Early recognition of malnutrition and cachexia in the cancer patient: a position paper of a European School of Oncology Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss and cachexia are common, reduce tolerance of cancer treatment and the likelihood of response, and independently predict poor outcome. METHODS: A group of experts met under the auspices of the European School of Oncology to review the literature and-on the basis of the limited evidence at present-make recommendations for malnutrition and cachexia management and future research. CONCLUSIONS: Our focus should move from end-stage wasting to supporting patients' nutritional and functional state throughout the increasingly complex and prolonged course of anti-cancer treatment. When inadequate nutrient intake predominates (malnutrition), this can be managed by conventional nutritional support. In the presence of systemic inflammation/altered metabolism (cachexia), a multi-modal approach including novel therapeutic agents is required. For all patients, oncologists should consider three supportive care issues: ensuring sufficient energy and protein intake, maintaining physical activity to maintain muscle mass and (if present) reducing systemic inflammation. The results of phase II/III trials based on novel drug targets (e.g. cytokines, ghrelin receptor, androgen receptor, myostatin) are expected in the next 2 years. If effective therapies emerge, early detection of malnutrition and cachexia will be increasingly important in the hope that timely intervention can improve both patient-centered and oncology outcomes.

Randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging trial of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Casopitant mesylate is a novel, oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist with demonstrated antiemetic efficacy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase II trial to evaluate three casopitant doses as part of a triple-therapy regimen for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin. The aim of the study was to detect a dose response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 493 patients with solid tumors receiving a first cycle of cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomly assigned among six treatment arms. The primary analysis compared a control arm [ondansetron/dexamethasone (Ond/Dex)] with three investigational treatments (Ond/Dex plus oral casopitant 50, 100, or 150 mg administered daily for 3 days). Two exploratory arms were included: one evaluating a single oral casopitant dose of 150 mg added to standard Ond/Dex and another with 3-day oral aprepitant-based therapy (Ond/Dex plus aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3). RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rate (defined as no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) was significantly increased in each casopitant arm relative to control over the 120-h evaluation period: 76% (50 mg), 86% (100 mg), 77% (150 mg), and 60% with control (P = 0.0036). The CR rate for the single oral dose regimen was similar to the CR rate reported for the 3-day regimens. No differences were observed in the incidence of nausea or significant nausea among groups in the primary analysis. The most common adverse events related to treatment included headache (n = 10) and hiccups (n = 14). CONCLUSION: All doses of oral casopitant as a 3-day regimen (and likely as a 150-mg single oral dose) in combination with Ond/Dex provided significant improvement in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.

Antiemetic activity of corticosteroids in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: dosing, efficacy, and tolerability analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain the standards of treatment for many patients with cancer, but these modalities are often limited by distressing side-effects, most notably chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: This paper considers the role of corticosteroids in CINV prophylaxis. Clinical trial results and treatment guidelines indicate that even with the emergence of new serotonin and neurokinin receptor antagonists, corticosteroids continue to play an important role in antiemesis for oncology patients. Numerous clinical trial results have demonstrated that both dexamethasone and methylprednisolone are effective as monotherapy and in combination with older and more recently developed antiemetic agents in patients receiving a wide range of chemotherapeutic regimens used for treatment of different cancers. CONCLUSIONS: With the increasing number of antineoplastic regimens and factors specific to individual patients, it is important to frequently review antiemetic treatment options and continually monitor therapeutic progress to establish the optimal therapy for each patient.

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase). RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Combined data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant plus a 5HT 3 antagonist and a corticosteroid for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: effect of gender on treatment response.

