Search

Introduction: Olanzapine administered at a 10mg dosage for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting may be associated with fatigue, drowsiness and reduced general activity. Therefore, a 5mg dose may be preferred, to reduce the occurrence of adverse events. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis, and report on the efficacy of olanzapine administered at 5mg, relative to when administered at 10 mg. Methods: We used previously-published data from the systematic review by Chow et al which identified 17 adult trials which used 10mg doses, 3 which used 5mg doses, and 1 which used a mix of 5 and 10mg doses. A multivariate network meta-analysis using a restricted maximum likelihood model was used. Results: The complete response rate in the acute phase is not statistically different, between 5mg and 10mg doses of olanzapine – RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83 – 1.13. Additionally, in the overall phase, 5mg olanzapine is similarly as efficacious as 10mg olanzapine – RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56 – 1.60. Evaluation of data demonstrated that there was inadequate information to compare the toxicities of the two doses. Conclusion: Our analyses support individual published trials, and the rationale for future trials to compare 5mg to 10mg olanzapine regimens in head-to-head comparisons.

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h) and overall (0–120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Background: Managing delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is an unmet need. AC-based HEC is often administered to breast cancer patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology antiemetic guidelines recommend that if breakthrough CINV occurs, treatment should include an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, as well as intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. The primary objective of this study is to retrospectively determine the incidence of IV hydration in post AC chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Methods: The charts of 270 breast cancer patients receiving AC chemotherapy at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and on initial 3-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimens were retrospectively reviewed to determine the frequency, incidence, and timing of IV hydration. The hydration incidence was determined for 4 consecutive cycles of AC chemotherapy. The need for hydration was recorded post chemotherapy (e.g., nausea, vomiting, anorexia, loss of appetite, decreased oral intake). Physician and nurse chart notes were reviewed, including documented hydration visits post AC chemotherapy to outpatient infusion areas, local hospital emergency departments, or local hospital inpatient admissions. This report focuses on the patients who were on a guideline-recommended 3-drug regimen (palonosetron [Palo] + Neurokinin-1 [NK1] + dexamethasone [Dex], or ondansetron [Ond] + NK1 + Dex). These patients were followed and monitored for 4 consecutive cycles of AC chemotherapy, and the incidence of hydrations in different cycles was evaluated. Results: 270 patients were included in this analysis; 179 patients received Palo + NK1 + Dex (Group 1) and 91 patients received Ond + NK1 + Dex (Group 2) antiemetic regimens. Of the 179 patients in Group 1, 28 (16%) received hydration post chemotherapy, and 20 (22%) of the 91 patients in Group 2 received hydration (P=0.198, Chi-square test). Demographics and clinical characteristics of the 48 patients receiving hydration are presented in the Table. 28 patients in Group 1 had a total of 36 hydrations, the majority (20 [56%]) of which were in Cycle 1. 26/28 patients received rescue antiemetic treatment at the time of hydration, and 11 had a change in their prophylactic antiemetic regimen after hydration in subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Similarly, in Group 2, 20 patients had a total of 25 hydrations, with the majority (13 [52%]) in Cycle 1. 19 patients received rescue antiemetic treatment at the time of hydration, and 10 had a change in their prophylactic antiemetic regimen in subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Conclusions: The incidence of IV hydration post chemotherapy in breast cancer patients following AC-based HEC regimens occurred predominantly in the first cycle. Unscheduled hydrations, which occur when patients require evaluation in the clinic, and/or emergency department, may be complementary events for breakthrough measurement in CINV and could serve as a surrogate of associated healthcare utilization costs. Further clinical trials may consider evaluating unscheduled hydrations rates as part of a composite complete response endpoint (no breakthrough, no rescue medication, no unscheduled hydration). Table: Demographic and Antiemetic Regimens for Patients Requiring Post-chemo HydrationGroup 1Group 2Palo + NK1 + DexOnd + NK1 + Dex(n=179)(n=91)Post-chemo hydration, n (%)28 (16)20 (22)Demographics and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Post-chemo Hydration (n=48)Median age, years (range)s56 (35-73)58 (33-70)Sex, n (%)Female27 (96)20 (100)Male1 (4)0ECOG Performance Status, n (%)015 (53)12 (60)112 (43)7 (35)201 (5)Unknown1 (4)0IV access, n (%)Central26 (93)20 (100)Peripheral2 (7)0Antiemetic Regimens Prior to Chemotherapy and Hydration RequirementsTotal number of patients requiring hydration, n (%)28 (16)20 (22)Total number of hydrations, n3625Number of hydrations in Cycle 1, n (%)20 (56)13 (52)Visits, n (%)Office16 (57)12 (60)Emergency department12 (43)8 (40)Rescue antiemetic(s) at time of hydration, n (%)26 (93)19 (95)Prophylactic antiemetic regimen switched, n (%)11 (39)10 (50)Dex = dexamethasone; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IV = intravenous;NK1 = Neurokinin-1; Ond = ondansetron; Palo = palonosetron. Citation Format: Rudolph M. Navari, Michael C. Mosier. Incidence of intravenous (IV) hydration post anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy in breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS9-61.

