Supportive care in cancer-a MASCC perspective.

The term 'supportive care' arose from the medical oncology literature predominantly in the context of managing the toxicities of cancer treatment but embraces all symptom management through treatment and survivorship. Supportive care should be patient-centred with good communication which includes family and carers and applies across the cancer experience from diagnosis, treatment, survivorship to end of life care. Supportive care encompasses physical and functional, psychological, social and spiritual well-being to improve the quality of life. Supportive care must be evidence-based and thus further research is essential. Supportive care requires screening for some symptoms and tools for patients to report their outcomes. Supportive care has to accommodate new physical toxicities, emotional distress as well as financial toxicity. Supportive care is often delivered by medical oncologists but any organ-related specialist, geriatrician, palliative care clinician, pain specialist, nutritionist, psycho-oncologist, social worker, physiotherapist, nurse or allied health worker who is required to relieve a patient's symptoms or side effects may be involved in a multidisciplinary way. The field is evolving to embrace technology such as eHealth and mHealth capabilities which will enhance integrated care.

Reducing dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis. METHODS: We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations. RESULTS: No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT3 antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.

Impact of multi-gene mutational profiling on clinical trial outcomes in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has identified recurrent genomic alterations in metastatic breast cancer (MBC); however, the clinical utility of incorporating routine sequencing to guide treatment decisions in this setting is unclear. We examine the frequency of genomic alterations in MBC patients from academic and community hospitals and correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS: MBC patients with good performance status were prospectively recruited at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Canada. Molecular profiling on DNA extracted from FFPE archival tissues was performed on the Sequenom MassArray platform or the TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel (TSACP) on the MiSeq platform. Clinical trial outcomes by RECIST 1.1 and time on treatment were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: From January 2012 to November 2015, 483 MBC patients were enrolled and 440 were genotyped. At least one somatic mutation was identified in 46% of patients, most commonly in PIK3CA (28%) or TP53 (13%). Of 203 patients with ≥ 1 mutation(s), 15% were treated on genotype-matched and 9% on non-matched trials. There was no significant difference for median time on treatment for patients treated on matched vs. non-matched therapies (3.6 vs. 3.8 months; p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world outcomes on hotspot genotyping and small targeted panel sequencing of MBC patients from academic and community settings. Few patients were matched to clinical trials with targeted therapies. More comprehensive profiling and improved access to clinical trials may increase therapeutic options for patients with actionable mutations. Further studies are needed to evaluate if this approach leads to improved clinical outcomes.

Bringing it all together in the treatment of CINV: application of current knowledge into routine clinical practice.

For patients with cancer, the threat of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can greatly influence treatment decisions and overall quality of life. Clinicians now have numerous effective antiemetic therapies to offer to patients, but selecting the optimal strategy can be complicated. Integration of current CINV guidelines, emerging data from recent clinical trials, and patient-specific risk factors can greatly improve antiemetic prophylaxis. Two challenging clinical scenarios are presented and discussed to provide insight on how to best approach these types of treatment decisions and apply recent advances in CINV prevention and management to patient care.

Should palonosetron be a preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT3RAs. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT3RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT3RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT3RA of choice.

Age-Related Patterns in Cancer Pain and Its Psychosocial Impact: Investigating the Role of Variability in Physical and Mental Health Quality of Life.

