Prospective evaluation of the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study sought to prospectively determine the frequency of delayed nausea and vomiting with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy following day 1 prophylaxis with a 5-HT-(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. METHODS: Patients with colon cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status ≤ 2, receiving oxaliplatin (85-100 mg/m(2)) as part of a standard folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin regimen for the first time were eligible. All patients received a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone 20 mg on day 1 prior to oxaliplatin. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis was given. Antiemetic outcome was recorded in patient-completed diaries for the 120-h study period following oxaliplatin administration. Primary endpoint was frequency of delayed (24-120 h) emesis (vomiting/retching). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled and 39 are evaluable. Median age was 70 (34-85) and the female/male ratio was 20:19. Four patients (10%) experienced vomiting or retching during the delayed period. One patient vomited during the first 24 h after oxaliplatin. The overall (120 h) no emesis rate was 87% (34/39). Twenty-one patients (54%) developed delayed nausea. Nine patients had moderate or severe nausea. Eighteen patients (46%) took rescue antiemetics during the delayed period. Delayed and overall complete response (no emesis or use of rescue antiemetics) rates were 54% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone prior to oxaliplatin results in excellent control of nausea and vomiting (CR-90%) during the 24 h after chemotherapy. However, without further antiemetic treatment, complete response in the delayed period decreased to 54%. This study supports the need for routine antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed nausea and vomiting following oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

Aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). METHODS: Patients with breast cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status of ≤ 2, receiving doxorubicin (≥ 60 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (≥ 500 mg/m(2)) for the first time were eligible. Prior to chemotherapy patients received aprepitant 125 mg orally (PO), dexamethasone 8-10 mg PO/intravenously (IV), and palonosetron 0.25 mg IV. On days 2-3, dexamethasone 4 mg PO and aprepitant 80 mg PO were given. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries for the 120-h study period following chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no emesis or rescue) for the 120-h study period. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled and all are evaluable. The median age was 53 (33-75) and 36 are females. Eighteen patients (50%) achieved a complete response during the 120-h study period. Acute (≤ 24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) complete response rates were 81% (27/36) and 61% (22/36), respectively. No emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall study periods were 97% (35/36), 94% (34/36), and 92% (33/36), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron prevented emesis in more than 90% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AC chemotherapy. Nausea was less well controlled. Overall complete response was achieved in one half of the study patients. Further improvement in the prevention of AC-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will require more effective antinausea treatments.

Aprepitant as salvage antiemetic therapy in breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide.

GOALS OF WORK: To assess the efficacy of adding aprepitant to a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone as salvage antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) and failing to achieve complete control of emesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligibility: breast cancer patients receiving their first cycle of AC. TREATMENT: standard dose of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone 8-10 mg IV/PO on day 1 prior to cycle 1 of AC and dexamethasone 4 mg bid on days 2 and 3. Patients without complete control (no emesis, no nausea, or rescue antiemetics) during cycle 1 could proceed to cycle 2. During cycle 2, patients received AC and identical antiemetics (except dexamethasone 4 mg qd on days 2 and 3) plus aprepitant 125 mg PO day 1 and 80 mg PO days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint: complete control, 0-120 h after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received cycle 1 of AC. Complete control cycle 1: 13 patients (21%; 95%CI, 12-33%). Of the 49 patients eligible for cycle 2, four elected not to continue on study. Of the 45 patients receiving cycle 2, 44 were evaluable. Complete control and complete response (no emesis, no rescue) for the 5-day study period improved from 0% to 18% (p = 0.14) and 7% to 36% (p = 0.02) on cycles 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients receiving AC, the addition of aprepitant to a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone during cycle 2 of treatment improved antiemetic outcome. Although the improvement in the primary endpoint of complete control during cycle 2 was not significant, all secondary endpoints such as complete response and no emesis rates were significantly better during cycle 2. The extent of antiemetic control during cycle 2 was numerically inferior to the results achieved in a phase III trial employing aprepitant with cycle 1 of AC chemotherapy, suggesting that the preferred approach is to include aprepitant with the initial cycle of AC chemotherapy.