2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Nutrition education in medical schools (NEMS) project: Promoting clinical nutrition in medical schools - Perspectives from different actors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nutrition education is not adequately represented in the medical curriculum, and this prompted the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) to launch the Nutrition Education in Medical Schools (NEMS) Project in 2017. The aim of this original paper was to describe the perspectives of different actors in the promotion of nutrition education in medical schools. METHODS: On 11 November 2021, an online meeting was held on this topic, where nine representatives from different backgrounds participated in the scientific programme. More than 640 participants registered to this webinar. RESULTS: The different models of Nutrition Education in Medical Schools were introduced by Prof. Cristina Cuerda (Spain) and Prof. Maurizio Muscaritoli (Italy). The students' perspective was given by Ms. Alexandra Archodoulakis (Germany) and Ms. Sila Gürbüz (Turkey), representing the European Medical Students' Association. The dietitian's perspective was given by Dr. Kirsten Berk (The Netherlands), whereas Dr. Matti Aapro (Switzerland) gave the medical doctor (oncology)'s perspective. Ms. Clare Farrand (Australia) gave the WHO perspective and Dr. Kristiina Patja (Finland) explained the healthy lifestyle teaching to medical students. Lastly, Prof. Michael Chourdakis (Greece) and Prof. Zeljko Krznaric (Croatia) hosted the round-table discussion. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among the representatives from different settings joining this ESPEN initiative that increasing nutritional knowledge and skills of young doctors is now possible and will launch a virtuous cycle that will proactively involve all the other healthcare professionals working in the nutritional field.

Organized breast cancer screening not only reduces mortality from breast cancer but also significantly decreases disability-adjusted life years: analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study and screening programme availability in 130 countries.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies over the past 4 decades have shown the significant benefit of breast cancer screening (BCS) in reducing mortality rates from breast cancer (BC). However, significant debate exists about the role of BCS in this regard, with some studies also showing no benefit in terms of mortality along with issues such as overdiagnosis, health care utilisation costs, psychological distress or overtreatment. To date, no BCS study has focused on disability. Hence the aim of this study is to evaluate the relative contribution of BCS approaches to age-standardized mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates along with other related risk factors, from a country-level perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study created a country-dataset by merging information from the Global Burden of Disease study regarding female age-standardized BC mortality, DALYs rates and other risk factors with the BCS programme availability at the national or regional level (versus no or only pilot such programme), BCS type (mammography, digital screening, breast self-examination and clinical breast examination) and other BCS-related information among 130 countries. Mixed-effect multilevel regression models were run to examine the associations of interest. RESULTS: The most important factor predictive of lower mortality was the more advanced type of BCS programme availability [mammography: -4.16, 95% CI -6.76 to -1.55; digital mammography/ultrasound: -3.64, 95% CI -6.59 to -0.70] when compared with self- or clinical breast examinations. High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and smoking were also related to higher mortality and DALYs from BC. In terms of BC DALYs, BCS had a 21.9 to 22.3-fold increase in the magnitude of effect compared with that in terms of mortality. Data on mortality and DALYs in relation to BCS programmes were also calculated for high-, middle- and low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: These data further support the positive effects of BCS in relation to age-standardized BC mortality rates, and for the first time show the impact of BCS on DALYs too. Additional factors, such as diabetes, high levels of LDL-c or smoking seemed to be related to BC mortality and disability, and could be considered as additional components of possible interventions to be used alongside BCS to optimize the BCS benefit on patients.

Supportive care in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer care has been profoundly impacted by the global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19), resulting in unprecedented challenges. Supportive care is an essential component of cancer treatment, seeking to prevent and manage chemotherapy complications such as febrile neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia/bleeding, thromboembolic events and nausea/vomiting, all of which are common causes of hospitalisation. These adverse events are an essential consideration under routine patient management, but particularly so during a pandemic, a setting in which clinicians aim to minimise patients' risk of infection and need for hospital visits. Professional medical oncology societies have been providing updated guidelines to support health care professionals with the management, treatment and supportive care needs of their patients with cancer under the threat of COVID-19. This paper aims to review the recommendations made by the most prominent medical oncology societies for devising and modifying supportive care strategies during the pandemic.

Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Digital health provides solutions that capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and allows symptom monitoring and patient management. Digital therapeutics is the provision to patients of evidence-based therapeutic interventions through software applications aimed at prevention, monitoring, management, and treatment of symptoms and diseases or for treatment optimization. The digital health solutions collecting PROs address many unmet needs, including access to care and reassurance, increase in adherence and treatment efficacy, and decrease in hospitalizations. With current developments in oncology including increased availability of oral drugs and reduced availability of healthcare professionals, these solutions offer an innovative approach to optimize healthcare resource utilization. DESIGN: This scoping review clarifies the role and impact of the digital health solutions in oncology supportive care, with a view of the current segmentation according to their technical features (connection to sensors, PRO collection, remote monitoring, self-management in real time…), and identifies evidence from clinical studies published about their benefits and limitations and drivers and barriers to adoption. A qualitative summary is presented. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies were identified and included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies supported the use of 38 digital health solutions collecting ePROs and allowing remote monitoring, with benefits to patients regarding symptom reporting and management, reduction in symptom distress, decrease in unplanned hospitalizations and related costs and improved quality of life and survival. Among those 38 solutions 21 provided patient self-management with impactful symptom support, improvement of QoL, usefulness and reassurance. Principal challenges are in developing and implementing digital solutions to suit most patients, while ensuring patient compliance and adaptability for use in different healthcare systems and living environments. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing evidence that digital health collecting ePROs provide benefits to patients related to clinical and health economic endpoints. These digital solutions can be integrated into routine supportive care in oncology practice to provide improved patient-centered care.

Updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology on prostate cancer management in older patients.

BACKGROUND: The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis is 66 years, and the median age of men who die of the disease is eighty years. The public health impact of prostate cancer is already substantial and, given the rapidly ageing world population, can only increase. In this context, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Task Forces have, since 2010, been developing guidelines for the management of senior adults with prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since prostate cancer and geriatric oncology are both rapidly evolving fields, a new multidisciplinary Task Force was formed in 2018 to update SIOG recommendations, principally on health status screening tools and treatment. The task force reviewed pertinent articles published between June 2016 and June 2018 and abstracts from European Association of Urology (EAU), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Genito-urinary (ASCO GU) meetings over the same period, using search terms relevant to prostate cancer, the elderly, geriatric evaluation, local treatments and advanced disease. Each member of the group proposed modifications to the previous guidelines. These were collated and circulated. The final manuscript reflects the expert consensus. RESULTS: The 2019 consensus is that men aged 75 years and older with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, and not according to age. Based on available rapid health screening tools, geriatric evaluation and geriatric interventions, the Task Force recommends that patients are classified according to health status into three groups: (1) 'healthy' or 'fit' patients should have the same treatment options as younger patients; (2) 'vulnerable' patients are candidates for geriatric interventions which-if successful-may make it appropriate for them to receive standard treatment and (3) 'frail' patients with major impairments who should receive adapted or palliative treatment. The 2019 SIOG Task Force recommendations also discuss prospects and unmet needs for health status evaluation in everyday practice in older patients with prostate cancer.

Randomised phase III trial of vinflunine plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and resistant to taxane.

