Correction to: Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported that an author name, Roberta Zappasodi, was missed in the authorship list.

Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Tumor immunology has changed the landscape of cancer treatment. Yet, not all patients benefit as cancer immune responsiveness (CIR) remains a limitation in a considerable proportion of cases. The multifactorial determinants of CIR include the genetic makeup of the patient, the genomic instability central to cancer development, the evolutionary emergence of cancer phenotypes under the influence of immune editing, and external modifiers such as demographics, environment, treatment potency, co-morbidities and cancer-independent alterations including immune homeostasis and polymorphisms in the major and minor histocompatibility molecules, cytokines, and chemokines. Based on the premise that cancer is fundamentally a disorder of the genes arising within a cell biologic process, whose deviations from normality determine the rules of engagement with the host's response, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a task force of experts from various disciplines including, immunology, oncology, biophysics, structural biology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics to address the complexity of CIR from a holistic view. The task force was launched by a workshop held in San Francisco on May 14-15, 2018 aimed at two preeminent goals: 1) to identify the fundamental questions related to CIR and 2) to create an interactive community of experts that could guide scientific and research priorities by forming a logical progression supported by multiple perspectives to uncover mechanisms of CIR. This workshop was a first step toward a second meeting where the focus would be to address the actionability of some of the questions identified by working groups. In this event, five working groups aimed at defining a path to test hypotheses according to their relevance to human cancer and identifying experimental models closest to human biology, which include: 1) Germline-Genetic, 2) Somatic-Genetic and 3) Genomic-Transcriptional contributions to CIR, 4) Determinant(s) of Immunogenic Cell Death that modulate CIR, and 5) Experimental Models that best represent CIR and its conversion to an immune responsive state. This manuscript summarizes the contributions from each group and should be considered as a first milestone in the path toward a more contemporary understanding of CIR. We appreciate that this effort is far from comprehensive and that other relevant aspects related to CIR such as the microbiome, the individual's recombined T cell and B cell receptors, and the metabolic status of cancer and immune cells were not fully included. These and other important factors will be included in future activities of the taskforce. The taskforce will focus on prioritization and specific actionable approach to answer the identified questions and implementing the collaborations in the follow-up workshop, which will be held in Houston on September 4-5, 2019.

Pembrolizumab in combination with ipilimumab as second-line or later therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE-021 cohorts D and H.

OBJECTIVES: Combination immunotherapy may result in improved antitumor activity compared with single-agent treatment. We report results from dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts of the phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-021 study that evaluated combination therapy with anti‒programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab plus anti‒cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria stipulated histologically/cytologically confirmed advanced NSCLC and treatment failure on ≥1 prior systemic therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy or targeted therapy for patients with EGFR/ALK aberrations). In the dose-finding cohort, patients initially received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 or 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg monotherapy for up to 2 years. Based on emerging published data, subsequent patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Objective response rate (ORR; primary efficacy endpoint) was assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded, independent central review. Phase 2 hypothesis that ORR would be greater than the 20% rate for historical controls was evaluated using the exact binomial test. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled; 71% received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred at any dose level. Among patients who received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (n = 44), ORR was 30% (95% CI, 17%-45%), but not statistically significantly >20% (P = 0.0858). Median progression-free survival in this group was 4.1 (95% CI, 1.4-5.8) months; median overall survival was 10.9 (95% CI, 6.1-23.7) months. With pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, incidences of treatment-related adverse events, grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, and immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were 64%, 29%, and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heavily pretreated advanced NSCLC, pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab showed evidence of antitumor activity, but was associated with meaningful toxicity.

