Bernardo Rapoport

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index: A Multinational Scoring System for Identifying Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Cancer Patients

PURPOSE Febrile neutropenia remains a potentially life-threatening complication of anticancer chemotherapy, but some patients are at low risk for serious medical complications. The purpose of this study was to develop an internationally validated scoring system to identify these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Febrile neutropenic cancer patients were observed in a prospective multinational study. Independent factors assessable at fever onset, predicting low risk of complications, on a randomly selected derivation set, were assigned integer weights to develop a risk-index score, which was subsequently tested on a validation set. RESULTS On the derivation set (756 patients), predictive factors were a burden of illness indicating absence of symptoms or mild symptoms (weight, 5; odds ratio [OR], 8.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.15 to 16.38) or moderate symptoms (weight, 3; OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 2.18 to 6.29); absence of hypotension (weight, 5; OR, 7.62; 95% CI, 2.91 to 19.89); absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (weight, 4; OR, 5. 35; 95% CI, 1.86 to 15.46); presence of solid tumor or absence of previous fungal infection in patients with hematologic malignancies (weight, 4; OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.97 to 12.95); outpatient status (weight, 3; OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.02 to 6.04); absence of dehydration (weight, 3; OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.89 to 7.73); and age less than 60 years (weight, 2; OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.51 to 4.01). On the validation set, a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk-index score >/= 21 identified low-risk patients with a positive predictive value of 91%, specificity of 68%, and sensitivity of 71%. CONCLUSION The risk index accurately identifies patients at low risk for complications and may be used to select patients for testing therapeutic strategies that may be more convenient or cost-effective.

Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference

Despite the relevant progress achieved in the last 20 years,vomiting and, especially, nausea, continue to be two of themost distressing side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. In the late1990s several professional organizations publishedrecommendations on the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis inpatients submitted to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.Subsequently, due to the emergence of new findings and newantiemetic agents since the first recommendations from 1997,representatives from several oncology societies met in Perugia,Italy, in 2004 and updated the antiemetic guidelines. On 20–21June 2009 the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO)and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care inCancer (MASCC) organized the third Consensus Conferenceon antiemetics in Perugia. The results of this Conference arereported in this paper.The methodology for the guideline process was based ona literature review through 1 June 2009 using MEDLINE(National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA) and otherdatabases, with evaluation of the evidence by an expert panelcomposed of 23 oncology professionals in clinical medicine,medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology,oncology nursing, statistics, pharmacy, pharmacology, medicalpolicy and decision making. With the participating expertscoming from 10 different countries, on five continents, webelieve that this is the most representative and evidence-basedguideline process that has yet been performed.The panel comprised 10 committees dealing with majortopics in this field (e.g. acute or delayed nausea and vomitinginduced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Althoughprevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting inducedby highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC andMEC) had specific committees, these worked finally together, as

Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity--an update.

Development of effective antiemetic therapy depends upon an understanding of both the antiemetic agents and the emetogenic challenges these agents are designed to address. New potential antiemetic agents should be studied in an orderly manner, proceeding from phase I to phase II open-label trials and then to randomized double-blind phase III trials comparing new agents and regimens to best standard therapy. Use of placebos in place of antiemetic therapy against highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is unacceptable. Nausea and vomiting should be evaluated separately and for both the acute and delayed periods. Defining the emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents is a challenge, since such data are often not reliably recorded during early drug development. A four-level classification system is proposed for emetogenicity of intravenous antineoplastic agents. A separate four-level classification system for emetogenicity of oral antineoplastic agents, which are often given over an extended period of time, is also proposed.

Febrile neutropenia: a prospective study to validate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score

