Efficacy of the granisetron transdermal system for the control of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We compared the efficacy of the granisetron transdermal system (GTS) with that of ondansetron for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We randomized a total of 389 patients to groups treated by GTS and ondansetron before HEC. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete response (CR; no retching/vomiting/rescue medication) of CINV from the time of chemotherapy initiation to 24 hours after the last administration of chemotherapy (prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%). Quality of life (QoL) was also assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). RESULTS: The per protocol analysis included 152 (47.80%) and 166 patients (52.20%) in the GTS and ondansetron groups, respectively. In the full analysis set, the most common diagnosis, regimen, and period of chemotherapy were lung cancer (149 patients, 40.27%), cisplatin-based regimen (297 patients, 80.27%), and 1 day chemotherapy (221 patients, 59.73%). The CR rates were 86.84% and 90.36% in the GTS and ondansetron groups, respectively; the treatment difference was -3.52% (95% confidence interval, -10.52 to 3.48) and met the primary endpoint, indicating that GTS was not inferior to ondansetron. Patient satisfaction, assessed on the FLIE, showed significantly higher scores in the GTS group compared to the ondansetron group (mean ± standard deviation, 1,547.38 ± 306.00 and 1,494.07 ± 312.05 mm, respectively; p = 0.0449). CONCLUSION: GTS provided effective, safe, and well-tolerated control of CINV and improved the QoL in HEC.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin versus Etoposide Plus Cisplatin in Chemotherapy-Naïve Korean Patients with Extensive-Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase III study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of irinote-can plus cisplatin (IP) over etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in Korean patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive IP, composed of irinotecan 65 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8+cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks, or EP, composed of etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, 3+cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles, until disease progression, or until unacceptable toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients were randomized to IP (n=173) and EP (n=189) arms. There were no significant differences between IP and EP arms for the median overall survival (10.9 months vs. 10.3 months, p=0.120) and the median progression-free survival (6.5 months vs. 5.8 months, p=0.115). However, there was a significant difference in response rate (62.4% vs. 48.2%, p=0.006). The pre-planned subgroup analyses showed that IP was associated with longer overall survival in male (11.3 months vs. 10.1 months, p=0.036), < 65 years old (12.7 months vs. 11.3 months, p=0.024), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 (12.4 months vs. 10.9 months, p=0.040) patient groups. The severity of treatment-related adverse events such as grade 3/4 anemia, nausea and diarrhea was more frequent in patients treated with IP. CONCLUSION: The IP chemotherapy did not significantly improve the survival compared with EP chemotherapy in Korean patients with extensive-disease SCLC.

Randomized phase II study comparing weekly docetaxel-cisplatin vs. gemcitabine-cisplatin in elderly or poor performance status patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel/cisplatin (DP) and gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) are standard treatment regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In spite of potent efficacy, the conventional 1-day DP is regarded as having more toxicity as compared with GP. There is increasing interest in a biweekly split administration of DP to reduce its toxicity. Hypothesis was that first-line biweekly DP is as safe as GP in the elderly or poor performance status (PS) patients. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC (IIIB/IV) who were elderly (65<) or PS (ECOG 2) were randomized to DP or GP arm by balancing for ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and stage (IIIB vs. IV). DP comprised docetaxel (35 mg/m2)/cisplatin (30 mg/m2) iv on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. GP comprised gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (30 mg/m2) iv on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy lasted up to 4-6 cycles or until progression. Primary endpoint was safety (proportion of grade 3/4 toxicities). Planned sample size was 49 patients in each arm. RESULTS: From November 2009 to August 2012, a total of 99 patients were randomized (DP 50/GP 49) from nine institutions. Adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma were observed in 62% and 33% of patients, respectively. Toxicity profiles were comparable for both arms and the differences were not statistically significant except for anemia and leucocytopenia. Any grade of anemia (86 vs. 98%) and of leucocytopenia (18 vs. 43%) was more common in the GP arm with statistical significance. Oral mucositis tended to be predominant in the DP arm. Patients in the DP arm (51%) suffered grade 3 or higher toxicities as did 47% in the GP arm (47%). The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities were as follows: In the DP arm, neutropenia (8%), leucopenia (8%), anemia (4%), pneumonia with normal ANC (4%) and febrile neutropenia (2%) were observed. In the GP arm, anemia (15%), neutropenia (15%), pneumonia with normal ANC (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%) and leucopenia (2%) were observed. The best overall response rates (CR + PR) for the DP and GP arms were 20.0 and 21% with no CR, respectively, and disease control rates (CR + PR + SD) were 70.0 and 76%, respectively. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 3.7 and 14.9 months in the DP arm and 5.6 and 20.8 months in the GP arm, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that DP is similar to GP in terms of efficacy and toxicity in treatment of elderly or poor performance patients. Both regimens showed similar grade 3/4 toxicities with different profiles.

