2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Digital health provides solutions that capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and allows symptom monitoring and patient management. Digital therapeutics is the provision to patients of evidence-based therapeutic interventions through software applications aimed at prevention, monitoring, management, and treatment of symptoms and diseases or for treatment optimization. The digital health solutions collecting PROs address many unmet needs, including access to care and reassurance, increase in adherence and treatment efficacy, and decrease in hospitalizations. With current developments in oncology including increased availability of oral drugs and reduced availability of healthcare professionals, these solutions offer an innovative approach to optimize healthcare resource utilization. DESIGN: This scoping review clarifies the role and impact of the digital health solutions in oncology supportive care, with a view of the current segmentation according to their technical features (connection to sensors, PRO collection, remote monitoring, self-management in real time…), and identifies evidence from clinical studies published about their benefits and limitations and drivers and barriers to adoption. A qualitative summary is presented. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies were identified and included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies supported the use of 38 digital health solutions collecting ePROs and allowing remote monitoring, with benefits to patients regarding symptom reporting and management, reduction in symptom distress, decrease in unplanned hospitalizations and related costs and improved quality of life and survival. Among those 38 solutions 21 provided patient self-management with impactful symptom support, improvement of QoL, usefulness and reassurance. Principal challenges are in developing and implementing digital solutions to suit most patients, while ensuring patient compliance and adaptability for use in different healthcare systems and living environments. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing evidence that digital health collecting ePROs provide benefits to patients related to clinical and health economic endpoints. These digital solutions can be integrated into routine supportive care in oncology practice to provide improved patient-centered care.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy of single-dose NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen. Patients and methods: This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at - 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN). Results: Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0-1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (-4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (-4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (-0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN. Conclusions: In this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Randomised phase III trial of vinflunine plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and resistant to taxane.

Background: Capecitabine is an approved standard therapy for anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). Vinflunine has demonstrated single-agent activity in phase II studies in this setting and activity and tolerability when combined with capecitabine. We compared the combination of vinflunine plus capecitabine (VC) with single-agent capecitabine. Patients and methods: Patients with locally recurrent/metastatic BC previously treated or resistant to an anthracycline and resistant to taxane therapy were randomly assigned to either vinflunine (280 mg/m2, day 1) plus oral capecitabine [825 mg/m2 twice daily (b.i.d.), days 1-14] every 3 weeks (q3w) or single-agent oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 b.i.d., days 1-14) q3w. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in PFS. Results: Overall, 770 patients were randomised. PFS was significantly longer with VC than with capecitabine alone [hazard ratio, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.99; log-rank P = 0.043; median 5.6 versus 4.3 months, respectively]. Median overall survival was 13.9 versus 11.7 months with VC versus capecitabine alone, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15; log-rank P = 0.77). No difference in quality of life was observed between the two treatment arms. The most common adverse events (NCI CTCAE version 3.0) in the combination arm were haematological and gastrointestinal. Grade 4 neutropenia was more frequent with VC (12% versus 1% with capecitabine alone); febrile neutropenia occurred in 2% versus 0.5%, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with VC (grade 3: 4% versus 19% for capecitabine alone). Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon in both arms (grade 3: 1% versus 0.3%). Conclusions: Vinflunine combined with capecitabine demonstrated a modest improvement in PFS and an acceptable safety profile compared with capecitabine alone in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally recurrent/metastatic BC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01095003.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care.

Oncology has come a long way in addressing patients' quality of life, together with developing surgical, radio-oncological and medical anticancer therapies. However, the multiple and varying needs of patients are still not being met adequately as part of routine cancer care. Supportive and palliative care interventions should be integrated, dynamic, personalised and based on best evidence. They should start at the time of diagnosis and continue through to end-of-life or survivorship. ESMO is committed to excellence in all aspects of oncological care during the continuum of the cancer experience. Following the 2003 ESMO stand on supportive and palliative care (Cherny N, Catane R, Kosmidis P. ESMO takes a stand on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(9): 1335-1337), this position paper highlights the evolving and growing gap between the needs of cancer patients and the actual provision of care. The concept of patient-centred cancer care is presented along with key requisites and areas for further work.

Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer.