Pembrolizumab in Combination With Erlotinib or Gefitinib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced NSCLC With Sensitizing EGFR Mutation.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-EGFR agents are standard treatments for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. The feasibility of combining erlotinib or gefitinib with the anti-programmed death 1 immunotherapy pembrolizumab was evaluated in the phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-021 study (NCT02039674). METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV EGFR-mutant NSCLC were treated with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks plus oral erlotinib 150 mg daily in cohort E or oral gefitinib 250 mg daily in cohort F, using a 3 + 3 design with cohort expansion. rTumor response was evaluated per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by blinded independent central review. The primary objective was determination of a recommended phase 2 dose. RESULTS: Twelve patients enrolled to receive pembrolizumab plus erlotinib and seven to receive pembrolizumab plus gefitinib. No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 5 events occurred. Pembrolizumab plus erlotinib was feasible, with adverse events similar to those expected for monotherapy. However, pembrolizumab plus gefitinib was not feasible due to grade 3/4 liver toxicity in five of seven patients (71.4%), leading to permanent treatment discontinuation in four patients. The most frequently occurring treatment-related adverse events with pembrolizumab plus erlotinib were rash (50.0%), dermatitis acneiform, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, and pruritus (33.3% each). The objective response rate was 41.7%, including response in all four patients with programmed death ligand 1 expression 50% or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Although pembrolizumab plus gefitinib was not feasible, the toxicity profile observed with pembrolizumab plus erlotinib suggests combining immunotherapy with anti-EGFR therapy is feasible. Pembrolizumab plus erlotinib did not improve objective response rate compared with previous monotherapy studies; further evaluation would be necessary to evaluate potential effects on other efficacy outcomes.

Pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Phase 1 cohorts from the KEYNOTE-021 study.

OBJECTIVES: Platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has modest benefit overall, but has the potential to amplify immune responses. In cohorts A-C of the multicohort phase 1/2 study KEYNOTE-021 (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02039674), we evaluated combinations of platinum-doublet chemotherapy with the anti-programmed death 1 monocloncal antibody pembrolizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, advanced NSCLC without EGFR/ALK aberrations were randomized to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W plus carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) 6 mg/mL/min plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (cohort A, any histology), carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL/min plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (cohort B, non-squamous), or carboplatin AUC 5 mg/mL/min plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (cohort C, non-squamous) for 4 cycles followed by maintenance pembrolizumab (cohort A), pembrolizumab plus bevacizumab (cohort B), or pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed (cohort C). Response was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 74 patients were randomized; median follow-up was 21.4, 16.4, and 17.4 months in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred in any cohort at either pembrolizumab dose. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were alopecia, fatigue, and nausea. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 40%, 42%, and 46% of patients in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively; AEs with possible immune etiology occurred in 24%, 50%, and 38% of patients, respectively. Objective response rates were 48%, 56%, and 75% in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel and with pemetrexed-carboplatin yielded encouraging antitumor activity and toxicity consistent with known toxicities of platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that lacks targetable mutations is platinum-based chemotherapy. Among patients with a tumor proportion score for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 50% or greater, pembrolizumab has replaced cytotoxic chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of choice. The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly higher rates of response and longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone in a phase 2 trial. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) 616 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK mutations who had received no previous treatment for metastatic disease to receive pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug plus either 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy. Crossover to pembrolizumab monotherapy was permitted among the patients in the placebo-combination group who had verified disease progression. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as assessed by blinded, independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 10.5 months, the estimated rate of overall survival at 12 months was 69.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1 to 73.8) in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1 to 56.2) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001). Improvement in overall survival was seen across all PD-L1 categories that were evaluated. Median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 5.5) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 67.2% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 65.8% of those in the placebo-combination group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy of pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-189 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02578680 .).

Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists to show that adding a third agent to platinum-doublet chemotherapy improves efficacy in the first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) setting. The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab has shown efficacy as monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and has a non-overlapping toxicity profile with chemotherapy. We assessed whether the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy improves efficacy in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 cohort of a multicohort study (KEYNOTE-021), patients were enrolled at 26 medical centres in the USA and Taiwan. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB or IV, non-squamous NSCLC without targetable EGFR or ALK genetic aberrations were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four stratified by PD-L1 tumour proportion score (<1% vs ≥1%) using an interactive voice-response system to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg plus carboplatin area under curve 5 mg/mL per min and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 3 weeks followed by pembrolizumab for 24 months and indefinite pemetrexed maintenance therapy or to 4 cycles of carboplatin and pemetrexed alone followed by indefinite pemetrexed maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, defined as the percentage of patients with radiologically confirmed complete or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by masked, independent central review, in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were allocated to study treatment. Significance threshold was p<0·025 (one sided). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned study treatment. This trial, which is closed for enrolment but continuing for follow-up, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039674. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and Jan 25, 2016, 123 patients were enrolled; 60 were randomly assigned to the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 63 to the chemotherapy alone group. 33 (55%; 95% CI 42-68) of 60 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group achieved an objective response compared with 18 (29%; 18-41) of 63 patients in the chemotherapy alone group (estimated treatment difference 26% [95% CI 9-42%]; p=0·0016). The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups (23 [39%] of 59 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 16 [26%] of 62 in the chemotherapy alone group). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group were anaemia (seven [12%] of 59) and decreased neutrophil count (three [5%]); an additional six events each occurred in two (3%) for acute kidney injury, decreased lymphocyte count, fatigue, neutropenia, and sepsis, and thrombocytopenia. In the chemotherapy alone group, the most common grade 3 or worse events were anaemia (nine [15%] of 62) and decreased neutrophil count, pancytopenia, and thrombocytopenia (two [3%] each). One (2%) of 59 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group experienced treatment-related death because of sepsis compared with two (3%) of 62 patients in the chemotherapy group: one because of sepsis and one because of pancytopenia. INTERPRETATION: Combination of pembrolizumab, carboplatin, and pemetrexed could be an effective and tolerable first-line treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This finding is being further explored in an ongoing international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Slow-release granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting: analysis by American Society of Clinical Oncology emetogenicity criteria.

BACKGROUND: APF530 is a novel sustained-release formulation of granisetron. In a Phase III trial, APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron 0.25 mg in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV after MEC, but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Emetogenicity was classified by Hesketh criteria; this reanalysis uses newer American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria. METHODS: Complete responses (no emesis or rescue medication) after cycle one were reanalyzed after reclassification of MEC and HEC by American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria. RESULTS: APF530 maintained noninferiority to palonosetron. CONCLUSION: Single-dose APF530 is a promising alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. The Clinicaltrials.gov identifier for this study is NCT00343460.

Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority. RESULTS: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation. CONCLUSIONS: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.

Molecular testing in lung cancer: fine-needle aspiration specimen adequacy and test prioritization prior to the CAP/IASLC/AMP Molecular Testing Guideline publication.

BACKGROUND: Subtyping of lung carcinoma with immunohistochemistry is essential for diagnosis, whereas molecular testing (MT) is required for therapy guidance. In the current study, the authors report on MT performed on fine-needle aspiration specimens at the study institution over a 2-year period preceding the April 2013 College of American Pathologists (CAP)/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) Molecular Testing Guideline (MTG) publication. METHODS: The database of the study institution was retrospectively queried for cases of lung and thoracic/lower cervical lymph node fine-needle aspiration specimens for 2011 through 2012. RESULTS: Of 246 selected cases, 26 featured a limited amount of material in cell blocks. MT increased significantly between 2011 and 2012 and was requested in 39.4% of cases (97 of 246 cases): 86 of those cases had at least 1 MT result and 11 had insufficient material for any MT. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) testing was performed in 9 cases in which DNA was insufficient for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing. In addition, 13 cases of adenocarcinoma/non-small cell lung carcinoma had at least 1 MT canceled because of insufficient DNA, but at the same time had an average of 3.46 immunohistochemical stains performed. CONCLUSIONS: Of all the cytology specimens, 10.6% featured limited material; however, no universally accepted testing sequence priority was available at the time the study was performed. As per the MTG, MT should take precedence over immunohistochemistry in cases of adenocarcinoma/non-small cell lung carcinoma. Approximately 5.3% of the specimens in the current study had insufficient material for MT while having multiple stains performed instead. The MTG also recommend performing EGFR before ALK testing; the authors found 9 cases with insufficient material for EGFR testing that had ALK testing performed. The results of the current study underscore the need for a testing prioritization algorithm in view of the MTG publication to serve as reference for both clinicians and pathologists.