Safety and efficacy of single-agent docetaxel (Taxotere) administered weekly in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients in Korea: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of weekly docetaxel treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Korea. METHODS: This prospective observational study included Korean advanced NSCLC patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2 who received weekly monotherapy of docetaxel at a dose determined by the physician. Efficacy measurements included tumor response rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and one-year survival rate. Safety was analyzed through recorded incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), deaths, and other related safety parameters, along with their toxicity grades. RESULTS: Of 274 patients analyzed, one patient achieved a complete response and 42 partial responses; thus, the overall response rate was 15.7%. The OS rate at baseline and at one-year follow-up was 38.3% and 33.8%, respectively. AEs were reported in 229 (83.6%) patients. The most frequently reported hematologic AE of grade ≥3 was a decrease in neutrophils, with 6.6% of the patients developing neutropenia. In non-hematologic AEs of grade ≥3, the most common were infection with unknown absolute neutrophil count and death not associated with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (4.7% each). The most common SAE reported was death, not associated with CTCAE (7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: In Korean patients, the weekly regimen of docetaxel monotherapy was safe and efficacious against advanced NSCLC.

Comparison of weekly versus triweekly cisplatin delivered concurrently with radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: A multicenter randomized phase II trial (KCSG-HN10-02).

PURPOSE: Triweekly delivery of cisplatin concurrent with a course of radiation therapy (RT) has been the standard regimen for treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) despite a high level of concern regarding treatment-related complications. We conducted a randomized phase II study to compare weekly and triweekly cisplatin delivery during RT with respect to efficacy and toxicity profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced NPC (stage II-IVb) were randomly assigned to a regimen of either seven doses of cisplatin (40 mg/m(2)) given once a week or three doses of cisplatin (100mg/m(2)) given every 3 weeks concurrently during RT. RESULTS: Of 109 eligible patients, 53 were assigned to the weekly regimen and 56 to the triweekly regimen. The two groups were comparable with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences in mean RT dose (68.3 Gy vs. 67.3 Gy, p=0.559) and mean cisplatin dose (248.9 mg/m(2)vs. 256.6 mg/m(2), p=0.433) between the two regimens. The primary endpoint was 3-year progression-free survival, which was not different between the regimens (64.9% vs. 63.8%, p=0.074). Overall, the occurrence of grade 3-4 toxicities was similar between the two arms (47.2% vs. 39.3%, p=0.443). Quality of life (QoL) related to functional outcomes 3 weeks after treatment completion was better for the weekly regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Although no definitive conclusions can be made, a once-weekly cisplatin regimen appears to be associated with improved QoL and is not inferior to the standard triweekly regimen with respect to efficacy and toxicity profiles.

Adopting Advance Directives Reinforces Patient Participation in End-of-Life Care Discussion.