Biosimilars are biological medicines that have been shown to be similar to a reference biological medicine that has already been approved for use. Development of biosimilars is based on a "totality of evidence" approach that involves a series of steps by which biosimilars must demonstrate similarity to a reference product in all aspects of the drug and eliminate any remaining uncertainties. Clinical studies are then considered confirmatory and are performed to show that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with the reference product in a sensitive patient population. The recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar EP2006/Zarxio® (filgrastim-sdnz) became the first FDA-approved biosimilar in 2015. This review evaluates how clinical equivalence can be demonstrated with G-CSF biosimilars through the identification of "sensitive" study populations and endpoints. Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated in the (neo)adjuvant setting represent a potentially homogenous population, making this a suitable sensitive indication for assessing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with reference products. This review includes clinical trials of G-CSF biosimilars in breast cancer, focusing on key aspects of the trials that were necessary to accurately demonstrate clinical equivalence and enable extrapolation to relevant indications, based on guidelines and biostatistical principles.

Integrated safety analysis of rolapitant with coadministered drugs from phase II/III trials: an assessment of CYP2D6 or BCRP inhibition by rolapitant.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a long-acting neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist (RA), has demonstrated efficacy in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients administered moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Unlike other NK1 RAs, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, but it does inhibit CYP2D6 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP). To analyze potential drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and concomitant medications, this integrated safety analysis of four double-blind, randomized phase II or III studies of rolapitant examined adverse events (AEs) by use versus non-use of drug substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo ∼1-2 h before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Data for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs) during cycle 1 were pooled across the four studies and summarized in the overall population and by concomitant use/non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs. RESULTS: In the integrated safety population, 828 of 1294 patients (64%) in the rolapitant group and 840 of 1301 patients (65%) in the control group experienced at least one TEAE. Frequencies of common TEAEs were similar in the rolapitant and control populations. Overall, 53% of patients received CYP2D6 substrate drugs, none of which had a narrow therapeutic index (like thioridazine or pimozide), and 63% received BCRP substrate drugs. When grouped by concomitant use versus non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs, TEAEs and TESAEs occurred with similar frequency in the rolapitant and control populations. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the safety of rolapitant as part of an antiemetic triple-drug regimen in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, including those administered concomitant medications that are substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP, such as ondansetron, docetaxel, or irinotecan.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

Predictive modeling of the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (MONITOR-GCSF study).

BACKGROUND: Risk models of chemotherapy-induced (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) have to date focused on determinants measured at the start of chemotherapy. We extended this static approach with a dynamic approach of CIN/FN risk modeling at the start of each cycle. DESIGN: We applied predictive modeling using multivariate logistic regression to identify determinants of CIN/FN episodes and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances (CIN/FN consequences) in analyses at the patient ('ever' during the whole period of chemotherapy) and cycle-level (during a given chemotherapy cycle). Statistical dependence of cycle data being 'nested' under patients was managed using generalized estimation equations. Predictive performance of each model was evaluated using bootstrapped c concordance statistics. RESULTS: Static patient-level risk models of 'ever' experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences during a planned chemotherapy regimen included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity. Dynamic cycle-level risk models of experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences in an upcoming cycle included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity; as well as prophylaxis duration, CIN/FN in prior cycle, and treatment center characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: These 'real-world evidence' models provide clinicians with the ability to anticipate CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of a chemotherapy line (static models); and, innovatively, to assess risk of CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of each cycle (dynamic models). This enables individualized patient treatment and is consistent with the EORTC recommendation to re-appraise CIN/FN risk at the start of each cycle. Prophylaxis intensity (under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted relative to current EORTC guidelines) is a major determinant. Under-prophylaxis is clinically unsafe. Over-prophylaxis of patients administered chemotherapy with intermediate or low myelotoxicity levels may be beneficial, both in patients with and without risk factors, and must be validated in future studies.