Background: Capecitabine is an approved standard therapy for anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). Vinflunine has demonstrated single-agent activity in phase II studies in this setting and activity and tolerability when combined with capecitabine. We compared the combination of vinflunine plus capecitabine (VC) with single-agent capecitabine. Patients and methods: Patients with locally recurrent/metastatic BC previously treated or resistant to an anthracycline and resistant to taxane therapy were randomly assigned to either vinflunine (280 mg/m2, day 1) plus oral capecitabine [825 mg/m2 twice daily (b.i.d.), days 1-14] every 3 weeks (q3w) or single-agent oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 b.i.d., days 1-14) q3w. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in PFS. Results: Overall, 770 patients were randomised. PFS was significantly longer with VC than with capecitabine alone [hazard ratio, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.99; log-rank P = 0.043; median 5.6 versus 4.3 months, respectively]. Median overall survival was 13.9 versus 11.7 months with VC versus capecitabine alone, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15; log-rank P = 0.77). No difference in quality of life was observed between the two treatment arms. The most common adverse events (NCI CTCAE version 3.0) in the combination arm were haematological and gastrointestinal. Grade 4 neutropenia was more frequent with VC (12% versus 1% with capecitabine alone); febrile neutropenia occurred in 2% versus 0.5%, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with VC (grade 3: 4% versus 19% for capecitabine alone). Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon in both arms (grade 3: 1% versus 0.3%). Conclusions: Vinflunine combined with capecitabine demonstrated a modest improvement in PFS and an acceptable safety profile compared with capecitabine alone in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally recurrent/metastatic BC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01095003.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care.

Oncology has come a long way in addressing patients' quality of life, together with developing surgical, radio-oncological and medical anticancer therapies. However, the multiple and varying needs of patients are still not being met adequately as part of routine cancer care. Supportive and palliative care interventions should be integrated, dynamic, personalised and based on best evidence. They should start at the time of diagnosis and continue through to end-of-life or survivorship. ESMO is committed to excellence in all aspects of oncological care during the continuum of the cancer experience. Following the 2003 ESMO stand on supportive and palliative care (Cherny N, Catane R, Kosmidis P. ESMO takes a stand on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(9): 1335-1337), this position paper highlights the evolving and growing gap between the needs of cancer patients and the actual provision of care. The concept of patient-centred cancer care is presented along with key requisites and areas for further work.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy of single-dose NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen. Patients and methods: This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at - 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN). Results: Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0-1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (-4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (-4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (-0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN. Conclusions: In this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer.

Biosimilars are biological medicines that have been shown to be similar to a reference biological medicine that has already been approved for use. Development of biosimilars is based on a "totality of evidence" approach that involves a series of steps by which biosimilars must demonstrate similarity to a reference product in all aspects of the drug and eliminate any remaining uncertainties. Clinical studies are then considered confirmatory and are performed to show that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with the reference product in a sensitive patient population. The recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar EP2006/Zarxio® (filgrastim-sdnz) became the first FDA-approved biosimilar in 2015. This review evaluates how clinical equivalence can be demonstrated with G-CSF biosimilars through the identification of "sensitive" study populations and endpoints. Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated in the (neo)adjuvant setting represent a potentially homogenous population, making this a suitable sensitive indication for assessing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with reference products. This review includes clinical trials of G-CSF biosimilars in breast cancer, focusing on key aspects of the trials that were necessary to accurately demonstrate clinical equivalence and enable extrapolation to relevant indications, based on guidelines and biostatistical principles.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

Integrated safety analysis of rolapitant with coadministered drugs from phase II/III trials: an assessment of CYP2D6 or BCRP inhibition by rolapitant.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a long-acting neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist (RA), has demonstrated efficacy in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients administered moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Unlike other NK1 RAs, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, but it does inhibit CYP2D6 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP). To analyze potential drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and concomitant medications, this integrated safety analysis of four double-blind, randomized phase II or III studies of rolapitant examined adverse events (AEs) by use versus non-use of drug substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo ∼1-2 h before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Data for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs) during cycle 1 were pooled across the four studies and summarized in the overall population and by concomitant use/non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs. RESULTS: In the integrated safety population, 828 of 1294 patients (64%) in the rolapitant group and 840 of 1301 patients (65%) in the control group experienced at least one TEAE. Frequencies of common TEAEs were similar in the rolapitant and control populations. Overall, 53% of patients received CYP2D6 substrate drugs, none of which had a narrow therapeutic index (like thioridazine or pimozide), and 63% received BCRP substrate drugs. When grouped by concomitant use versus non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs, TEAEs and TESAEs occurred with similar frequency in the rolapitant and control populations. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the safety of rolapitant as part of an antiemetic triple-drug regimen in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, including those administered concomitant medications that are substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP, such as ondansetron, docetaxel, or irinotecan.