A randomized trial of the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for quality-of-life assessment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Improving health-related quality of life (hrqol) is a key goal of systemic therapy in advanced lung cancer, although routine assessment remains challenging. We analyzed the impact of a real-time electronic hrqol tool, the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (elcss-ql), on palliative care (pc) referral rates, patterns of chemotherapy treatment, and use of other supportive interventions in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) receiving first-line chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with advanced nsclc starting first-line chemotherapy were randomized to their oncologist receiving or not receiving their elcss-ql data before each clinic visit. Patients completed the elcss-ql at baseline, before each chemotherapy cycle, and at subsequent follow-up visits until disease progression. Prospective data about the pc referral rate, hrqol, and use of other supportive interventions were collected. Results: For the 95 patients with advanced nsclc who participated, oncologists received real-time elcss-ql data for 44 (elcss-ql arm) and standard clinical assessment alone for 51 (standard arm). The primary endpoint, the pc referral rate, was numerically higher, but statistically similar, for patients in the elcss-ql and standard arms. The hrqol scores over time were not significantly different between the two study arms. Conclusions: The elcss-ql is feasible as a tool for use in routine clinical practice, although no statistically significant effect of its use was demonstrated in our study. Improving access to supportive care through the collection of patient-reported outcomes and hrqol should be an important component of care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Phase III safety study of intravenous NEPA: a novel fixed antiemetic combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Background: NEPA, an oral fixed combination of the NK1RA netupitant (300 mg) and clinically/pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA palonosetron (PALO, 0.50 mg), is the first fixed antiemetic combination to have been approved. A single oral NEPA capsule plus dexamethasone (DEX) given before anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over PALO plus DEX for 5 days postchemotherapy. The safety of NEPA was well-established in the phase II/III clinical program in 1169 NEPA-treated patients. An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of the NEPA combination (fosnetupitant 235 mg plus PALO 0.25 mg) has been developed. Patients and methods: This randomized, multinational, double-blind, stratified (by sex and country) phase III study (NCT02517021) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors assessed the safety of a single dose of i.v. NEPA infused over 30 min before initial and repeated cycles of HEC. Patients received either i.v. NEPA or oral NEPA, both with oral DEX on days 1-4. Safety was assessed primarily by treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and electrocardiograms. Results: A total of 404 patients completed 1312 cycles. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent AEs were similar for both treatment groups with the majority of AEs as mild/moderate in intensity. There was no increased incidence of AEs in subsequent cycles in either group. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar and relatively low in both groups (12.8% i.v. NEPA and 11.4% oral NEPA during the entire study), with constipation being the most common (6.4% i.v. NEPA, 6.0% oral NEPA). No serious treatment-related AEs occurred in either group. No infusion site or anaphylactic reactions related to i.v. NEPA occurred. No clinically relevant changes in QTc and no cardiac safety concerns were observed. Conclusions: Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC.

Efficacy and safety of NEPA, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized dose-ranging pivotal study.

BACKGROUND: NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. RESULTS: All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND.

A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1-4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue). RESULTS: Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing ≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0-120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC.

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.

A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life?

PROBLEM AND PURPOSE: The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), a site-specific health-related quality of life measure for patients with lung cancer, was originally developed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) format. However, the VAS format is not readily compatible with data management and software programs using scanning. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the convergence of ratings obtained with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), with an 11-pt response category format, to those obtained with a VAS format. The intent was to determine the degree of agreement between two formats to generalize the existing psychometric properties for the original measure to the new presentation. DESIGN/SETTING: This methodological study evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a NRS format for the LCSS. The study was conducted at two cancer centers in New York City. PATIENTS/PROCEDURES: Sixty-eight patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) completed both versions of the LCSS along with demographic and feasibility questions on a single occasion. The VAS form was administered first, followed by the NRS form to prevent bias. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate agreement and to characterize bias. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the NRS format total score was 0.89 for the 68 patients with NSCLC. Agreement was excellent, with both the ICC and CCC > or = 0.90 for the two summary scores (total score and average symptom burden index) for the LCSS. Only five of the nine individual items showed this level of strict agreement. An agreement criterion of > or = 0.80 (representing excellent) was observed for seven of the nine individual items (all but appetite loss and hemoptysis). Mean differences tended to be slightly lower for the VAS format compared to the NRS format (more so for the appetite and hemoptysis items), with evidence of scale shift for the same two items. The summary measures showed good concordance as measured by the ICC and CCC, but did display mean differences (VAS - NRS) of -2.7 and -3.1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the NRS format for the LCSS suitable for scanning has good feasibility, reliability (internal consistency), and convergent validity. The complete set of concordance evaluation measures supports the reproducibility of VAS scores by NRS scores, particularly for the two summary scores.