Final results of the TANIA randomised phase III trial of bevacizumab after progression on first-line bevacizumab therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase III TANIA trial demonstrated that continuing bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) after progression on first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.93]. We report final results from the TANIA trial, including overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC that had progressed on or after first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomised to receive standard second-line chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab. At second progression, patients initially randomised to bevacizumab continued bevacizumab with their third-line chemotherapy, but those randomised to chemotherapy alone were not allowed to cross over to receive third-line bevacizumab. The primary end point was second-line PFS; secondary end points included third-line PFS, combined second- and third-line PFS, OS, HRQoL and safety. RESULTS: Of the 494 patients randomised, 483 received second-line therapy; 234 patients (47% of the randomised population) continued to third-line study treatment. The median duration of follow-up at the final analysis was 32.1 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 30.9 months in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy arm. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment arms in third-line PFS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.06), combined second- and third-line PFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.05) or OS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.21). Third-line safety results showed increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension with bevacizumab, consistent with safety results for the second-line treatment phase. No differences in HRQoL were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, continuing bevacizumab beyond first and second progression of LR/mBC improved second-line PFS, but no improvement in longer term efficacy was observed. The second-line PFS benefit appears to be achieved without detrimentally affecting quality of life. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01250379.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer: consensus guidance for clinical practice from a European Panel.

Bisphosphonates have been studied in randomised trials in early breast cancer to investigate their ability to prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and reduce the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis. Treatment benefits have been reported but bisphosphonates do not currently have regulatory approval for either of these potential indications. This consensus paper provides a review of the evidence and offers guidance to breast cancer clinicians on the use of bisphosphonates in early breast cancer. Using the nominal group methodology for consensus, a systematic review of the literature was augmented by a workshop held in October 2014 for breast cancer and bone specialists to present and debate the available pre-clinical and clinical evidence for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates. This was followed by a questionnaire to all members of the writing committee to identify areas of consensus. The panel recommended that bisphosphonates should be considered as part of routine clinical practice for the prevention of CTIBL in all patients with a T score of <-2.0 or ≥2 clinical risk factors for fracture. Compelling evidence from a meta-analysis of trial data of >18,000 patients supports clinically significant benefits of bisphosphonates on the development of bone metastases and breast cancer mortality in post-menopausal women or those receiving ovarian suppression therapy. Therefore, the panel recommends that bisphosphonates (either intravenous zoledronic acid or oral clodronate) are considered as part of the adjuvant breast cancer treatment in this population and the potential benefits and risks discussed with relevant patients.

Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review.

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been revolutionized over the past 25 years. Guideline-based treatment means that vomiting can be prevented in the majority, but not in all patients. Therefore, antiemetic research continues with the goal of optimizing CINV control for all patients. This comprehensive review summarizes the research efforts in this field over the past few years. Emerging from this research are two new antiemetic agents, netupitant/palonosetron, the first antiemetic combination agent and rolapitant, a new NK1RA. In addition, studies have evaluated the benefits of olanzapine and ginger, explored optimal combinations of agents for delayed CINV prevention, confirmed that dexamethasone-sparing regimens are effective, and demonstrated the value of NK1RAs in high-dose chemotherapy settings as well as with certain moderately emetogenic chemotherapies such as carboplatin. Research has also validated the correlation between antiemetic guideline adherence and improved CINV control. Finally, regulatory authorities have utilized extreme caution in retiring some 5-HT3RAs or decreasing their maximum dose.

Approach to therapy of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the elderly: the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) expert position commentary.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a treatable and potentially curable malignancy that is increasing in prevalence in the elderly. Until recently, older patients with this malignancy were under-represented on clinical treatment trials, so optimal therapeutic approaches for these patients were generally extrapolated from the treatment of younger patients with this disorder. Because of heightened toxicity concerns, older patients were sometimes given reduced dose therapy, potentially negatively impacting outcome. Geriatric considerations including functional status and comorbidities often were not accounted for in treatment decisions. Because of these issues as well as the lack of treatment guidelines for the elderly population, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology convened an expert panel to review DLBCL treatment in the elderly and develop consensus guidelines for therapeutic approaches in this patient population. The following treatment guidelines address initial DLBCL therapy, in both limited and advanced stage disease, as well as approaches to the relapsed and refractory patient.

Safety and efficacy outcomes with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: New data on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) regarding overall survival and disease progression-related outcomes in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy are presented in a meta-analysis of controlled trials of ESA use (epoetin α, epoetin ß, darbepoetin α, biosimilars). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature search identified reports from January 1997 through March 2014. We used company databases for Amgen, Inc., or Janssen studies and published data for other studies. Random-effects odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare results for patients randomized to ESA with those randomized to control. RESULTS: Deaths were reported for 571 of 2346 patients (24%) in the ESA groups and 523 of 2367 patients (22%) in the control groups [OR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.40]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the effects of individual studies and exclusion of one study (BEST) resulted in an OR for death of 1.12 (95% CI 0.94-1.34). In seven studies reporting progression-related end points (N = 4197; ESA n = 2088; control n = 2109), the OR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.87-1.16) for ESA compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: After incorporating recent results of ESA use in patients with breast cancer, risks of survival and progression-free survival remain consistent with previously published data.

