Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III studies.

AIM: To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles. METHODS: Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated. RESULTS: In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients. CONCLUSION: Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

An Expanded Treatment Protocol of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Panobinostat was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Commission in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who have received ≥ 2 regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. The PANEX (panobinostat expansion) treatment protocol provided access to panobinostat and gathered additional safety data before commercial availability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In treatment phase 1, patients received panobinostat 20 mg 3 times per week plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly with dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of and after bortezomib treatment. Patients with no change or better in treatment phase 1 proceeded to treatment phase 2, when bortezomib was reduced to once weekly. Unlike in the phase III trial, PANORAMA-1 (panobinostat or placebo with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma), bortezomib could be administered either subcutaneously or intravenously. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with a median number of previous treatments of 4 (range, 1-12) were enrolled; most received subcutaneous bortezomib (87%). The overall response rate (partial response or better) was 56%. Grade 3/4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (47%), fatigue (31%), dehydration (26%), and diarrhea (18%). Among the patients who received subcutaneous bortezomib, relatively low rates of peripheral neuropathy (all grade, 15%) and notable grade 3/4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, 47%; diarrhea, 12%) were observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, data from the PANEX trial support regulatory approval of panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone and suggest the potential tolerability benefits of subcutaneous bortezomib in this regimen.

NEPA, a fixed oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over multiple cycles of chemotherapy: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial versus oral palonosetron.

PURPOSE: Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of targeted prophylactic medications inhibiting molecular pathways involved in emesis. NEPA is a fixed oral combination of a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant (NETU 300 mg), and palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. NEPA showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with oral PALO in a single chemotherapy cycle; maintenance of efficacy/safety over continuing cycles is the objective of this study. METHODS: This study is a multinational, double-blind study comparing a single oral dose of NEPA vs oral PALO in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy along with dexamethasone 12 mg (NEPA) or 20 mg (PALO) on day 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was delayed (25-120 h) complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the multicycle extension by calculating the proportion of patients with overall (0-120 h) CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. RESULTS: Of 1455 patients randomized, 1286 (88 %) participated in the multiple-cycle extension for a total of 5969 cycles; 76 % completed ≥4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was significantly greater for NEPA than oral PALO for cycles 1-4 (74.3 vs 66.6 %, 80.3 vs 66.7 %, 83.8 vs 70.3 %, and 83.8 vs 74.6 %, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 each cycle). The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was also greater for NEPA (p < 0.0001). NEPA was well tolerated over cycles. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA, a convenient, guideline-consistent, fixed antiemetic combination is effective and safe over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Personality traits as a potential predictor of willingness to undergo various orthodontic treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To establish an association between patient personality traits and potential willingness to undergo various orthodontic treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred adolescent individuals aged 12-16 years completed an anonymous electronic questionnaire via Survey Monkey. The 24-item questionnaire contained three major sections: patient demographics, a modified Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10 personality index, and a willingness to undergo treatment assessment. Multiple-variable linear regression analyses were used to determine the associations among age, gender, ethnicity, and the five personality traits simultaneously with willingness to undergo treatment. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. RESULTS: Ninety-six of the 100 individuals were included in the statistical analysis. Age, ethnicity, and gender failed to correlate with potential willingness to undergo orthodontic treatment. Several personality dimensions within the modified BFI-10 (agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) were significantly associated with willingness to undergo various orthodontic treatments (P ≤ .05). Agreeableness demonstrated positive correlations with five treatment modalities, while both conscientiousness and neuroticism exhibited negative associations with a single treatment modality. Openness and extraversion were the only personality dimensions that failed to associate with any of the treatment modalities. Four of the nine treatment modalities had no association with patient demographics or a patient's personality dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Personality traits are useful in predicting a patient's potential willingness to participate in various orthodontic treatments. The agreeableness dimension provided the most utility in predicting patient willingness. Age, ethnicity, and gender were not significant in predicting patient willingness.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To estimate the efficacy and toxicity of AMG 386, an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein that neutralizes the interaction between the Tie2 receptor and angiopoietin-1/2, plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) once weekly [QW], 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus intravenous AMG 386 10 mg/kg QW (arm A), AMG 386 3 mg/kg QW (arm B), or placebo QW (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response, CA-125 response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months) in arm A, 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 8.0 months) in arm B, and 4.6 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.7 months) in arm C. The hazard ratio for arms A and B combined versus arm C was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.12; P = .165). Further analyses suggested an exploratory dose-response effect for PFS across arms (Tarone's test, P = .037). Objective response rates for arms A, B, and C were 37%, 19%, and 27%, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) in arms A, B, and C was 65%, 55%, and 64%, respectively. Frequent AEs included hypertension (8%, 6%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), peripheral edema (71%, 51%, and 22% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), and hypokalemia (21%, 15%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively). AMG 386 exhibited linear pharmacokinetic properties at the tested doses. CONCLUSION: AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel was tolerable, with a manageable and distinct toxicity profile. The data suggest evidence of antitumor activity and a dose-response effect, warranting further studies in ovarian cancer.

Treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancers at a community hospital: successful application of tertiary care treatment standards.

Background. The treatment of pancreatic cancer and other periampullary neoplasms is complex and challenging. Major high-volume cancer centers can provide excellent multidisciplinary care of these patients but almost two-thirds of pancreatic cancer patients are treated at low volume centers. There is very little published data from low volume community cancer programs in regards to the treatment of periampullary cancer. In this study, a review of comprehensive periampullary cancer care at two low volume hospitals with comparison to national standards is presented. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 70 consecutive patients with periampullary neoplasms who underwent surgery over a 5-year period (2006-2010) at two community hospitals. Results. There were 51 successful resections of 70 explorations (73%) including 34 Whipple procedures. Mortality rate was 2.9%. Comparison of these patients to national standards was made in terms of operative mortality, resectability rate, administration of adjuvant therapy, clinical trial participation and overall survival. The results in these patients were comparable to national standards. Conclusions. With adequate commitment of resources and experienced surgical and oncologic practitioners, community cancer centers can meet national tertiary care standards in terms of pancreatic and periampullary cancer care.

Phase 2 trial results with the novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial evaluated the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate in combination with ondansetron/dexamethasone (ond/dex) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC (N=723) were randomized to receive either oral placebo or casopitant at doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg daily (on Days 1-3) plus ondansetron (on Days 1-3) and dexamethasone (Day 1). Two exploratory arms evaluated single-dose casopitant (150 mg) plus ond/dex and a 3-day casopitant regimen with once-daily ondansetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoints were rates of complete response (CR) (no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) and significant nausea (SN) (>or=25 mm on a visual analog scale) over the first 120 hours after Cycle 1 of MEC. Secondary endpoints included acute and delayed CR and SN rates, rates of nausea, vomiting, and safety. RESULTS: All casopitant doses that were tested significantly increased the proportion of patients with CR: The CR rates were 80.8% with casopitant 50 mg, 78.5% with casopitant 100 mg, and 84.2% with casopitant 150 mg compared with 69.4% in the control group (P=.0127); casopitant 150 mg was identified as the minimally effective dose. In exploratory analyses, single-dose casopitant demonstrated a 79.2% CR rate, and once-daily ondansetron plus casopitant produced an 83.5% CR rate. Vomiting rates in the first 5 days after MEC were reduced with casopitant-containing regimens (from 23% to 10%-16%). Rates of SN did not differ among treatment arms (range, 28%-29%). Casopitant appeared to be well tolerated with no notable differences in overall adverse event frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Casopitant plus ond/dex was more effective than ond/dex alone for the prevention of CINV.