Multi-institutional phase I/II trial of oral bexarotene in combination with cisplatin and vinorelbine in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Bexarotene (Targretin; Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc, San Diego, CA) is a retinoid-X-receptor (RXR)-selective retinoid with preclinical antitumor activity in squamous cell cancers. In this phase I/II trial, we combined bexarotene with cisplatin and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients who had stage IIIB NSCLC with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC and had received no prior therapy received bexarotene in combination with cisplatin (100 mg/m2) and vinorelbine (alternating doses of 30 mg/m2 and 15 mg/m2). In the phase I portion, the daily dose of bexarotene was escalated in cohorts of three patients from 150 mg/m2 to 600 mg/m2, beginning 1 week before the start of the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen. Once the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of bexarotene was determined, the study entered the phase II portion. Response rate was the primary end point; median survival time and 1-year survival rate were secondary end points. RESULTS: In the phase I portion, the daily MTD of bexarotene was determined to be 400 mg/m2. Eight of 43 patients exhibited major responses. Seven (25%) of the 28 patients in the phase II portion responded to treatment. The median survival time in the phase II portion was 14 months; nine (32%) of the 28 patients were still alive at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. One-year and projected 3-year survival rates were 61% and 30%, respectively. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hyperlipemia, leukopenia, nausea, vomiting, pneumonia, dyspnea, anemia, and asthenia. Grade 3 and 4 laboratory abnormalities with incidences greater than 5% were decreased hemoglobin levels and WBC, absolute neutrophil, and absolute lymphocyte counts and increased prothrombin time and creatinine and amylase levels. Of the two cases of pancreatitis, one required hospitalization and both were associated with increased triglyceride levels. There was one death secondary to renal insufficiency unrelated to bexarotene treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced NSCLC, bexarotene with cisplatin and vinorelbine yielded acceptable phase II response rates (25%) and was associated with better-than-expected survival (14-month median survival time; 61% 1-year, 32% 2-year, and 30% projected 3-year survival rates). The regimen should be studied in larger clinical trials.

Randomized phase II study of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist CJ-11,974 in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of the neurokinin type 1 receptor antagonist CJ-11,974 for the control of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, phase II design with a group sequential stopping rule was used in this study. Sixty-one patients with cancer who were receiving cisplatin at a dose of at least 100 mg/m2 for the first time were enrolled. All patients received granisetron 10 microg/kg and dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously 30 minutes before they were given cisplatin. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 received CJ-11,974 100 mg, and group 2 received placebo orally 30 minutes before and 12 hours after cisplatin and then twice daily on days 2 through 5 after cisplatin. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who developed delayed emesis (emesis on the second to fifth days after cisplatin). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in group 1, and 31 patients were enrolled in group 2. Fifty-eight patients were assessable for efficacy. Complete control of emesis (expressed as the percentage of patients who had no emesis) was as follows: day 1, 85.7% (group 1) and 66.7% (group 2) (P = .090); days 2 through 5, 67.8% (group 1) and 36.6% (group 2) (P = .0425, adjusted); days 1 through 5, 64.3% (group 1) and 30% (group 2) (P = .009). Patients in group 1 experienced significantly less nausea than patients in group 2 on day 1 (P = .024). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude from this exploratory phase II trial that CJ-11,974 is superior to placebo in controlling cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and may provide additive benefit in acute emesis and nausea control when combined with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Additional larger trials are indicated to confirm the clinical value of CJ-11,974.

Guidelines for anti-emetic therapy: acute emesis.

Anti-emetic therapy has become integral to the management of patients with cancer. Goals related to complete emesis control include providing treatment that reduces hospitalisation and time in the ambulatory setting, care that is convenient for the patient and therapy that enhances patients' quality of life. A panel of clinical, health economic and basic scientists with expertise in various oncology disciplines reviewed published literature to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Currently, serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids are the two categories of anti-emetics that are most effective, have the fewest side-effects and are convenient to use. These agents are recommended in combination for highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and as single agents or in combination for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When possible, these agents may be given orally in single doses; current evidence does not support dose escalation for either category of anti-emetics. In special situations, such as the use of high-dose chemotherapy combination regimens, the most emetogenic component of the regimen should dictate the choice of anti-emetic. Appropriate anti-emetic use described in these guidelines represents both good medical practice and a sensible economic approach to care.