Background: CINV remains a challenging chemotherapy toxicity, particularly for anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting or use of rescue medication over 5 days after chemotherapy, has been the standard endpoint for successful antiemetic prophylaxis, yet duration of prophylaxis treatment failure (i.e., breakthrough CINV) is rarely assessed. Previous work demonstrated that initial cycle breakthrough CINV is associated with at least one subsequent cycle with CINV (Schwartzberg 2011), and that longer duration CINV is associated with more lost work time and impaired activity (Schwartzberg ASCO 2020). We sought to evaluate the duration of breakthrough CINV in cycle one and its association with individual patients’ repeat breakthrough CINV in subsequent cycles. Methods: Days of CINV was a prespecified endpoint in a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (Dex) for patients with breast cancer receiving AC; the primary endpoint was CR. Patients without CR were classified as prophylaxis treatment failure (TF) and categorized as short TF (sTF, 1-2 days) or extended TF (xTF, ≥3 days), consistent with work by Ballatori [2006] and Roeland [2019]. We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR, sTF, and xTF for cycles 1-4 and assessed likelihood of CR for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 TF duration, using chi-square statistics. Results: Of 402 patients in cycle 1, 303 had CR and 99 (24.6%) had TF. Duration of TF in cycle 1 was sTF for 48 patients while 51 patients had xTF. Patients with sTF in cycle 1 often experienced CR in cycle 2 (32/46 remaining patients; 69.6%) while patients with xTF in cycle 1 often had TF in cycle 2 (38/49; 77.6%). Patients had >84% likelihood of repeating their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles, those with sTF in cycle 1 had CR in 75/108 later cycles (69.4%) while xTF in cycle 1 led to CR in 32/105 later cycles (29.0%), p Impact of Extended CINV in Cycle 1 on CINV in Later CyclesTF1P valueInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)Total TF1 (99/402)Short TF1 (48/99)Extended TF1 (51/99)Short vs Extended TF1Later CR cycles (n, % of total later cycles)107 (50.2%)75 (69.4%)32 (29.0%) Citation Format: Rudolph M. Navari, Gary Binder, Eric J. Roeland, Alexander Molassiotis, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Marco Turini, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Duration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) as a predictor of later-cycle CINV [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-27.