GOALS OF WORK: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with standard antiemetics has been more difficult to achieve in female patients. Data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant were assessed for potential effect of gender on treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1,044 patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomly assigned to control regimen [ondansetron (O) 32 mg i.v. and dexamethasone (D) 20 mg p.o. on day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on days 2-4] or aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg p.o. plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on days 2-3; and D 8 mg on day 4). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy over days 1-5). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Between-treatment comparisons for each gender were made using logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS: Women comprised 42 and 43% of the aprepitant and control groups, respectively. In the control group, 41% of women had overall complete response compared with 53% of men. In the aprepitant group, 66% of women had overall complete response compared with 69% of men. CONCLUSION: The addition of aprepitant may negate the adverse prognostic effect of female gender on the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Functional relevance of antiemetic control. Experience using the FLIE questionnaire in a randomised study of the NK-1 antagonist aprepitant.

Little information exists on the functional impact of effective antiemetic protection. In the present study, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), was used to assess patient-reported impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after administration of a new NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant). Cisplatin-treated patients in a double-blind randomised trial received either aprepitant+dexamethasone+ondansetron on day 1 and aprepitant+dexamethasone on days 2-5 or standard antiemetic therapy (dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1 and dexamethasone on days 2-5). Emetic events, nausea ratings and rescue medications were recorded in a 5-day diary and the FLIE was completed on day 6. Compared with standard therapy, significantly more patients treated with the high dose aprepitant regimen achieved a Complete Response (71 vs 44%, P<0.001) and also reported no impact on daily life as indicated by the FLIE total score (84 vs 66%, P<0.01). Use of the FLIE demonstrated that improved control of emesis was highly effective in reducing the impact of CINV on patients' daily lives.

Unresectable primary and recurrent head and neck tumors: effect of hyperthermia and carboplatin--preliminary experience.

PURPOSE: To perform a single-arm study to determine the effectiveness of and potential toxic reactions to local hyperthermia and systemic carboplatin (cis-diammine-1,1-cyclobutane dicarboxylate platinum II) for the treatment of advanced or recurrent squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and stage IV disease (N2 or N3 neck adenopathy) or recurrent local-regional disease and who were previously and definitively treated were included in the study. Thermochemotherapy was administered every 4 weeks. Recorded end points were tumor response, duration of response, incidence of distant metastases, survival, cause of death, and toxic reactions. RESULTS: One patient had a complete response to therapy, and two had a partial response. Five patients had no response or developed progressive disease during therapy. Six patients died after 4-13 months of progressive disease. Two long-term survivors received radiation therapy; one also underwent surgical resection for residual neck disease. Each thermochemotherapeutic session was well tolerated, with minimal discomfort. Toxic reactions included hypotension, vomiting, hyponatremia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infection at the site of administration. There were no life-threatening toxic reactions. CONCLUSION: The combined use of hyperthermia and carboplatin shows potential in the management of unresectable head and neck tumors and is safe and well tolerated. Further studies on thermochemotherapy are warranted to assess its potential.

Treatment of poor-prognosis extensive disease small-cell lung cancer with an all-oral regimen of etoposide and cyclophosphamide - a Southwest Oncology Group clinical and pharmacokinetic study.

PURPOSE: An all-oral regimen of etoposide and cyclophosphamide was developed for use in poor-prognosis extensive disease small-cell lung cancer. Limited pharmacokinetic sampling was used to derive a pharmacodynamic model predictive of myelosuppression early in the course of therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive and had extensive disease small-cell lung cancer with either SWOG performance status 2 or serum albumin <3.5 g/dl. The first cohort (n = 18) received etoposide orally at 50 mg daily and cyclophosphamide orally at 50 mg daily days 1-14 every 28 days. Due to good hematologic tolerance, the second cohort (n = 39) received both agents orally at 50 mg twice daily days 1-14 every 28 days. Plasma etoposide levels were determined in samples drawn at baseline, and at 1 h, 2 h, and 23.5 h (trough) after the first dose. Linear regression analysis was used to determine pharmacokinetic and demographic parameters predictive of myelosuppression. RESULTS: A total of 173 treatment cycles were delivered. Patients on the daily regimen had a 22% response rate (complete and partial), a 22% unconfirmed response rate, and a 5-month median survival, while patients on the twice-daily regimen had a 28% response rate (complete and partial), a 13% unconfirmed response rate, and a 7-month median survival. Granulocytopenia and alopecia were the most common toxicities seen. Significant granulocytopenia could be predicted for the twice-daily regimen according to the formula ln(AGC nadir)=7.80 - 1.88(trough), with an increased incidence of granulocytopenia if the etoposide trough value was >/=1.49 microg/ml. CONCLUSION: Oral etoposide and oral cyclophosphamide given days 1-14 every 28 days is well tolerated and results in an acceptable response rate and median survival in poor-prognosis (poor performance status or low serum albumin) extensive disease small-cell lung cancer. A trough etoposide level obtained within 24 h of starting therapy can predict severe granulocytopenia.

Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea. RESULTS: In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030. CONCLUSIONS: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.

Cyclophosphamide and etoposide for non-small cell and small cell lung cancer.

Oral chemotherapeutic regimens with limited toxicity are desirable in that quality of life can be maintained and clinic/hospital visits minimised during therapy. We have investigated the use of extended courses of oral cyclophosphamide and oral etoposide for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A 14-day course of oral combination chemotherapy every 28 days resulted in a 12% response rate and a median survival of 6 months (1-year survival, 26%) in stage IV NSCLC. This regimen could not be intensified with carboplatin because of synergistic granulocytopenia. A 14-day course every 28 days resulted in a 40% response rate and a median survival of 7 months in poor-prognosis extensive-disease SCLC. Pharmacodynamic modelling revealed that the granulocyte nadir could be predicted from a single plasma etoposide level drawn on the second day of therapy, potentially allowing dose adjustment during the treatment cycle. Oral chemotherapy remains a promising route for the treatment of lung cancer.

Antiemetic strategies for high-dose chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

The treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high doses of irradiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents as preparation for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is discussed. Such patients have very high rates of both early and delayed emesis. Based on the available evidence it is recommended that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists be used to combat emesis in this setting. Continued research is also required to define the optimal antiemetic strategy for these patients.

Cost-effective use of antiemetics.

Direct comparison of intravenous and oral 5-HT3 antagonists has shown equivalent efficacy if appropriate doses are given, thus allowing widespread use of the more convenient and economical oral route. Effective antiemesis generates additional cost savings by decreasing the resources necessary for salvage antiemetic preparation and administration, additional physician and nursing evaluation, clean-up and maintenance of the patient area, and possible additional hospitalization necessitated by uncontrolled emesis. If ondansetron and metoclopramide are compared strictly on an acquisition cost basis, ondansetron is 4 to 15 times more expensive. However, if the additional savings attributable to better antiemetic control are taken into account, ondansetron is only 2 to 3 times more expensive and quality of life is markedly improved. In cost-utility analysis such improvement in quality of life is taken into account through the use of a utility score. Utility scores for antiemetic protection, however, have not been well defined. We recently performed a pilot study asking patients receiving chemotherapy to rate globally their quality of life (utility score) over the preceding chemotherapy cycle, assuming that a small amount of nausea and vomiting either had or had not occurred. An incremental utility score of 0.52 based solely on the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting was identified. Further careful investigations to identify the incremental utility resulting from use of various modes of oncologic supportive care are required.

Innovative approaches in the treatment of emesis.

