Darbepoetin alfa 300 or 500 µg once every 3 weeks with or without intravenous iron in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa administered every 3 weeks (Q3W) at fixed doses of 300 or 500 µg with or without intravenous (IV) iron in treating anemia in patients receiving multicycle chemotherapy. This Phase 2, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial study randomized patients to one of four treatment arms; darbepoetin alfa 300 µg (n = 62), darbepoetin alfa 300 µg plus IV iron (n = 60), darbepoetin alfa 500 µg (n = 60), or darbepoetin alfa 500 µg plus IV iron (n = 60). Patients had nonmyeloid malignancies, hemoglobin levels ≤10 g dL(-1), and no iron deficiency. Primary endpoint was achievement of target hemoglobin (≥11 g dL(-1)). Secondary endpoints included incidence of transfusions and change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue (FACT-F) score from baseline to end of study. Safety was evaluated by incidence of adverse events. No evidence of a statistically significant interaction between darbepoetin alfa dose received and IV iron usage was observed, therefore, results are provided separately comparing darbepoetin alfa doses and comparing IV iron usage groups. Similar proportions of patients receiving darbepoetin alfa 300 or 500 µg achieved target hemoglobin (75 and 78%, respectively); Kaplan-Meier median time to target hemoglobin was 10 and 8 weeks, respectively. More patients receiving IV iron (82%) than not receiving IV iron (72%) achieved hemoglobin target. Adverse events profiles were similar for darbepoetin alfa treatment groups. Transient anaphylactoid reactions were reported in two patients receiving IV iron. Darbepoetin alfa at 300 µg Q3W and 500 µg Q3W showed similar benefit, while added IV iron improved treatment response in these patients.

Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types.

Chemotherapy regimens differ according to the tumor type being treated and are associated with varying degrees of emetogenic potential. Since the distribution of risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting differs across tumor types, it is important to understand the efficacy of antiemetic regimens in multiple patient populations. To characterize treatment response in patients with various malignancies (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and lung) treated with either highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 4 large randomized trials was performed (N=2813). Patients receiving an antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone were compared with patients receiving an active-control antiemetic regimen containing ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In all tumor types analyzed, complete responses were observed in a higher proportion of HEC-treated patients receiving aprepitant compared with active-control patients (genitourinary [61.5% vs 40.6%, P<0.001], gastrointestinal [68.2% vs 44.7%, P=0.013], and lung cancers [73.5% vs 52.8%, P<0.001]). For MEC-treated patients, complete response rates were also higher for aprepitant patients than active-control patients for all tumor types, with a significant difference noted among patients with breast cancer (54.9% vs 43.9%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with no vomiting was higher in both HEC- and MEC-treated patients. While results of previous studies provide support for the use of antiemetic regimens that include aprepitant, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone, this analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens.

A multicenter phase II study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab in first-line therapy for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous cell histology non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

INTRODUCTION: Platinum-based doublets are standard of care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The combination of docetaxel and oxaliplatin has shown acceptable toxicity and encouraging activity. This phase II study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of this doublet with bevacizumab as first-line treatment for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients ≥18 years with histologically proven non-squamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤2 received six 21-day cycles of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab followed by single-agent bevacizumab for a total of 1 year. Primary efficacy end point was radiographically documented progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and safety. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled. Median age was 62.0 years, 71.7 % male, 79.2 % Caucasian. A total of 88.7 % had stage IV or recurrent disease; 94.3 % adenocarcinoma; and 94.3 % ECOG PS 0 or 1. Efficacy results are as follows: median PFS 5.6 months, ORR 30.2 % (complete response 1.9 %, partial response 28.3 %); 37.7 % stable disease; and OS 14.0 months. At least one adverse event (AE) was reported in all patients (n = 52); 98.1 % of AEs were treatment related. The most common treatment-emergent grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (15.4 %), diarrhea (13.5 %), and fatigue (11.5 %). A serious AE was present in 32.7 %; the most common were pneumonia (7.7 %) and abdominal pain (5.8 %). Dehydration, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and supraventricular tachycardia each occurred in 3.8 %. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to docetaxel/oxaliplatin is effective with an acceptable safety profile in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Lack of effect of casopitant on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, casopitant, is a weak-to-moderate inhibitor of cytochrome P450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A) and has the potential to inhibit the metabolism of CYP3A substrates such as docetaxel. METHODS: Fourteen cancer patients were enrolled in this phase 1, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study. Intravenous (i.v.) docetaxel was coadministered with oral ondansetron and dexamethasone with (Regimen B) or without (Regimen A) 150 mg single-dose oral casopitant. RESULTS: The geometric least-squares mean Regimen B: Regimen A ratios (90% confidence interval) for docetaxel maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity were 0.97 (0.83, 1.12) and 1.06 (0.94, 1.19), respectively. Coadministration of casopitant and docetaxel was well tolerated, with adverse event profiles and absolute neutrophil count nadirs similar for both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: C(max) and AUC of docetaxel were similar when given as monotherapy or when given in combination with casopitant. Likewise, absolute neutrophil count nadirs were similar for docetaxel alone or docetaxel with casopitant.