PURPOSE: In Korea, most terminal cancer patients have still not been included in end-of-life (EOL) discussions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of patients participating in EOL discussions after adopting advance directives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 106 hospice patients between July 2012 and February 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. The proportion of patient participation in EOL discussions, barriers, and favorable factors for completion of advance directives, as well as outcomes of advance directives were evaluated. RESULTS: Patient participation in EOL discussion had increased from 16/53 (30%) to 27/53 (51%) since adopting advance directives (p < 0.001). Median time between completion of an advance directive and death increased from 8 days (range, 0 to 22 days) to 14.5 days (range, 0 to 47 days). Patients' poor condition after late referral was the main barrier to missing EOL discussions; however, family members' concerns about patient's distress was also a main reason for excluding the patient from EOL discussions. In univariate analysis, patient age, education status, and time from diagnosis to completion of an advance directive influenced advance directive completion favorably. Following multivariate analysis, higher education and periods of more than 2 years from diagnosis to completion of an advance directive remained favorable (odds ratio [OR], 9.586, p=0.024 and OR, 70.312; p=0.002). Preferences of all patients regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation or hemodialysis were carried out by physicians. Orders for nutrition and palliative sedation showed discordance, with concordance rates of 74.2% and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that the use of advance directive promote patient participation in EOL discussion.

Multinational Randomized Phase III Trial With or Without Consolidation Chemotherapy Using Docetaxel and Cisplatin After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Inoperable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: KCSG-LU05-04.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of consolidation chemotherapy (CC) with docetaxel and cisplatin (DP) after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with the same agents in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either CCRT alone (observation arm) or CCRT followed by CC (consolidation arm). CCRT with docetaxel (20 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (20 mg/m(2)) was administered every week for 6 weeks with a total dose of 66 Gy of thoracic radiotherapy in 33 fractions. In the consolidation arm, patients were further treated with three cycles of DP (35 mg/m(2) each on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks). The primary end point was 40% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with observation. RESULTS: From October 2005 to April 2011, 437 patients were randomly assigned. Seventeen patients did not start CCRT as a result of consent withdrawal or ineligibility reasons after random assignment, leaving 420 patients for this analysis (n = 211 for observation; n = 209 for consolidation). Patient characteristics were similar in both arms. In the consolidation arm, 143 patients (68%) received CC, of whom 88 (62%) completed three planned cycles. The median PFS was 8.1 months in the observation arm and 9.1 months in the consolidation arm (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P = .36). Median overall survival times were 20.6 and 21.8 months in the observation and consolidation arms, respectively (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.25; P = .44). CONCLUSION: CC with DP after CCRT with weekly DP in LA-NSCLC failed to further prolong PFS. CCRT alone should remain the standard of care.

Interpretation and Prognostic Value of Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography After Induction Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation in IIIA-N2 Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Receive Curative Surgery.

We evaluate the correlation of clinical staging on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and pathologic staging and the prognostic value of PET-CT after induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We analyzed 42 cases of clinical stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC who receive 2 to 4 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy with or without radiation followed by curative resection. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of the suspected lesion on PET-CT was recorded. PET-CT findings after induction chemotherapy were compared with those of initial PET-CT and pathology after surgery. The accuracy of PET-CT in restaging of the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy was 50.0%. Eighteen (42.8%) of 42 patients were underestimated ycT stage, and 3 (7.1%) of 42 patients was overestimated ycT stage by PET-CT scan. The accuracy of PET-CT in restaging of the nodal disease was 71.4%. Six (14.3%) of 42 patients were underestimated ycN stage, and 6 (14.3%) of 42 patients were overestimated ycN stage as compared with pathologic staging. The 2-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were 68.5% and 40.9%, respectively. Complete responders (ycT0N0M0) on PET-CT after induction chemotherapy had a significantly longer RFS time than did incomplete responders (28.3 vs 9.1 months, P = 0.021). Complete response on PET-CT after induction chemotherapy with or without radiation was a good prognosticator for RFS in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC patients who received surgery. However, response evaluation on PET-CT after induction chemotherapy should be interpreted with caution due to its unacceptable accuracy.

Experience of advance directives in a hospice center.

To protect patient autonomy when confronting death, the importance of advance directives (ADs) has recently became an issue and gradually accepted in Korea. However, in real practice, ADs were not completed by patients but their families in most cases. To analyze the current situation of performing ADs, we reviewed medical charts of 214 terminal cancer patients admitted to the hospice center from October 2012 to September 2013. Seventy-six (35.5%) patients completed ADs. All ADs were completed by patients themselves. The most common reason for not completing ADs was poor physical and/or mental condition. As a proxy, the majority of patients preferred their spouses (55.3%). Few patients wanted life sustaining treatment (1.3%), however palliative sedation was accepted in 89.5%. The median timing of ADs after admission was three (0-90) days, and duration of survival since ADs was 22 (1-340) days. In conclusion, approximately one third of terminal cancer patients completed ADs by themselves. Considering that patient's poor condition is the main reason for not completing ADs, earlier discussion regarding ADs is necessary to enhance patients' participation.