Background: Although many studies have demonstrated consistent levels of effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis for the entire study population across multiple chemotherapy cycles, rarely have studies reported how each patient’s risk of subsequent CINV differs based on prior cycle breakthrough CINV with the same prophylaxis. We lack data on whether prophylaxis continues to fail in the same group of patients each cycle, or whether failure is random with each subsequent cycle. We sought to evaluate individual patients’ risk of repeat CINV in each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Methods: In a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (day 1) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after chemotherapy. Patients without CINV were classified as complete response (CR); the rest as treatment failure (TF). We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR and TF, and compared CR or TF for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 outcomes, using chi-square statistics. To provide context, we performed a post-hoc similar analysis of results reported by Herrstedt et al [2005] from a clinical trial of ondansetron + aprepitant (APR) for patients with breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of AC. Results: The 402 female patients in the NEPA trial received a total of 1,299 cycles. In cycle 1, 99 (24.6%) patients experienced TF (TF1); over all 4 cycles, TF occurred 253 times (19.5%). Patients with CR in cycle 1 (CR1) had a ≥92% rate of CR in cycle 2; their rates of repeat CR were similar in each subsequent cycle. Patients with TF1 had nearly equal risk of CR or TF in cycle 2 (45:55); thereafter 85% of this TF1 subgroup repeated their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles of NEPA, patients with CR1 subsequently had CR in >90% of cycles 2-4; those with TF1 subsequently had TF in 49.8% of cycles 2-4 (p Repeat CINV in Later Cycles, Based on Cycle 1 ResultsNEPAAprepitant + OndansetronInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)CR1 (303/402)TF1 (99/402)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)CR1 (220/433)TF1 (213/433)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)Subsequent CR cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)636 (93.0%)107 (50.2%) Citation Format: Rudolph M Navari, Gary Binder, Alexander Molassiotis, Eric Roeland, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Lina Y. Dimberg, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-09.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. Results Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. Conclusions Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. Implications for Practice After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Background Integrating Geriatric Assessment (GA) in the management of older adults with cancer is recommended, yet rarely practiced in routine oncologic care. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of integrating routine GA in the management of older adults with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies and characterize impairments in this population. Methods Patients ≥60yo referred for consultation to the GI Oncology clinic were asked to complete the Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) on their first visit. CARE was adapted from the Cancer and Aging Research Group GA with modifications to create a completely patient-reported version of the GA. Feasibility was defined as completion of CARE by ≥80% of eligible patients during the initial consultation. Results Of the eligible 354 new patients seen in the GI Oncology Clinic, 323 (91.2%) completed the CARE survey. Most patients (83.1%) felt the length of time to complete was appropriate (median time of 10 min [IQR 10–15.7 min]). GA impairments were prevalent: 54.7% reported dependence in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, 15.5% reported dependence in Activities of Daily Living, 20.9% reported ≥1 fall, 35.9% reported a performance status ≥2, 55.7% were limited in walking one block, 74.0% reported polypharmacy (≥4 medications), and 36.4% had ≥3 comorbidities. Conclusions Performing a GA in the routine care of older adults with GI malignancies is feasible, and GA impairments are common among this population. A fully patient-reported GA such as the CARE may facilitate broader incorporation of GA in the routine clinic work flow.

Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-07.

Background NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron] offers 5‐day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion‐site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. Materials and Methods This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double‐blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30‐minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. Results A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment‐related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment‐related injection‐site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0–120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. Conclusion IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection‐site reactions in patients receiving AC. Implications for Practice As a combination of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5‐HT3RA, NEPA offers 5‐day chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection‐site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA., Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a combination antiemetic that offers five‐day prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting with a single dose. This article evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous NEPA in the setting of anthracycline/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

Objectives: HTX-019 (Cinvanti®) is a novel injectable emulsion formulation of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (RA) aprepitant, approved (as 30-min infusion and 2-min injection) for preventing ...

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue that affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Oral (aprepitant, 2003; netupitant, 2014; rolapitant, 2015) neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have been developed along with intravenous formulations (fosaprepitant, NEPA, rolapitant, HTX-019) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Areas covered: This review presents a description of the safety and efficacy of rolapitant along with a comparison to the other oral and intravenous formulations of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.Expert opinion: Oral rolapitant has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be safe and effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant has a longer half-life (180 h) than other commercially available NK-1 receptor antagonists and does not induce or inhibit CYP34A, unlike the other NK-1 receptor antagonists. Future studies may determine if these may be important clinical issues.

Introduction: HTX-019 (CINVANTI®) is a novel injectable emulsion formulation of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (RA) aprepitant, approved for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). HTX-019 has demonstrated a tolerable safety profile when administered via 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion and 2-min IV injection in healthy volunteers. This prospective study evaluated the safety of HTX-019 administered via 30-min IV infusion and 2-min injection (IV push) in patients with cancer. Materials and methods: This prospective single-center, randomized, safety, 2-sequence, 2-period, crossover study evaluated HTX-019 130 mg within a guideline-recommended 3-drug regimen for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed at 0-30 (primary endpoint), 30-60, and >60 mins (chemotherapy administration period) following the initiation of the HTX-019 administration, focusing on infusion-site adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions (dyspnea, anaphylaxis). Results: Among 135 patients (35 MEC, 100 HEC), the most common diagnoses were ovarian (32), lung (17), endometrial (17), and colorectal (15) cancer. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a 2-min injection and a 30-min infusion of HTX-019 (sequence AB or BA), followed by a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA IV (palonosetron 0.25 mg for 30 s or ondansetron 8-16 mg for 5-10 mins), dexamethasone IV (8-12 mg for 15 mins), and the chemotherapy regimen. Both administration methods were generally well tolerated. No TEAEs occurred within 30 mins after start of HTX-019 administration. All TEAEs occurred during chemotherapy administration; 2 patients experienced 2 TEAEs following injection, and 5 experienced 8 TEAEs following infusion. Three adverse events following infusion (2 dyspnea, 1 throat closing) were considered serious. No TEAEs were considered related to HTX-019. Conclusion: Short injection of HTX-019 has a tolerable safety profile in patients with cancer, and represents an alternative method of HTX-019 administration for CINV prevention.

