A double-blind randomized phase II dose-finding study of olanzapine 10 mg or 5 mg for the prophylaxis of emesis induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two doses (10 and 5 mg) of olanzapine in combination with standard antiemetic treatment (aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: A multi-institutional, double-blind, randomized phase II, dose-finding study of olanzapine was performed in patients with a malignant solid tumor who were receiving HEC with cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m2). Patients were randomly assigned either olanzapine 10 or 5 mg orally on days 1-4, combined with standard antiemetic treatment. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medications) in the delayed phase (24-120 h after the start of cisplatin treatment). RESULTS: 153 patients were randomized to the 10 mg group (n = 76) or the 5 mg group (n = 77). The CR rate in the delayed phase was 77.6% (80% CI: 70.3-83.8, P = 0.01) in the 10 mg group and 85.7% (80% CI: 79.2-90.7, P < 0.001) in the 5 mg group (P value for H 0: complete response rate ≤ 65%). The most common adverse event was somnolence, which had an incidence of 53.3 and 45.5% in the 10 and 5 mg olanzapine groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine provided a significant improvement in delayed emesis. A dose of 5 mg olanzapine was determined as the recommended dose for a further phase III study based on higher CR and lower somnolence rates. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: UMIN000014214.

Self-Reported Adherence to Trifluridine and Tipiracil Hydrochloride for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: A novel oral agent that consists of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (TFTD) has been established as salvage-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Adherence to TFTD is crucial to maintaining appropriate curative effects. This study sought to clarify adherence to TFTD and identify candidate factors deteriorating adherence at our institution. METHODS: A total of 50 consecutive mCRC patients who received TFTD monotherapy between June 1, 2014 and July 31, 2015 were analyzed in this study. Adherence to TFTD was checked by pharmacists using a self-reported treatment diary and interviewing nonadherents at a pharmaceutical outpatient clinic. The adherence rate was defined as the number of patient intakes per 20 scheduled intakes in one cycle. We retrospectively surveyed the factors from the electronic patient record associated with reduced adherence. We measured relative dose intensity, defined as the dose intensity divided by the initial dose (each in milligrams per square meter per week). RESULTS: Patient characteristics were as follows: males/females, 20/30; median age, 61 years (range, 34-83 years); performance status 0/1, 37/13. Median relative dose intensity of TFTD was 91.0%. Adherence rates were 95.0% for the first cycle of TFTD, 97.3% for the second cycle, 98.0% for the third cycle, and 98.2% for the fourth cycle. Factors associated with deteriorated adherence to TFTD were nausea/vomiting/decreased appetite (27.1%, 23 instances), pain (25.9%, 22 instances), neutropenia (11.8%, 10 instances), and missed dose (4.7%, 4 instances). Increased nonadherence to TFTD was associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, while increased TFTD adherence in the first cycle was associated with prior regimens ≥4. CONCLUSIONS: The high frequency of treatment-related gastrointestinal disorder is the main factor affecting adherence to TFTD. Intensive supportive care in the management of these symptoms could assist adequate adherence to TFTD in mCRC patients.

Factors exacerbating peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel plus carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer.

No established supportive therapy to prevent and treat chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (PN) is available. Minimizing the severity of PN is therefore critical in clinical use. We aimed to determine when and how often PN occurs in association with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC therapy), a regimen used to treat non-small cell lung cancer, and factors that exacerbate this condition. Patients who received PC therapy for non-small cell lung cancer at the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Cancer Institute Hospital, between May 20, 2009, and November 30, 2010, were included. PN was evaluated by the study pharmacist using specific questions based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0. Univariate analysis was used to compare a group with no, Grade 1, or Grade 2 PN (non-serious) and a group with Grade 3 PN (serious). Analyses were conducted using the Cox proportional hazard model with patient characteristics having p < or = 0.20 when assessed as independent variables. Of 50 patients, 38 (76.0%) developed PN by day 6 of the first course of anticancer treatment. Grade 3 PN had an incidence of 25.0% in the fourth course. In multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model, pack-year [hazard ratio = 1.029; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.009-1.050, p = 0.005] and creatinine clearance (hazard ratio = 0.957; 95% CI: 0.920-0.996, p = 0.031) were significant factors. A high pack-year and a low creatinine clearance exacerbated PN in patients treated with PC. PN must be carefully evaluated in patients with exacerbating factors.

Impact of Primary Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis on Relative Dose Intensity in Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant FEC-100 Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed was to clarify the impact of pegfilgrastim (PEG) 3.6 mg primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) on the average relative dose intensity (ARDI) of neoadjuvant/adjuvant FEC-100 for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study including 296 patients who received FEC-100 compared PEG and non-PEG groups. The PEG group received PEG 3.6 mg as a single subcutaneous injection in each study cycle. The primary endpoint was the ARDI of FEC-100. The secondary endpoints were patient percentage of ARDI≥85%, factors associated with ARDI≥85%, and reasons for reduced ARDI. RESULTS: The PEG group showed significantly higher mean ARDI (95.6% versus 90.7%, p<0.001) and patient percentage of ARDI≥85% (93.0% versus 79.9%, p=0.001). PEG was significantly associated with ARDI≥85% (p=0.009). Neutropenia and FN, the main reasons for reduced ARDI, were significantly lower in the PEG group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Primary PEG 3.6 mg prophylaxis increased the ARDI of FEC-100.

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during moderately emetic chemotherapy for solid tumors: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30-90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. RESULTS: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26-84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51 and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5) + ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Skin Reaction Is More Severe on the Feet Than on the Hands.

Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib-induced hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is a common side effect during treatment. The reported frequency of HFSR was 80% (grade 3: 28%) in the Japanese subpopulation in the CORRECT trial; however, more detailed data regarding HFSR in terms of onset and sites of susceptibility are unclear. Additionally, the risk factors for regorafenib-induced severe HFSR are unknown. The aim of this study was to compare HFSR between the hands and feet and identify preexisting risk factors for severe HFSR in Japanese patients receiving regorafenib. We retrospectively examined the onset and severity of HFSR on the hands and feet of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib from May 2013 to October 2015 in the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research. In addition, we examined the possible association between preexisting clinical factors and severe HFSR. Our results showed that no significant difference in the incidence of HFSR of any grade was observed between the hands (71%) and feet (74%) (p = 0.63). The incidence of grade 3 HFSR was more frequent on the feet (33%) than on the hands (8%) (p < 0.01). The onset of grade 3 HFSR was earlier on the feet than on the hands (p < 0.001). No preexisting risk factor was identified. Our findings indicate that severe HFSR was more prevalent on the feet than on the hands, suggesting the need for appropriate screening for early detection and treatment of regorafenib-induced HSFR.