Nebulized morphine for intractable cough in advanced cancer: two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Cough is a distressing symptom in advanced cancer. Opioids are used to relieve respiratory symptoms including dyspnea and cough. In addition to a central mechanism, opioids are thought to work peripherally via opioid receptors of the lung. Therefore, direct inhalation of morphine has been investigated in chronic lung disease or cancer. We report our experience of a nebulized form of morphine to control intractable cough in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Case 1 is a 63-year-old female with terminal lung cancer complaining of a severe dry cough with dyspnea and sleeplessness. Case 2 is a 53-year-old female with thymic carcinoma with multiple lung metastases suffering from severe cough accompanying chest pain and dyspnea. With usual treatment, cough did not improve in these patients. We then administered a nebulized form of morphine: hydrochloro-morphine 5 mg mixed with 3 mL normal saline inhaled by mouth using a nebulizer. When the morphine dose was increased to 10 mg and 15 mg, the patients' cough was relieved to a symptom level of moderate and mild, respectively. Without experiencing any severe systemic side effects of opioids, the patients continued nebulized morphine until death or discharge. CONCLUSION: Nebulized morphine was effective in controlling intractable cough due to cancer and it was convenient and safe.

Identification of EGFR Mutations by Immunohistochemistry with EGFR Mutation-Specific Antibodies in Biopsy and Resection Specimens from Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Mutation-specific antibodies have recently been developed for identification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations by immunohistochemistry (IHC). This study was designed to investigate whether the type of specimen (biopsy vs. resection) would make a difference in determining mutation status by IHC, and to evaluate whether biopsies are suitable for detection of mutant EGFR protein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IHC was performed using mutation-specific antibodies for E746-A750 deletion (DEL) and L858R point mutation (L858R) in biopsies and tissue microarrays of resected tumors from 154 patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Results were then compared with DNA sequencing data. RESULTS: Molecular-based assays detected EGFR mutations in 62 patients (40.3%), including 14 (9.1%) with DEL, and 31 (20.1%) with L858R. IHC with two mutation-specific antibodies showed a homogeneous staining pattern, and correctly identified EGFR mutation status in 89% (137/154). Overall (biopsy/resection) sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 75.6% (78.3%/72.7%), 94.5% (90.9%/96.3%), 85% (78.3%/88.9%), and 90.4% (90.9%/89.7%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that IHC using EGFR mutation-specific antibodies is useful for detection of EGFR mutations with high specificity and good sensitivity not only for resection specimens but also for biopsy materials. Therefore, IHC using EGFR mutation-specific antibodies may preclude a second biopsy procedure to obtain additional tissues for identification of EGFR mutations by molecular assays in biopsies from advanced cancer, particularly when tumor cells in the samples are limited.

Baseline patient characteristics, incidence of CINV, and physician perception of CINV incidence following moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Asia Pacific countries.

PURPOSE: This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries. METHODS: Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV. RESULTS: There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate. CONCLUSIONS: CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Outcomes in elderly patients treated with a single-agent or combination regimen as first-line chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Palliative chemotherapy is used to prolong survival among elderly patients with inoperable gastric cancer (GC). We analyzed differences between single and combination first-line palliative chemotherapy among these patients. METHODS: Included patients were >70 years old and were treated for GC at four clinical centers of the Catholic University of Korea. Baseline characteristics, the first-line chemotherapy regimen, treatment responses, toxicities, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2012, 178 > 70-year-old patients with GC received palliative chemotherapy using single or combination regimens. Median ages were 77 years (range 71-89) in the single regimen group (SG, 70 patients) and 73 years (range 71-81) in the combination group (CG, 108 patients). Patients in the SG received S-1 or capecitabine. The most common regimen in the CG was platinum combined with fluorouracil. The most common response in both groups was stable disease (SG, 45.7 %; CG, 48.1 %). In the SG and CG, median PFS times were 4.4 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.85-5.95) and 4.1 months (95 % CI 2.62-5.57; P = 0.295), respectively; median OS times were 6.6 months (95 % CI 4.17-9.08) and 7.6 months (95 % CI 5.50-9.69; P = 0.782), respectively. Hematologic (P < 0.001) and non-hematologic toxicities (P < 0.001) were more frequent in the CG. The most common causes of chemotherapy cessation were disease progression in the SG and decreased performance status in the CG. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent treatment should be considered a first-line palliative chemotherapy option for elderly patients with GC.