12107 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a major adverse effect of cancer treatment, can attenuate life quality. Multiple international antiemetic guidelines have recommended a 4-drug regimen (corticosteroid, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and the antipsychotic medication olanzapine) for decreasing highly emetogenic CINV. This raised a question regarding whether antiemetic therapy regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy could be de-intensified, decreasing cost and side effects from anti-emetogenic agents. Methods: Study A221602 was developed to compare two olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with the use of an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Patients (pts) received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy as either 1) cisplatin, given on one day, at a dose of ≥ 70 mg/m2, with or without other chemotherapy agent(s) or 2) doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) on one day. Pts in both arms received 1) a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron 0.25 mg IV or ondansetron 8-16 mg IV or 16-24 mg PO,) on day one, 2) dexamethasone (12 mg PO, day one followed by 8 mg PO, days 2-4), and 3) olanzapine (10 mg/day PO, days 1 to 4). On Day 1, all agents were given prior to chemotherapy, with the exception that olanzapine could be taken prior to chemotherapy or at bedtime. Additionally, pts were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV; 346 pts) or a matching placebo (344 pts). The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following receipt of their chemotherapy between the two study arms. Results: While there was no suggestion of outcome differences on day 1 between the two study arms, fewer pts (7.4%; upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) without NK-1 receptor antagonists were without nausea for the complete 5-day study period. Conclusions: Per the study design, created to exclude a 10% benefit for NK-1 receptor antagonists, the results did not provide sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the 4-drug regimen was superior to the protocol 3-drug regimen (p=0.24). Support: UG1CA189823; Clinical trial information: NCT03578081.

e24109 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among cancer patients, and guidelines recommend appropriate prophylactic antiemetics. Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is associated with high risk of CINV that potentially lead to additional healthcare resource use. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes and resource utilization associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population. Methods: Cancer patients who received platinum–based HEC were identified in the All Payers Claims Database (APCD). The APCD is a database representing the US population with commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid insurance. Insurance claims denote medical care associated with payment, providing an optimal data source to study healthcare resource use. Study patients were age ≥18 years and administered IV 1) fosnetupitant/palonosetron (IV NEPA), 2) aprepitant/fosaprepitant + palonosetron (IV APPA) or 3) aprepitant/fosaprepitant + ondansetron (IV APON) along with HEC. Patients were identified from 1/2016 - 12/2019. The index date was the first treatment date of a study antiemetic. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated in the baseline period, which was 12 months prior to the index date. The post-HEC follow-up period was 14 days, starting the day after each HEC administration. Outcomes were reported descriptively as weighted means, with the cycles of treatment as the unit of analysis, including nausea & vomiting, dehydration, fluid-electrolyte imbalances, and hydration therapy. Results: Study included 1,216 IV NEPA, 43,537 IV APPA, and 16,140 IV APON patients who received HEC. During the post-HEC follow-up period, IV NEPA patients reported fewer occurrences of nausea & vomiting and fluid-electrolyte imbalances per cycle of treatment when compared to IV APPA and IV APON patients. Despite having similar or more dehydration claims for IV NEPA, the occurrence of hydration therapy was lower or similar to the other study groups. (Table). Conclusions: The choice of antiemetics to prevent CINV among cancer patients receiving HEC may impact real-world outcomes and healthcare resource use.[Table: see text]

Introduction The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24–120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0–120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. Results Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. Conclusion Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-020-05935-7.

Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

Background: In order to improve care and reduce costs of cancer treatment, attention has focused on reducing inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) utilization. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented an oncology outcome measure (OP-35) to assess the quality of care and determine outpatient hospital payment. It assesses 30-day post-chemotherapy rates of IP or ED events deemed “potentially avoidable” by CMS due to association with any of 10 CMS-defined toxicities: anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, nausea, emesis, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis. Although CMS found that 20% of chemotherapy treatment resulted in such events, event rates with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) are understudied, particularly for breast cancer (bCA) patients treated with anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin, or cisplatin. Methods: In a large electronic health record database focused on US integrated delivery networks, HEC courses of therapy were identified from 4Q 2012 to 3Q 2017. IP/ED events within 30 days of chemotherapy administration were considered related to the OP-35 measure if they included a diagnosis code of any of the ten OP-35 toxicities, per CMS' definitions. HEC chemotherapy use, IP/ED events, bCA diagnosis, and toxicities were identified by ICD-9, ICD-10, and procedural codes. Subgroups were evaluated for 3 common HECs: AC, carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), and cisplatin. Results: 4128 courses of HEC in bCA were identified. Of these, 2304 involved AC (median 4 cycles), 1721 involved carboplatin (median 6 cycles), and 103 involved cisplatin (median 4 cycles), with median ages of 55, 59, and 64, respectively. 30-day IP/ED events were seen in 25% of these HEC bCA courses (22%, 30% and 23% for AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin, respectively). The 10 CMS-defined toxicities were associated with an IP/ED event for 73%, 72%, and 76% of events for these AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin courses respectively, confirming that these are principal contributors to 30-day IP/ED use for patients receiving HEC in bCA. The top five that were most commonly associated with IP/ED for bCA for patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin were pain 53%/49%/63%, anemia 51%/51%/38%, fever 48%/31%/38%, neutropenia 46%/27%/31%, and nausea/emesis 30%/40%/25%; patients may have had ≥1 toxicity associated with each IP/ED event. The IP/ED rate may be understated because some events, particularly ED, may occur out of the network the EHR data covers. Conclusion: One quarter of patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for bCA visit the ED or are hospitalized within 30 days of at least one of their chemotherapy administrations. Most events involved ≥1 of 10 toxicities deemed avoidable causes of hospitalization by CMS and now tracked as an oncology outcome measure. Relative to patients receiving AC, acute care rates for patients receiving carboplatin were lower for fever and neutropenia and higher for nausea/emesis, perhaps because the study period largely precedes the 2017 addition of carboplatin AUC ≥4 to national guidelines as HEC requiring triplet antiemetic prophylaxis. Toxicity prevention and symptom monitoring are crucial to reduce acute care needs. Citation Format: Ruddy KJ, Roeland EJ, LeBlanc TW, Binder G, Sebastiani S, Potluri R, Schmerold LM, Papademetriou E, Navari RM. Avoidable acute care use associated with nausea and emesis among patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-05.

IMPORTANCE: Nausea and vomiting, unrelated to chemotherapy, can be substantial symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of olanzapine for treating chronic nausea/vomiting, unrelated to chemotherapy, in patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study is a double-line, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted from July 2017 through April 2019, with analysis conducted in 2019. Eligible participants were outpatients with advanced cancer who had persistent nausea/vomiting without having had chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the prior 14 days. Chronic nausea was present for at least 1 week (worst daily nausea numeric rating scores needed to be greater than 3 on a 0-10 scale). INTERVENTIONS: Patients received olanzapine (5 mg) or a placebo, orally, daily for 7 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes were used for study end points. Data were collected at baseline and daily for 7 more days. The primary study end point (the change in nausea numeric rating scores from baseline to the last treatment day) and the study hypothesis were both identified prior to data collection. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients (15 per arm) were enrolled; these included 16 women and 14 men who had a mean (range) age of 63 (39-79) years. Baseline median nausea scores, in all patients, were 9 out of 10 (range, 8-10). After 1 day and 1 week, the median nausea scores in the placebo arm were 9 out of 10 (range, 8-10) on both days, compared with the olanzapine arm scores of 2 out of 10 (range, 2-3) after day 1 and 1 out of 10 (range, 0-3) after 1 week. After 1 week of treatment, the reduction in nausea scores in the olanzapine arm was 8 points (95% CI, 7-8) higher than that of the placebo arm. The primary 2-sided end point P value was

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. 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. 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. 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.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effects of the treatment.Areas covered: In order to minimize the effects of CINV on patients’ quality of life, practitioners should prescribe prophylactic antiemetics using the recommendations of the various international antiemetic guidelines. In addition, patients’ specific risk factor for CINV should be assessed to determine if additional interventions should be implemented for specific patients prior to the first course of chemotherapy.Expert commentary: If patients develop breakthrough, refractory, and/or anticipatory CINV despite the use of guideline directed antiemetics, additional antiemetics and/or non-pharmacologic interventions should be implemented. The purpose of the review is to outline an approach for the assessment and implementation of effective prophylactic measures to prevent CINV.