Objective: Age-related patterns in cancer pain remain equivocal. Most studies ignore heterogeneity across multiple domains of well-being, and the potential role of physical (PH) and mental health (MH) quality of life (QOL) in these age-related patterns is unknown. We investigated the relationships between age and cancer pain intensity, qualities, and interference, and physical and psychosocial adaptation and the interaction between age and PH and MH QOL on pain and adaptation to cancer pain. Design: In this cross-sectional study, 244 patients with advanced cancer and pain completed measures of pain, QOL, physical function, and psychosocial well-being. Pearson's correlations and ANOVAs assessed relationships between age and demographic and clinical factors, pain, and physical and psychosocial measures. Regression models tested the role of age and its interaction with PH and MH QOL on pain and physical and psychosocial adaptation. Results: Older age was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription, greater likelihood of having comorbidities, and worse functional status. When we did not account for these factors, age was not associated with pain and most adaptation indices. When we did account for these factors and PH QOL, older age was associated with lower non-neuropathic and neuropathic pain and several indices of psychosocial adaptation. Most interestingly, older age was associated with lower non-neuropathic pain among those with high, but not low, MH QOL. Conclusions: This study addresses knowledge gaps about factors underlying age-related patterns in cancer pain. Impaired MH QOL may be a proxy for age-related patterns in cancer pain. Summary: This study investigated age-related patterns in the experience of cancer pain and the role of quality of life in resilience and vulnerability to pain and adaptation to pain. Older age is associated with lower non-neuropathic pain among those with high, but not low, mental health quality of life, suggesting that impaired mental health quality of life is an important indicator of vulnerability to multidimensional pain outcomes.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Employing the same framework as in previous guideline updates, antineoplastic agents were classified into four emetic risk categories. The classification of the emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents, especially for the oral drugs, represents an increasing challenge. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment is rarely available. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for drugs approved after 2009 until June 2015 using EMBASE and PubMed. The search term was "drug name." The restrictions were language (English records only), date (2009 to 2015), and level of evidence ("clinical trial"). RESULTS: From January 2009 to June 2015, 42 new antineoplastic agents were identified and a systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies to help define emetic risk levels. The reported incidence of vomiting varied across studies for many agents, but there was adequate evidence to allow 41 of the 42 new antineoplastic agents to be classified according to emetogenic risk. No highly emetogenic agents were identified. Seven moderately emetogenic agents, 26 low emetogenic, agents and eight minimal emetogenic agents were identified and classified accordingly. The MASCC/ESMO update committee also recommended reclassification of the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) as highly emetogenic. CONCLUSION: Despite several limitations, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents through a comprehensive search of the available literature. Hopefully by the next update, more precise information on emetic risk will have been collected during new agent development process.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included. CONCLUSIONS: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

The positive effect of a dedicated adolescent and young adult fertility program on the rates of documentation of therapy-associated infertility risk and fertility preservation options.

PURPOSE: Minimal data exist regarding documentation of therapy-associated infertility risk (IR) and fertility preservation (FP) options during the initial oncology consultation prior to systemic therapy. This study investigated factors affecting IR/FP documentation and assessed the effect of implementation of an Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) program on documentation rates. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts of patients receiving gonadotoxic therapy was undertaken for documentation of IR/FP pre- and post-implementation of an AYA program. Change in documentation rates was assessed using univariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 173 charts were reviewed. On univariate analysis, IR/FP documentation was less likely if patients had metastatic disease (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), by tumor type (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), received less intensive chemotherapy (P = 0.03, P = 0.06), were older (P = 0.14, P < 0.01), had more children (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), or lacked AYA program involvement (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). FP discussion was more common in males (P = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, more children (P = 0.01, P = 0.03), older age (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), tumor type (P < 0.01, P = 0.01), stage (P = 0.02, NS), relationship (P = 0.03, NS), and lack of AYA involvement (P < 0.01, P < 0.01) were associated with lower rates of IR/FP documentation. Following AYA program implementation, IR/FP rates increased from 56% (CI 46-65%) to 85% (CI 74-92%, P < 0.01) and 54% (CI 45-64%) to 86% (CI 75-93%, P < 0.01), respectively. The effect of AYA program implementation on IR/FP documentation was most noticeable in leukemia, lymphoma, and breast groups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an AYA consultation service at an adult cancer institution had a positive effect on the rates of IR/FP documentation. Specific programming can improve service delivery to AYA cancer patients, and fertility counseling should be integrated for patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.

Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across different categories of chemotherapeutic emetogenicity. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and OVID databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized, controlled trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy end points were no emesis, no nausea, and complete response (CR) rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (N = 11,814) were identified. Based on absolute differences (AD) for no emesis (21 %), no nausea (8 %), CR (16 %), and odd ratios (OR) of 2.62, 1.43, and 2.16, respectively, NK1RA regimens provided better CINV protection versus control groups (all p < 0.00001) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based HEC, respective ADs and ORs were 14, 4, and 11 % and 1.97 (p < 0.0001), 1.17 (p = 0.04), and 1.62 (p < 0.00001). In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (3 trials), no statistically significant benefit of NK1RAs was found; however, positive trends were detected for CR and no emesis. NK1RAs were effective for CINV prevention in a small number of studies using high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning prior to stem cell transplant and cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (MDC). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of NK1RA in preventing vomiting in patients receiving HEC (including AC), with smaller effects on prevention of nausea. Efficacy is also seen with high-dose chemotherapy and cisplatin-based MDC.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with anticancer treatment that can have a significant adverse impact on patient health-related quality of life and that can potentially undermine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Traditional regimens to prevent CINV generally involved a combination of a corticosteroid plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). In the past 10 years, antiemetic treatment has greatly advanced with the availability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) aprepitant and its prodrug fosaprepitant. NK1 RAs have a different mechanism of action in CINV than corticosteroids and 5HT3 RAs, thus their use can complement traditional antiemetic drugs and can enhance control of CINV. This review examined accumulated data regarding the safety and efficacy of aprepitant and fosaprepitant over the decade since the first regulatory approval. Data from key studies of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were explored, as were recommendations in currently available guidelines for their use. In addition, their use as antiemetic therapy in special patient populations was highlighted. Future perspectives on potential uses of aprepitant and fosaprepitant for indications other than CINV are presented.

Randomised, phase II, placebo-controlled, trial of fulvestrant plus vandetanib in postmenopausal women with bone only or bone predominant, hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC): the OCOG ZAMBONEY study.

Biomarkers of bone turnover, including urine N-telopeptide (uNTx), have been used as surrogate measures of response to bone-targeted therapies. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels correlate with extent of bone metastases. We assessed whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of VEGF, epidermal growth factor receptor and RET signalling, improved uNTx response when added to fulvestrant (F) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Postmenopausal patients with bone predominant, hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer were randomised to F (500 mg IM days 1, 15, 29, then monthly) with either vandetanib (100 mg PO OD) (FV) or placebo (FP). The primary objective was uNTx response. Secondary objectives included PFS, OS, RECIST response, pain scores and toxicity. Sixty-one patients were allocated to FV and 68 to FP. Out of 127 analyzable patients, an uNTx response occurred in 66 % for FV and 54 % for FP (p = 0.21). No difference was detected between groups for PFS; HR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.65-1.38) or OS HR = 0.69 (95 % CI 0.37-1.31). For the 62 patients with measurable disease, clinical benefit rates were 41 and 43 %, respectively (p = 0.47). Serious adverse events were similar, 3.3 % for FV versus 5.9 % for FP. Elevated baseline uNTx (>65 nM BCE/mmol Cr) was prognostic for PFS, HR = 1.55 (95 % CI 1.04-2.30) and for OS, HR = 2.32 (95 % CI 1.25-4.33). The addition of vandetanib to fulvestrant did not improve biomarker response, PFS or OS in patients with bone metastases. Baseline bone turnover was prognostic for PFS and OS.