Incidence and predictors of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in Asia Pacific clinical practice--a longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Some patients experience nausea and/or vomiting (NV) before receipt of chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of prior chemotherapy-induced NV (CINV) on the incidence of anticipatory NV in later cycles. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective non-interventional study enrolled chemotherapy-naïve adults scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries, excluding those with emesis within 24 h before cycle 1 chemotherapy. On day 1 before chemotherapy, patients answered four questions regarding emesis in the past 24 h, nausea, expectation of post-chemotherapy nausea, and anxiety in the past 24 h, the latter three scored from 0-10 (none-maximum). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of prior CINV on anticipatory NV in cycles 2 and 3. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight patients (59% female) were evaluable in cycle 2 (49% HEC, 51% MEC). The incidence of anticipatory emesis was low before cycles 2 and 3 (1.5-2.3%). The incidence of clinically significant anticipatory nausea (score of ≥3) was 4.8, 7.9, and 8.3% before cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with adjusted odds ratio (OR), 3.95 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.23-7.00; p < 0.001) for patients with clinically significant nausea in prior cycles, compared with none. The adjusted ORs for other anticipatory NV endpoints ranged from 4.54-4.74 for patients with prior CINV. The occurrence of clinically significant anxiety in the prior cycle also resulted in a significantly increased likelihood of anticipatory nausea. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of preventing CINV in cycle 1 to reduce anticipatory NV in subsequent cycles.

Antiemetic therapy in Asia Pacific countries for patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy--a descriptive analysis of practice patterns, antiemetic quality of care, and use of antiemetic guidelines.

PURPOSE: This paper reports prescribing patterns for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries. METHODS: In a prospective noninterventional study, 31 sites in Australia, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan recorded details of CINV prophylaxis for the acute phase (first 24 h) and delayed phase (days 2-5) after single-day HEC or MEC for adult patients. Additional information on CINV prophylactic medications was collected from 6-day patient diaries. Primary antiemetic therapies were defined as corticosteroids, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3-RAs), and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs). RESULTS: Evaluable patients in cycle 1 numbered 648 (318 [49%] HEC and 330 [51%] MEC) of mean (SD) age of 56 (12) years, including 58% women. For the acute phase after HEC, overall (and country range), 96% (91-100%) of patients received a 5HT3-RA, 87% (70-100%) a corticosteroid, and 43% (0-91%) an NK1-RA. CINV prophylaxis for the HEC delayed phase was more variable: including 22% (7-65%) 5HT3-RA, 52% (12-93%) corticosteroid, and 46% (0-88%) NK1-RA. For the MEC acute phase, 97% (87-100%) of patients received 5HT3-RA and 86% (73-97%) a corticosteroid. For the MEC delayed phase, 201 patients (61%) received a primary antiemetic, including 5HT3-RA (41%), corticosteroid (37%), and/or NK1-RA (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5HT3-RAs were prescribed consistently in all countries, while prescribing of other antiemetic therapies was variable, and corticosteroids were under-prescribed for CINV prophylaxis, particularly in the delayed phase.

Rationale and design of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness study.

BACKGROUND: Preventing and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain important goals. The objective of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study was to describe the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in current clinical practice in Australia and five Asian countries (China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). STUDY DESIGN: This prospective, observational study of CINV was conducted at 31 sites in these six countries from August 2011 through September 2012 and enrolled male and female adult patients (≥18 years of age) naïve to HEC and MEC who were scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day chemotherapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting or use of rescue therapy, during chemotherapy cycle 1 in the overall phase (0-120 h), acute phase (0-24 h), and delayed phase (>24-120 h). Study outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Primary outcomes, CINV incidence, and treatment patterns (chemotherapy, CINV prophylaxis, rescue medication prescription, and rescue medication use) were assessed by phase (overall, acute, delayed), by cycle (as appropriate), within and across countries, and by level of chemotherapy emetogenicity (HEC vs. MEC). The impact of CINV in cycle 1 on CINV in cycle 2 was analyzed for all patients with evaluable data for cycle 2. No site-specific analyses were performed. The remainder of this special series of papers reports on the results of this study.