Nausea and vomiting is a common clinical issue in the advanced cancer patient. The etiology may be related to treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery) or non-treatment clinical issues related to the advanced cancer. A very detailed initial assessment of nausea/vomiting is indicated including frequency, duration, intensity, associated activities, and the presence of anorexia or cachexia and is necessary in order to determine a specific etiology which may allow a potentially specific successful intervention. Various international antiemetic guidelines have been developed for the successful prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis but the treatment of post-chemotherapy nausea/vomiting and of radiation-induced nausea/vomiting has been less successful. Chronic nausea/vomiting in the advanced cancer patient unrelated to treatment remains a significant clinical problem with few successful treatments and interventions. NCCN and ASCO palliative care guidelines provide various treatment suggestions but these are based on empiric evidence with very few clinical trials available to provide demonstrated effective treatments. Recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that olanzapine may be an effective agent for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis as well as treatment of chronic nausea and vomiting unrelated to treatment.

PURPOSE: After ASCO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations for triple antiemetic prophylaxis for carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4, and the publication of studies documenting avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involving nausea and vomiting (NV) and other toxicities, we studied clinician adherence to the guideline change and assessed avoidable acute-care use. METHODS: Using a large electronic health record database, we evaluated antiemetic prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines and post-chemotherapy avoidable acute-care use (defined as involving any of NV or 8 other toxicities) for patients initiating carboplatin or other chemotherapy from October 2012 to August 2018. RESULTS: We identified 11,554 carboplatin courses. After the guideline change adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (RAs) for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4, its use rose to 20% of courses from the prior average of 16%; virtually all courses also included a 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone. We found avoidable acute care in 23% of courses; one quarter of these events were associated with NV. Acute care rates after carboplatin mirrored those after other highly emetogenic chemotherapy or oxaliplatin and exceeded those after other chemotherapy regimens. The > 80% shortfall in adherence may have been caused by low awareness or acceptance of the guideline change and/or by poor awareness of avoidable acute-care use after carboplatin. CONCLUSION: Neurokinin-1 RA prophylaxis for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 remains low and largely unchanged despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network and ASCO 2017 recommendations for inclusion. NV and avoidable acute care involving NV seen after carboplatin were consistent with other highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Clinician action is required to remediate incomplete prophylaxis and to no longer place patient outcomes, resources for cancer treatment, and clinician reimbursement at risk.

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

12091 Background: The historical standard clinical trial endpoint for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been assessment of complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication use) over five days. Recent evaluations focused on the duration of breakthrough CINV suggest that long duration of CINV results in more lost work time and impaired activity and is also a strong predictor for CINV in subsequent cycles. A recent pooled analysis of three similarly designed registration trials of NEPA, a fixed oral combination NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant)/5-HT3RA (palonosetron), showed significantly higher CR rates during the delayed phase (≥24-120h) for NEPA compared to an aprepitant (APR) regimen. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the extent and duration of breakthrough CINV in these pooled studies. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and antiemetic prophylaxis of either a single dose of NEPA plus dexamethasone (DEX) or a 3-day APR/5-HT3 RA/DEX regimen from three randomized, double-blind pivotal trials were included. Patients without a CR were defined as treatment failures. Extent of CINV was evaluated using proportions of patients with treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea (defined as >25 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale). Over the 5-day overall phase, duration was categorized as 1-2, and ≥3 days. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to compare risks between treatments for each duration category in each of the previously mentioned endpoints. Results: Among all 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, a significantly greater proportion of APR patients experienced treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea for ≥3 days. Specifically, among patients with treatment failure, 31% (41/134) who received NEPA and 43% (61/143) who received APR experienced breakthrough CINV for ≥3 days. Conclusions: Expanding on data suggesting single-day NEPA is more effective than 3-day APR in preventing delayed CINV, NEPA is also more effective in minimizing the extent and duration of CINV in patients with breakthrough emesis and nausea.[Table: see text]

