Benedetta Ruggeri

Aprepitant Versus Dexamethasone for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Delayed Emesis in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Double-Blind Study

PURPOSE A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy containing anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide in patients with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to verify whether dexamethasone is superior to aprepitant in preventing delayed emesis in patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing aprepitant versus dexamethasone was completed in chemotherapy-naive patients with breast cancer treated with anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice per day or aprepitant 80 mg once per day. Primary end point was rate of complete response (ie, no vomiting or rescue treatment) from days 2 to 5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Of 580 enrolled patients, 551 were evaluable: 273 received dexamethasone, and 278 received aprepitant. Day 1 complete response rates were similar: 87.6% for dexamethasone and 84.9% for aprepitant (P < .39). From days 2 to 5, complete response rates were the same with both antiemetic prophylaxes (79.5%; P < 1.00), as were results of secondary end points (ie, complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < .24). Incidences of insomnia (2.9% v 0.4%; P < .02) and heartburn (8.1% v 3.6%; P < .03) were significantly greater with dexamethasone on days 2 to 5. CONCLUSION In patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, dexamethasone was not superior to aprepitant but instead had similar efficacy and toxicity in preventing delayed emesis.

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER NCT00869310.BACKGROUND A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER NCT00869310.

Inappropriate doses of chemotherapy in Italian breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND The dose of delivered chemotherapy is important to evaluate the appropriateness of the anticancer treatment. This aspect has been scarcely studied in Italy. About 7 years ago, the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research (IGAR) published a large controlled study on the effectiveness of different antiemetic prophylaxis in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, where the prescribed chemotherapy was recorded. The aim of our study was to evaluate the incidence of undertreatment and to detect clinical and nonclinical factors able to explain its variability. METHODS An observational study on the IGAR databank was performed to evaluate the incidence of undertreatment in the prescription in conditions of clinical trial, where the doses belonged to the eligibility criteria, and to analyze the importance of clinical and nonclinical factors using multifactorial logistic models. RESULTS 317 patients receiving cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) and 224 anthracycline-based chemotherapy were considered. In the CMF-treated patients, 22.4% received full doses, whereas in 53.6% all three drugs of the schedule were down-dosed. In the anthracycline-treated group, 38.6% and 3.4% of patients submitted to chemotherapy containing epirubicin and doxorubicin, respectively, were undertreated. Logistic models showed that undertreatment in CMF-treated patients depended significantly on the geographic area and setting of chemotherapy administration. Although not significant, differences between age class and Karnofsky performance status were also detected. In the epirubicin-treated group, all these factors were significant. CONCLUSIONS The undertreatment of cancer patients is a relevant problem, because it could give, in daily clinical practice, worse results than those reported in clinical studies. Considering the setting of a clinical trial where our study was carried out, the incidence of undertreatment is surprisingly high. We do not know whether today, about 8 years after the IGAR study was carried out, the inappropriate dose of chemotherapy is still as frequent as we reported, but surely the topic deserves more attention.

A new payment-by-results method for determining the fair price of new oncological drugs

The high prices of new cancer drugs are likely to undermine national health services sustainability. As a solu tion to this problem, the “payment-by-results” method was proposed and nowadays this approach is commonly implemented by national drug agencies: the drug manufacturer is set to refund to the National Health Service the price of the drug if the benefits expected for the patient are not achieved. Based on the payment-by-results approach, we developed a new and easy to implement model, that can set a fair price, so that neither industry, nor National Health Service can obtain an undue gain. Obviously, this price can be modified by adjusting refund amounts to new healthcare and market conditions.

Conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists: a national survey

Objectives To assess Italian medical oncologists’ opinion on the implications of conflict of interest (COI) on medical education, care and research, and to evaluate their direct financial relationships. Design National cross-sectional survey conducted between March and April 2017 among Italian oncologists. Setting Online survey sponsored by the Italian College of Medical Oncology Chiefs through its website. Participants Italian oncologists who filled out an anonymous questionnaire including 19 items and individual and working characteristics. Main outcome measure The proportion of medical oncologists perceiving COI as an outstanding issue and those receiving direct payments from industry. Results There were 321 respondents, representing 13% of Italian tenured medical oncologists. Overall, 62% declared direct payments from the pharmaceutical industry in the last 3 years. Sixty-eight per cent felt the majority of Italian oncologists have a COI with industry, but 59% suppose this is not greater than that of other specialties. Eighty-two per cent consider that most oncology education is supported by industry. More than 75% believe that current allocation of industry budget on marketing and promotion rather than research and development is unfair, but 75% consider it appropriate to receive travel and lodging hospitality from industry. A median net profit margin of €5000 per patient enrolled in an industry trial was considered appropriate for the employee institution. Sixty per cent agree to receive a personal fee for patients enrolled in industry trials, but 79% state this should be reported in the informed consent. Over 90% believe that scientific societies should publish a financial report of industry support. Finally, 79% disagree to being a coauthor of an article written by a medical writer when no substantial scientific contribution is made. Conclusions Among Italian oncologists COI is perceived as an important issue influencing costs, education, care and science. A more rigorous policy on COI should be implemented.

On the new payment-by-results method for determining the fair price of new drugs. An application in Oncology

A new payment-by-results method, published in a previous issue of this Journal was applied in two Italian oncological centers to show how it is easily implemented. This allowed us to make some considerations concerning clinical oncological research, as well as to draw some conclusions on the possible savings that this approach can deliver to the Italian National Health Service.