Impact of CINV in earlier cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles in Asia Pacific clinical practice.

PURPOSE: We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles. METHODS: Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen. RESULTS: There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.

The efficacy of external beam radiotherapy for airway obstruction in lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in lung cancer patients who suffer from airway obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical data of 95 patients with a lung mass that obstructed the airway and received EBRT for it were analyzed. Fifty-nine patients (62.1%) had non-small cell lung cancer and 36 patients (37.9%) had small cell lung cancer. Radiotherapy was given at 8 to 45 Gy (median, 30 Gy) in 1 to 15 fractions (median, 10 fractions). The response to EBRT was assessed through changes in radiographic findings and/or subjective symptoms between before and after EBRT. The median follow-up duration was 124 days. The primary end point was the airway-obstruction resolving rate after EBRT. The secondary end points were patient survival and toxic effects of EBRT. RESULTS: Improvement of airway obstruction after EBRT on chest X-ray was achieved in 75 of 95 patients (78.9%). The median time for resolving the radiologic findings and/or symptoms of airway obstruction after EBRT was 7 days (range, 1 to 76 days). The 1-year survival rate was significantly higher in responders than non-responders (12.5% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001). The biologically effective dose of ≥ 39 Gyα/ß=10 (p < 0.01) and the longest obstructive lesion of < 6 cm (p=0.04) were significantly associated with a good response to EBRT in resolving the airway obstruction. No one had grade 3 or higher acute and chronic toxicities. CONCLUSION: EBRT is an effective treatment in relieving airway obstruction without severe toxicities in lung cancer patients.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLASSIC trial was done to compare adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus observation after D2 gastrectomy for patients with stage II or III gastric cancer. The planned interim analysis of CLASSIC (median follow-up 34 months) showed that adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin significantly improved disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, compared with observation after D2 gastrectomy. We report the 5-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: CLASSIC was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study done at 35 cancer centres, medical centres, and hospitals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who underwent curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) after surgery to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) for 6 months or observation alone. Randomisation was stratified by country and disease stage with a permuted block (size four) design. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis presents the final preplanned assessment of outcomes after 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00411229. FINDINGS: We enrolled 1035 patients: 520 were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and 515 to observation. Median follow-up for this analysis in the intention-to-treat population was 62·4 months (IQR 54-70). 139 (27%) patients had disease-free survival events in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 203 (39%) patients in the observation group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·58, 95% CI 0·47-0·72; p<0·0001). Estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 68% (95% CI 63-73) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 53% (47-58) in the observation alone group. By the clinical cutoff date, 103 patients (20%) had died in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 141 patients (27%) in the observation group (stratified HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·85; p=0·0015). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% (95% CI 74-82) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 69% (64-73) in the observation group. Adverse event data were not collected after the primary analysis. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with operable stage II or III gastric cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann La-Roche and Sanofi.

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind and parallel-group trial involving 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 265 patients with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to either the azasetron or ondansetron group. All patients received azasetron (10 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 and dexamethasone (4 mg orally every 12 hours) on days 2-4. The azasetron group received azasetron (10 mg orally) with placebo of ondansetron (orally every 12 hours), and the ondansetron group received ondansetron (8 mg orally every 12 hours) with placebo of azasetron (orally) on days 2-6. RESULTS: Over days 2-6, the effective ratio of complete response in the azasetron and ondansetron groups was 45% and 54.5%, respectively (95% confidence interval, -21.4 to 2.5%). Thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared with ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was not proven in the present study. All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events related to the treatment were constipation and hiccups, and there were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: In the present study, azasetron showed inferiority in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with ondansetron whereas safety profiles were similar between the two groups.