Background: Patients (pts) with breast cancer often receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy, such as anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). Additionally, young age and female gender are risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in response to emetogenic chemotherapy. We assessed the ability of the long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), rolapitant, in the prevention of CINV over multiple cycles in pts with breast cancer Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the prevention of CINV in a subset of pts with breast cancer from 3 similarly-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in which pts received a single oral dose of 180 mg rolapitant or placebo before chemotherapy. All pts received an oral 5-HT3 RA + dexamethasone (active control). The regimens were cisplatin-based (n=36), AC-based (n=681) or other (n=166; carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, etc). Pts who completed cycle 1 could continue the same antiemetic treatment in multiple cycles. Endpoints for cycle 1 of chemotherapy included complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and no emesis, and no nausea (maximum visual analogue scale [VAS] 24–120 h) phases. On days 6-8 of each subsequent chemotherapy cycle, pts self-reported the incidence of emesis or nausea interfering with normal daily life. Results: In cycle 1, CR in both the overall (62.9% rolapitant, 55.1% control; p=0.018) and delayed (66.7% rolapitant, 59.7% control; p=0.032) phases were higher with rolapitant vs control . Rolapitant also improved no emesis rates in the overall (74.4% rolapitant, 62.6% control; p Conclusions: Rolapitant added to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone therapy improved CINV control and was safe and well-tolerated in pts with breast cancer receiving multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy, mostly AC and carboplatin, historically a high-risk population for CINV. Pt-Reported Response in Multiple Cycles, % (n/N)* No Emesis No Interfering Nausea CycleRolapitant 180 mgActive Controlp-value *Rolapitant 180 mgActive Controlp-value *288.3 (323/366)80.0 (308/385)0.00271.6 (262/366)68.3 (263/385)0.329390.5 (297/328)80.5 (293/364) Citation Format: Schwartzberg L, Navari R, Arora S, Powers D, Jordan K, Rapoport B. Rolapitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-11-15.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015.METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 01, 2009 through January 06, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted.RESULTS: There were three phase III randomized trials in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant and eight single arm non-randomized clinical studies (single in patients undergoing transplantation and one in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy treatment). We used a total of two randomized clinical trials in this guideline update. For patients receiving treatment for breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, a phase III randomized trial investigating the use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and a second single arm study looking at the effectiveness of olanzapine were identified.CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant (125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg orally on days 2 to 4) is recommended before chemotherapy. For patients undergoing multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant, are recommended before chemotherapy for the prophylaxis of acute emesis and delayed emesis. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests the use of 10 mg oral olanzapine, daily for 3 days. Mild to moderate sedation in this patient population (especially elderly patients) is a potential problem with this agent.

Purpose Addition of rolapitant to standard antiemetic therapy improved protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in phase 3 trials of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Here, we assessed the impact of CINV on the daily lives of patients receiving HEC or MEC using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Methods In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18–126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies. Results In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of CINV. Palonosetronis a second generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Netupitant is a new NK-1 receptor antagonist with a high binding affinity and a long half-life of 90 hours. NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (300 mg of netupitant plus 0.50 mg of palonosetron). Phase II and phase III clinical trials have demonstrated that NEPA significantly improved the prevention of CINV compared to the use of palonosetron alone in patients receiving either highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Adverse events were similar for the NEPA and the palonosetron groups. NEPA (Akynzeo) has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting in patient...

One of the most important changes in cancer treatment in recent decades has been the development of treatment regimens that greatly reduce the incidence and intensity of nausea and vomiting. The most effective regimens and how they work are reviewed.

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK1RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT3RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK1RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naive patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK1RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK1RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK1RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.