Normative data and trends in quality of life from the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS).

Normative data and trends for a disease- and site-specific quality of life (QL) instrument for individuals with lung cancer, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), are presented to facilitate the user's interpretation of test scores. Data for patients enrolled in two large, identical, randomized trials of a new combination chemotherapy regimen for patients with stages III and IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were combined into one dataset (n = 673). For these patients with a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of 60-100%, QL had been prospectively measured at baseline, day 29 and every 6 weeks thereafter. Descriptive statistics for the LCSS are presented for three time points (baseline, day 29 and day 71) and for specific demographic and disease-related characteristics (age, gender, race, performance status and stage of disease) to provide expected values and their variability during chemotherapy. Data from a small dataset of 63 NSCLC inpatients with KPS scores of 20-50% are also presented for a comparison sample of supportive care for inpatients and hospice patients. For the 673 NSCLC patients at baseline there were no significant differences in QL by age, gender, or race. Major presenting lung cancer symptoms at baseline for this combined sample were dyspnea 87%, cough 86%, pain 81%, loss of appetite 75%, and hemoptysis 41%. Of these patients, 81% had three or more presenting symptoms at baseline (2% had no symptoms; 5%, one symptom; 12%, two symptoms; 18%, three symptoms; 27%, four symptoms; and 36%, five symptoms). The mean LCSS baseline score (best = 0; worst = 100) was 26.56 (SD 16.10). The mean scores for day 29 and day 71 were 25.46 (SD 16.52) and 25.30 (SD 16.93), respectively, but follow-up assessments on progressers were not obtained. Stage III patients had a mean LCSS score of 23.7 (SD 15.1), whereas stage IV patients reported a mean LCSS score of 27.3 (SD 16.3). The mean LCSS score for the group with KPS 60-70% was 34.8 (SD 15.5), and that for the group with KPS 80-100% was 23.3 (SD 15.1). The mean LCSS score for the lower performance group, with KPS scores of 20-50% at baseline, was 46.85 (SD 17.65).

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.

Methodology of antiemetic trials: response assessment, evaluation of new agents and definition of chemotherapy emetogenicity.

Establishing appropriate and practical methodology is a key to progress in the investigation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Critical issues include patient response assessment, proper trial design for evaluating new agents, and the definition of chemotherapy emetogenicity. In assessing antiemetic response, the primary end-point should be complete control of emesis and nausea. Emesis and nausea should be independently assessed with the period of observation defined (acute, delayed, anticipatory). Emesis can be evaluated by measuring the number of emetic episodes either by direct observation or by patient self-report using patient-completed diaries. Nausea should be measured by patient self-report with the standard parameters, including frequency and intensity. New antiemetic drug development should proceed in an orderly progression from open-label phase I-II trials defining tolerance and minimally fully effective dose to phase III comparative trials. A randomized, parallel, double-blind study is the preferred design for the latter, and the comparator arm should always include the current best available treatment. Antiemetic placebos are no longer acceptable with chemotherapy regimens known to produce emesis in a majority of patients. None of the emetogenic classifications proposed to date adequately accounts for all known important patient- and treatment-related prognostic variables. A modification of a recently reported schema is proposed for use in making antiemetic treatment recommendations and defining the emetogenic challenge in clinical trials.

Consensus proposal for 5HT3 antagonists in the prevention of acute emesis related to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Dose, schedule, and route of administration.

Selective antagonists to the Type 3 serotonin receptor (5HT3) in combination with corticosteroids are now considered the standard of care for the prevention of emesis from moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Here we address issues of optimal dose, schedule and route of administration of four currently available selectable 5HT3 antagonists. This paper utilizes an evidence based medicine approach to the literature regarding this class of drugs, emphasizing the results large, randomized, controlled trials to make formal recommendations concerning optimal use of this important new class of anti-emetic agents. We conclude that for each drug there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy at a definable dose level above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. Furthermore, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or continuous infusion, and finally, emerging data demonstrate that the oral route is equally efficacious as the intravenous route of administration, even with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.