Renal effects of molecular targeted therapies in oncology: a review by the Cancer and the Kidney International Network (C-KIN).

A number of cancer therapy agents are cleared by the kidney and may affect renal function, including cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, molecular targeted therapies, analgesics, antibiotics, radiopharmaceuticals and radiation therapy, and bone-targeted therapies. Many of these agents can be nephrotoxic, including targeted cancer therapies. The incidence, severity, and pattern of renal toxicities may vary according to the respective target of the drug. Here, we review the renal effects associated with a selection of currenty approved targeted cancer therapies, directed to vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF receptor(s) (VEGF/VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor2 (HER2), BRAF, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), programmed cell death protein-1 or its ligand (PD-1/PDL-1), receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). The early diagnosis and prompt treatment of these renal alterations are essential in the daily practice where molecular targeted therapies have a definitive role in the armamentarium used in many cancers.

Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Europe and worldwide, with the peak incidence in patients >70 years of age. However, as the treatment algorithms for the treatment of patients with CRC become ever more complex, it is clear that a significant percentage of older CRC patients (>70 years) are being less than optimally treated. This document provides a summary of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force meeting convened in Paris in 2013 to update the existing expert recommendations for the treatment of older (geriatric) CRC patients published in 2009 and includes overviews of the recent data on epidemiology, geriatric assessment as it relates to surgery and oncology, and the ability of older CRC patients to tolerate surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, treatment of their metastatic disease including palliative chemotherapy with and without the use of the biologics, and finally the use of adjuvant and palliative radiotherapy in the treatment of older rectal cancer patients. An overview of each area was presented by one of the task force experts and comments invited from other task force members.

Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.

There are three distinct areas of cancer management that make bone health in cancer patients of increasing clinical importance. First, bone metastases are common in many solid tumours, notably those arising from the breast, prostate and lung, as well as multiple myeloma, and may cause major morbidity including fractures, severe pain, nerve compression and hypercalcaemia. Through optimum multidisciplinary management of patients with bone metastases, including the use of bone-targeted treatments such as potent bisphosphonates or denosumab, it has been possible to transform the course of advanced cancer for many patients resulting in a major reduction in skeletal complications, reduced bone pain and improved quality of life. Secondly, many of the treatments we use to treat cancer patients have effects on reproductive hormones, which are critical for the maintenance of normal bone remodelling. This endocrine disturbance results in accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures that can have a significant negative impact on the lives of the rapidly expanding number of long-term cancer survivors. Finally, the bone marrow micro-environment is also intimately involved in the metastatic processes required for cancer dissemination, and there are emerging data showing that, at least in some clinical situations, the use of bone-targeted treatments can reduce metastasis to bone and has potential impact on patient survival.

Early recognition of malnutrition and cachexia in the cancer patient: a position paper of a European School of Oncology Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss and cachexia are common, reduce tolerance of cancer treatment and the likelihood of response, and independently predict poor outcome. METHODS: A group of experts met under the auspices of the European School of Oncology to review the literature and-on the basis of the limited evidence at present-make recommendations for malnutrition and cachexia management and future research. CONCLUSIONS: Our focus should move from end-stage wasting to supporting patients' nutritional and functional state throughout the increasingly complex and prolonged course of anti-cancer treatment. When inadequate nutrient intake predominates (malnutrition), this can be managed by conventional nutritional support. In the presence of systemic inflammation/altered metabolism (cachexia), a multi-modal approach including novel therapeutic agents is required. For all patients, oncologists should consider three supportive care issues: ensuring sufficient energy and protein intake, maintaining physical activity to maintain muscle mass and (if present) reducing systemic inflammation. The results of phase II/III trials based on novel drug targets (e.g. cytokines, ghrelin receptor, androgen receptor, myostatin) are expected in the next 2 years. If effective therapies emerge, early detection of malnutrition and cachexia will be increasingly important in the hope that timely intervention can improve both patient-centered and oncology outcomes.