e24133 Background: The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on work loss and activity impairment is important to patients yet not well described in literature. We sought to evaluate CINV-related work loss and activity impairment and their associations with CINV duration. Methods: In a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous netupitant/palonestron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) (12mg day 1 only) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after AC. Pre-specified endpoints included CINV duration (0-5 days), patient reported CINV-associated work loss (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment survey), and CINV-related impaired activity [0 (none) - (worst) Likert scale] for chemotherapy cycles 1 and 2. CINV-related work loss and activity impairment could involve nausea with or without vomiting or rescue medication use. We categorized CINV duration as 1-2 days (d) or ≥3 d, and compared results using the chi-squared test. We report here on the first 2 cycles. Results: Survey data was captured for 792 cycles in 402 female patients including 132 (32.8%) employed patients. Mean age was 55.4. CINV was observed in 173 (21.8%) of total cycles. CINV-related work loss was reported in 26 (3.3% of all cycles, 15.0% of cycles with CINV, 38.2% of employed patient cycles with CINV) while 142 had related activity impairment. When we categorized cycles by CINV duration, CINV-related work loss was seen in 25.9% of 81 cycles with ≥3 d CINV duration vs. 5.4% for 92 cycles of 1-2 d of CINV (p < 0.001); mean scores of CINV-related impaired activity were 5.0 for ≥3 d CINV vs 3.0 for 1-2 d CINV (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite guideline recommended prophylaxis, CINV occurred in > 20% of AC cycles. In cycles with CINV, CINV-related work loss occurred in 38.2% for employed patients while activity impairment occurred in 82.1% for all patient cycles. The majority of CINV lasted 1-2 d. Notably, ≥3 d of CINV was associated with considerably higher levels of work loss and activity impairment suggesting that duration may be a meaningful measure of CINV impact. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712 . [Table: see text]

Background & Aim Infection with Human papillomavirus (HPV) is major cause of the cervical carcinoma. Approved vaccines based on induction of antibodies (Abs) against HPV-L1 capsid protein provide prophylactic immunity against infection but no therapeutic effect on already infected individuals who might develop cancer. Alternatively, for anti-tumor immunotherapy purposes, induction of cellular immune responses against HPV oncogenic proteins, especially E7 is required. The oncogenic potential of HPV-E7 antigen (Ag) however, promoted us to search for a modified (mutated/deleted) form of this Ag with eliminated transforming properties but retained antigenicity. Methods, Results & Conclusion Herein, we first present application of several immune-informatics tools to evaluate the changes in the antigenicity, MHC binding/processing and cellular responses of the reported HPV16-E7 mutations responsible for its main transformation capabilities including del 21-24, C24G, L67R, C58G,C91G, M84S, V69A, L79A, QKP96-98EEA and their various combinations. Finally, the HPV16-E7 with triple substitutions of C24G/L67R/C91G (mE7) which showed the maximal antigenic similarity profile to that of the wild type was synthesized and inserted in pET28a vector for expression of protein in E.coli. SDS-PAGE and WB analyses confirmed the expression of the 17 kDa recombinant mE7 protein which was purified by NI-NTA chromatography using the vector encoded 6xHis-taq. The E.coli-derived Ag in combination with human compatible adjuvants including: Montanaide ISA 50 (M50), ISA 720 (M720), Pluronic acid (F127) in mixture with Immunostimulatory CpG ODN 1826 (mE7+M50/CpG; mE7+M720/CpG; mE7+F127/CpG, respectively) was evaluated in immunized C57BL/6 mice. Evaluation of the lymphocytes replication by the Brdu method and cytokine measurements by ELISA indicated that all groups developed significant immune responses, but mice immunized with mE7+M50/CpG showed the highest stimulation index (0.4) and INF-γ levels (150 pg/ml) comparable to those immunized by mE7+complete/incomplete Freund adjuvants (C/IFA). Accordingly, the IL-4 cytokine levels were almost similar and lower (20 pg/ml) for all groups indicating a Th1 polarization. Results of the tumor-challenge studies on TC1 cells in tumor bearing mice showed complete reduction/inhibition of tumor growth for mE7+M50/CpG immunized mice, indicating the potency of this formulation as a candidate immunotherapeutic vaccine against HPV infection-induced cancer.

Introduction The aim is to conduct an updated systematic review comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT3RAs for the prophylaxis of CINV, assess for publication biases, and determine whether further RCTs are required, that could potentially lead to a different meta-conclusion. Methods Random-effects analysis model was used to generate odds ratio (OR), risk differences (RD) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). Funnel plots to assess for biases and cumulative meta-analyses to assess effect size over time were generated. Results 4145 patients were randomized to palonosetron and 4911 received other 5-HT3RAs. In the majority of efficacy endpoints, the meta-conclusion has not changed over time - recent clinical trials simply narrow CIs the meta-conclusion. Safety profile boasts a stable conclusion over time. No publication biases exist. Conclusion Considering the vast amount of resources needed to conduct RCTs, resources should be dedicated to other prophylactic treatments/settings which have not been as well explored.