Abstract:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to prospectively validate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score in an attempt to accurately predict on presentation with febrile neutropenia those cancer patients who are at low- or high-risk for development of serious medical complications during the episode.Patients and methodsPatients who presented with febrile neutropenia during November 2000 and July 2002 were prospectively enrolled in the protocol. All patients were hospitalized until recovery or outcome of the event and were treated with broad-spectrum, empiric, intravenous antibiotic therapy. The MASCC risk-index score (based on seven independent factors present at onset of febrile neutropenia) was calculated in 64 patients with 80 febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients with a score of ≥21 were regarded as low risk; patients with a score of <21 were regarded as high risk.ResultsOf the 80 febrile neutropenic episodes, 58 were classified as low-risk and 22 as high-risk patients. Fifty-seven (98.3%) of the 58 low-risk patients recovered without complications, and three (13.6%) of the 22 high-risk patients did not develop medical complications. One low-risk patient developed a fungal infection but recovered completely in comparison to 11 high-risk patients (50%) who developed serious medical complications (p<0.001). None of the low-risk patients died. However, eight (36.4%) of the 22 high-risk patients died during the febrile neutropenic episode (p<0.001), six as a consequence of sepsis and two due to rapidly uncontrolled cancer.ConclusionWe correctly predicted 98.3% of low-risk patients and 86.3% of high-risk patients. This study had a positive predictive value of 98.3% and a negative predictive value of 86.4% with both a sensitivity and specificity of 95%. The MASCC risk-index score correctly identifies low- and high-risk patients at presentation with febrile neutropenia.

A proposed EGFR inhibitor dermatologic adverse event-specific grading scale from the MASCC skin toxicity study group

BackgroundAccurate grading of dermatologic adverse events (AE) due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (EGFRIs) is necessary for drug toxicity determinations, interagent comparisons, and supportive care trials. The most widely used severity grading scale, the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (NCI-CTCAE v4.0), was not designed specifically for this class of agents and may result in underreporting and poor grading of distinctive adverse events. We believe a class-specific grading scale is needed to help standardize assessment and improve reporting of EGFRI-associated dermatologic AEs.MethodsThe Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Skin Toxicity Study Group conducted an international multidisciplinary meeting that included 20 clinicians and researchers from academic centers and government agencies. Experts from different disciplines presented current information specific to EGFRI-induced dermatologic toxicities: grading scale development, pharmacovigilance safety reporting, health-related quality of life, patient reporting, and pharmacology. Group discussions, literature reviews, and professional expertise established the theoretical foundation for the proposed grading scale.ResultsA new grading system is proposed for the most common events associated with EGFRI-induced dermatologic AEs: papulopustular reaction or acneiform rash, nail changes, erythema, pruritus, xerosis, hair changes, telangiectasias, hyperpigmentation, mucositis, flushing, radiation dermatitis, hyposalivation, and taste changes. The proposed scale maintains consistency with the grading principles and language of the existing CTCAE version 4.0 and MedDRA terminology and includes relevant patient-reported health-related quality of life factors.ConclusionsA grading scale specific to EGFR inhibitor dermatologic AEs is presented for formal integration into future versions of CTCAE and for validation in clinical trial settings. The study group designed this scale to detect and report EGFRI-related toxicities with greater sensitivity, specificity, and range than the scales currently used. This scale should serve as a foundation for efforts to perform objective interdrug comparisons and assessments of supportive care treatment strategies more effectively than with current methods.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinicians discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. FINDINGS Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. INTERPRETATION Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING TESARO, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: A randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. METHODS We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinicians discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. FINDINGS Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. INTERPRETATION Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. FUNDING TESARO, Inc.

Doxorubicin-paclitaxel: A safe regimen in terms of cardiac toxicity in metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Results from a European organization for research and treatment of cancer multicenter trial

The potential cardiotoxicy of the doxorubicin‐paclitaxel regimen, when paclitaxel is given shortly after the end of the anthracycline infusion, is an issue of concern, as suggested by small single institution Phase II studies.

Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant: A 10-Year Review of Efficacy and Safety

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

Clinical presentation and management of dermatological toxicities of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors

The last decade in oncology has been highlighted by the emergence of novel, highly specific anti‐cancer agents, targeting a variety of molecular structures and able to inhibit aberrantly activated oncogenic pathways. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) represent one type of such “targeted” agents. Their use made treatment more tolerable and resulted in significant reduction of systemic adverse effects. However, EGFRIs are associated with toxicities affecting the skin and adnexal structures, and mucosal surfaces that affect the majority of treated patients. Significant dermatologic toxicities have changed the role and involvement of dermatologists in their care. It is essential to be familiar with these adverse effects, potential complications, long‐term sequelae, and available effective treatment strategies in order to appropriately manage these patients. This review will describe the clinical presentation, histopathology, underlying mechanisms, and management options, emphasizing evidence‐based approaches.