Magnitude of benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Several randomized trials investigating the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have provided conflicting results. With over 7000 patients included, we analyzed results of 13 reports over the past 10 years in which patients received either platinum-containing chemotherapy or not. The major endpoint was to assess the magnitude of the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of the absolute benefit. All phase III randomized trials and meta-analyses published as peer-reviewed papers or as abstracts from 1994 to 2007 were eligible. A literature-based meta-analysis was performed; event-based overall- and disease-free survival (OS/DFS) and Relative Risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived. Magnitudes of benefit were evaluated with: absolute benefit and the number of patients treated for one patient to benefit. Seven sub-populations were examined. Combined effect estimation was computed with fixed- and random-effect models; a heterogeneity test was also applied. Twelve trials plus an individual patient meta-analysis (7334 patients) were gathered; the trials were designed to determine if cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy improves survival over surgery. When data were pooled and plotted, significant differences in favor of chemotherapy were seen in OS in all seven sub-population, with a relative benefit of 7-12% and an absolute benefit ranging from 2.5% to 4.1%. A more significant trend for chemotherapy was found in DFS. No significant heterogeneity was observed for all outcomes and sub-populations. The absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy remains essentially the same regardless of how data are screened. While significant differences are clearly found in this analysis, the small magnitude of benefit seen with this large population, especially when considering the number of patients needed for one to benefit, raises important issues when weighing risks and benefits of treatment for individual patients.

Progress in the Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis: New Agents and New Studies.

New agents and studies have demonstrated benefit in improving antiemetic therapy. Incorporating evidence-based guideline recommendations and appropriate emesis assessments are key components to achieving the best practice.

Diagnosis and management of hyponatremia in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Hyponatremia is among the metabolic disturbances encountered in oncology. Risk factors for hyponatremia include chemotherapy, treatment-induced nausea and vomiting, hydration, pain, narcotic drugs, and physical and emotional stress. A common cause of hyponatremia in patients with cancer is the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), which may result from ectopic production of arginine vasopressin (AVP) by the tumor tissue. TREATMENT: The AVP-receptor antagonists, a new class of agents, correct hyponatremia by directly blocking the binding of AVP with its receptors. In clinical trials, conivaptan, lixivaptan, tolvaptan, and satavaptan have increased serum osmolality and normalized the serum [Na(+)] in hyponatremia associated with SIADH, cirrhosis, or congestive heart failure. These drugs may have a potential in cancer-related hyponatremia as well.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis over multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles. METHODS: The authors performed a randomized, double-blind study. Eligible patients with breast carcinoma were naïve to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide alone or with doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomized to receive either an APR regimen (Day 1: APR 125 mg, ondansetron [OND] 8 mg, and dexamethasone [DEX] 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: APR 80 mg every day) or a control regimen (Day 1: OND 8 mg and DEX 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: OND 8 mg twice per day). Data on nausea, emesis, and use of rescue medication were collected. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue therapy) in Cycle 1. Efficacy end points for the multiple-cycle extension were the probabilities of a CR in Cycles 2-4 and a sustained CR rate across multiple cycles. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 744 (85.9%) entered the multiple-cycle extension, and 650 (75.1%) completed all 4 cycles. Overall, the CR was greater with the APR regimen over the 4 cycles: 53.8% versus 39.4% for Cycle 2, 54.1% versus 39.3% for Cycle 3, and 55.0% versus 38.4% for Cycle 4. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was greater with the APR regimen (P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The APR regimen was more effective than a control regimen for the prevention of nausea and emesis induced by MEC over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

Supportive care in lung cancer.

Lung cancer often is associated with significant morbidity, which has a detrimental effect on quality of life. Supportive care plays a central role in the multimodal treatment of lung cancer. Palliation of symptoms often improves quality of life and compliance with therapy. New developments in supportive care, reviewed here, include management of symptoms of the disease, such as respiratory problems, pain, and cachexia, as well as effects of treatment, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, neutropenia, anemia, and mucositis. In the past few years, significant advances have been made in this field; however, palliation of the symptoms of lung cancer remains an area of active investigation.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.