Over the last 15 years, appreciation of the role of dopaminergic (D2) receptors and serotonergic (5-HT3) receptors has led to the development of a series of highly effective antiemetic agents. However, in spite of the suggestion of additional significant receptors (such as the NK-1 receptor and the opiate mu receptor), recent innovations in antiemetic treatment have concentrated on refinement of schedule, route, and dose. Single-dose regimens and oral formulations improve the convenience of antiemetic administration, while identification of the minimum effective dose has important economic implications. Involvement of experienced supportive care investigators in objective determination of utility scores for various supportive care modalities will be vital for rational inclusion of supportive care in pharmacoeconomic analysis, critical pathways, and clinical guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of different doses of granisetron for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of four different doses of granisetron when administered as a single intravenous (i.v.) dose for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis in a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind investigation. A total of 353 chemotherapy-naive patients were enrolled, stratified according to cisplatin dose (moderate dose: 50-80 mg/m2, n = 169; high dose: 81-120 mg/m2, n = 184) and randomized to one of four granisetron doses: 5, 10, 20, or 40 micrograms/kg. Control of emesis was evaluated by the percentages of patients attaining complete response (no vomiting or retching, and no rescue medication) and major response (< or = 2 episodes of vomiting or retching, and no rescue medication). Patients were assessed on an inpatient basis for 18-24 h. Safety analyses consisted of adverse events and laboratory parameter changes. Complete response rates over 24 h after chemotherapy were 23%, 48%, 48%, and 44% for granisetron doses of 5, 10, 20, and 40 micrograms/kg, respectively, in the combined patient population (P = 0.011 for linear trend); 29%, 56%, 58%, and 41%, respectively, in the moderate-dose cisplatin stratum (P = 0.278 for linear trend); and 18%, 41%, 40%, and 47%, respectively, in the high-dose cisplatin stratum (P = 0.011 for linear trend). Transient headache was the most frequently reported adverse event (19%). There was no evidence of association between increased dose and headache. A single 10-, 20- or 40-micrograms/kg dose of granisetron is comparably effective in controlling nausea and vomiting associated with moderate or high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. Granisetron was safe and well tolerated at all doses.

Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To propose a classification of the acute emetogenicity of antineoplastic chemotherapy agents, and to develop an algorithm to define the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted to identify (1) clinical trials that used chemotherapy as single-agent therapy, and (2) major reviews of antiemetic therapy. The search was limited to patients who received commonly used doses of chemotherapy agents, primarily by short (< 3 hours) intravenous infusions. Based on review of this information and our collective clinical experience, we assigned chemotherapy agents to one of five emetogenic levels by consensus. A preliminary algorithm to determine the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens was then designed by consensus. A final algorithm was developed after we analyzed a data base composed of patients treated on the placebo arms of four randomized antiemetic trials. RESULTS: Chemotherapy agents were divided into five levels: level 1 (< 10% of patients experience acute [< or = 24 hours after chemotherapy] emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis); level 2 (10% to 30%); level 3 (30% to 60%); level 4 (60% to 90%); and level 5 (> 90%). For combinations, the emetogenic level was determined by identifying the most emetogenic agent in the combination and then assessing the relative contribution of the other agents. The following rules apply: (1) level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenic level of a combination; (2) adding > or = one level 2 agent increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination; and (3) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification schema provides a practical means to determine the emetogenic potential of individual chemotherapy agents and combination regimens during the 24 hours after administration. This system can serve as a framework for the development of antiemetic guidelines.

Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis is often based upon incremental cost per increase in survival (cost-effectiveness). Using this definition supportive care measures, which increase quality but not quantity of life, generate a zero denominator and cannot be directly compared with other components of health care cost. Cost-utility analysis, which measures incremental cost per increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), where QALY = utility score x time at risk, addresses this problem, since successful supportive intervention increases the utility score and thus provides a finite denominator in QALY even when absolute survival is unchanged. However, utility scores for various supportive care modalities have not been well defined. As a pilot study to generate a first approximation of a utility score for nausea/vomiting, we used a rating scale technique and administered two visual analogue scale questions to 30 patients completing a cycle of chemotherapy. Patients rated their global quality of life during their previous cycle of chemotherapy with hypothetical absence or presence of nausea/vomiting as the only variable. The study population included 8 male and 22 female patients, with a median age of 56 years. The most common malignancies were breast cancer (8 patients), lung cancer (7 patients), and hematologic malignancies (7 patients). On a 100 mm visual analogue scale, the mean score for overall quality of life during chemotherapy was 79 mm without nausea/vomiting and 27 mm with nausea/vomiting (P < 0.001, paired t-test). The implied marked increase in utility with relief of nausea/vomiting suggests a significant impact on cost-utility analysis. Similar methodology could be used to estimate utility scores in other areas of supportive care.