Efficacy and safety of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT(3)RA) with a strong binding affinity and long half-life, has been used in numerous trials for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron compared to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or taking no rescue medications. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients suffering from 5-HT(3)RA-related adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were identified with 2,896 patients randomized to palonosetron and 3,187 patients randomized to other 5-HT(3)RAs. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior in CR, CC, no emesis, or no nausea and was sometimes superior in no rescue medication. Subgroup analyses demonstrated similarity in efficacy between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy cohorts. In the acute phase, statistical superiority of palonosetron was found for trials that did not allow dexamethasone; conversely, RCTs that administered dexamethasone to all patients were nonsignificant. Palonosetron was statistically significantly safer in dizziness and mean QTc interval change and similar in constipation, headache, and diarrhea. Clinical superiority of palonosetron was reached in 3 of 19 analyzed efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron is safer and more efficacious than other 5-HT(3)RAs. Future antiemetic guidelines should discuss the merits of including palonosetron as a first-line treatment.

Management of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review updates the clinical data on antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy classified as highly emetogenic. RECENT FINDINGS: A meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron was superior to other 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists at least in the absence of aprepitant. Two major guideline groups have reclassified all chemotherapy that contains cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline as 'highly emetogenic'. Although recommended prophylaxis for drugs in that category includes aprepitant, phase II studies with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) and doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine and dacarbazine (ABVD) demonstrated that single agent palonosetron alone provided control of emesis over 85% of patients. A randomized phase III trial of olanzapine versus aprepitant found that the control of emesis was similar and nausea was significantly better controlled with olanzapine. Two studies showed that there is no impact of the moderate cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitor aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of cyclophosphamide. Surveys in the United States and Europe demonstrated that antiemetic prescribing practices often do not adhere to guidelines even for highly emetogenic chemotherapy. SUMMARY: The major guideline groups recommend a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant ('triple therapy') for treatment categorized as highly emetogenic. Recent data suggest that, although classified as highly emetogenic, palonosetron may provide very good control of emesis for CHOP and ABVD. Guidelines have not made firm recommendations for highly emetogenic chemotherapy administered over several days or stem cell transplant preparative regimens due to the lack of published randomized trials. Although well tolerated and effective, many patients receive suboptimal antiemetic therapy that includes aprepitant.

Evaluation of risk factors predictive of nausea and vomiting with current standard-of-care antiemetic treatment: analysis of phase 3 trial of aprepitant in patients receiving adriamycin-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy.

GOALS OF WORK: A number of prognostic factors have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post-hoc analysis addressed whether: (1) these prognostic factors can identify a low-risk group for whom ondansetron plus dexamethasone alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis); (2) the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improves antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients in a phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to antiemetic regimens including ondansetron and dexamethasone, or aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis (but not nausea) of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0-4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Treatment with aprepitant (P < 0.0001), older age (P = 0.006), ethanol use (P = 0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (P = 0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis. The proportion of patients with one, two, or three risk factors who remained emesis free was significantly higher with the aprepitant-containing regimen than with the active control (70.2-82.8% vs. 38.6-66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant markedly improved control of emesis in patients with one or more risk factors. This analysis did not support using risk factors for modifying the antiemetic approach. A low-risk group with zero risk factors for whom aprepitant provided little benefit was of questionable clinical utility, since they comprised less than 3% of patients.

Acute emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

This paper is a review of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as concluded at the third Perugia Consensus Conference, which took place in June 2009. The review will focus on new studies appearing since the Second consensus conference in April 2004. The following issues will be addressed: dose and schedule of antiemetics, different groups of antiemetics such as corticosteroids, serotonin(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine(2) receptor antagonists, and neurokinin(1) receptor antagonists. Furthermore, antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will be reviewed. Consensus statements are given, including optimal dose and schedule of serotonin(3) receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and neurokinin(1) receptor antagonists. The most significant recommendations (and changes since the 2004 version of the guidelines) are as follows: the best prophylaxis in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (not including a combination of an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) is the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the day of chemotherapy, followed by dexamethasone on days 2-3. In patients receiving a combination of an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide, a combination of a serotonin(3) receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone, plus the neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist aprepitant on the day of chemotherapy, followed by aprepitant days 2-3, is recommended.

Differential time course of action of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC).

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns. METHODS: Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.