the three periods (p=0.31). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that ED visits during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic remained stable for our patients regardless of the symptom's severity. The fear of an in-hospital viral contamination appears weaker than the need for pain management or for the treatment of cancer-related complications. This study highlights the positive impact of cancer ED in the first-line treatment and supportive care of patients with cancer.