David Warr

The Oral Neurokinin-1 Antagonist Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients Receiving High-Dose Cisplatin—The Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group

PURPOSE In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

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

Cognitive Function, Fatigue, and Menopausal Symptoms in Women Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE There is evidence that cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms may occur in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Here, we determine their incidence and severity, and interrelationships between them and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this study, 110 women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy each nominated a female relative, friend, or neighbor (matched by age) as a control; 100 eligible matched pairs were evaluated. Patients and controls completed the following assessments: the High-Sensitivity Cognitive Screen, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale with subscales for fatigue (FACT-F) and endocrine symptoms (FACT-ES). They also performed tests of attention and reaction time. RESULTS Patients and controls were well matched for age and level of education. There was a higher incidence of moderate or severe cognitive impairment in the patient group (16% v 4%; P =.008). Patients experienced much more fatigue than controls (median FACT-F scores, 31 v 46; P <.0001) and more menopausal symptoms (median FACT-ES scores, 58 v 64; P <.0001). Self-reported quality of life of the patients was poorer than for controls, especially in physical and functional domains (median FACT-G scores, 77 v 93; P <.0001). There was strong correlation between fatigue, menopausal symptoms, and quality of life (P <.0001 for each pair), but none were significantly associated with the presence of cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSION Adjuvant chemotherapy causes cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer. Priority should be given to the study of strategies that might reduce these toxic effects.

Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy added to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with node-positive estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer: a report of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Breast Cancer Site Group.

PURPOSE AND METHODS By the mid 1980s, tamoxifen alone was considered standard adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive breast cancer. From 1984 through 1990, 705 eligible postmenopausal women with node-positive, ER- or PgR-positive breast cancer were randomized to a National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) study that compared tamoxifen 30 mg by mouth daily for 2 years (TAM) versus TAM plus chemotherapy with all-intravenous cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 given every 21 days for eight cycles (CMF). RESULTS There were no significant differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival between the two treatment arms. However, there was significantly greater severe toxicity, which included leukopenia (P < .0001), nausea and vomiting (P < .0001), and thromboembolic events (P < .0001), as well as significantly more mild or greater toxicity, which included thrombocytopenia (P = .04), anemia (P = .02), infection (P = .0004), mucositis (P = .0001), diarrhea (P = .0001), and neurologic toxicity (P = .006), in women who received TAM plus CMF. CONCLUSION The addition of CMF to TAM adds no benefit and considerable toxicity in this group of women.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Emesis over Multiple Cycles of Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles.

Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) Improves Pain and Well-Being in People With Advanced Cancer Already Receiving a Strong Opioid Regimen: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Cross-Over Trial

PURPOSE To determine whether adding regular acetaminophen (paracetamol) could improve pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer and pain despite strong opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants took acetaminophen for 48 hours and placebo for 48 hours. The order (acetaminophen or placebo first) was randomly allocated. Pain was the primary outcome. Preferences, number of opioid breakthrough doses, overall well-being, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, constipation, and cold sweats were secondary outcomes. Patients rated themselves daily with visual analog scales (VAS) and a verbal numeric scale (VNS) for pain, all scaled from 0 to 10. RESULTS Thirty patients completed the trial. The oral opioid was morphine in 23 patients and hydromorphone in seven patients. The median daily opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 200 mg (range, 20 to 2,100 mg). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or both were used by 16 patients. Pain and overall well-being were better for patients receiving acetaminophen than for those receiving placebo. The mean difference was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8; P =.03) in VNS for pain, 0.6 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.3; P =.09) in VAS for pain, and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.4; P =.05) in VAS for overall well-being. More patients preferred the period they took acetaminophen (n = 14) than the period they took placebo (n = 8), but many had no preference (n = 8). There were no differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION Acetaminophen improved pain and well-being without major side effects in patients with cancer and persistent pain despite a strong opioid regimen. Its addition is worth considering in all such patients.

Ondansetron compared with dexamethasone and metoclopramide as antiemetics in the chemotherapy of breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil.

BACKGROUND Although ondansetron was found to be effective as an antiemetic in numerous clinical trials of highly emetogenic combination-chemotherapy regimens that included cisplatin, its role in milder emetogenic regimens has not been fully defined. To address its use with a widely used but less emetogenic regimen, we performed a double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing ondansetron with dexamethasone and metoclopramide in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. METHODS A total of 165 women with breast cancer from 14 Canadian centers who were about to receive this chemotherapy for the first time were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron (n = 85) or dexamethasone plus metoclopramide (n = 80), a widely used, standard antiemetic regimen. The patients recorded the incidence of nausea, emesis, and other side effects in diaries, and these data were compared in the two groups. RESULTS The patients who received dexamethasone and metoclopramide had significantly less nausea during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy was begun. Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the regimens. The incidence of drowsiness and increased appetite was higher in the group given dexamethasone and metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS For women with breast cancer who are being treated with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, the efficacy of dexamethasone and metoclopramide in controlling nausea and vomiting equaled or exceeded that of ondansetron.

Multicenter, randomized, cross-over clinical trial of venlafaxine versus gabapentin for the management of hot flashes in breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE Nonhormonal pharmacologic interventions are recommended for the treatment of hot flashes in breast cancer survivors. Antidepressants and gabapentin have been shown to be both effective and well tolerated; however, it is not clear which is preferred. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a group-sequential, open-label, randomized, cross-over trial of 4 weeks of venlafaxine (37.5 mg daily for 7 days followed by 75 mg daily for 21 days) versus gabapentin (300 mg once per day for 3 days, then 300 mg twice per day for 3 days, then 300 mg three times per day for 22 days), with patient preference as the primary outcome. Postmenopausal women with at least 14 bothersome hot flashes per week for the prior month were eligible. A 2-week baseline period and a 2-week tapering/washout time was used before the first and second treatment periods, respectively. Diaries were used to measure hot flashes and potential toxicities throughout the study. Participants completed a preference questionnaire at the end of the study. A predefined Pocock stopping rule was applied. Patient preference and hot flash and toxicity outcomes were compared between treatments. RESULTS Sixty-six patients were randomly assigned, 56 of whom provided a preference (eight dropped out and two had no preference); 18 (32%) preferred gabapentin and 38 (68%) preferred venlafaxine (P = .01). Both agents reduced hot flash scores to a similar extent (66% reduction). Venlafaxine was associated with increased nausea, appetite loss, constipation, and reduced negative mood changes compared with gabapentin, whereas gabapentin was associated with increased dizziness and appetite compared with venlafaxine (all P < .05). CONCLUSION Breast cancer survivors prefer venlafaxine over gabapentin for treating hot flashes.

Delayed emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Data on the incidence and efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis against delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy are scanty. An overview of the literature has been done that showed the efficacy of dexamethasone in two of three randomized trials. Its optimal dose and duration of administration has not been defined. Only one of four randomized studies showed a statistically significant efficacy of 5-HT3 antagonists. Finally, only weak evidence has been published on the efficacy of dopamine receptor antagonists.

Quality of Life Studies in Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis

Health-related quality of life (HQL) was assessed before and after either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When the pretreatment HQL in patients who did not vomit after chemotherapy (n = 203) was compared to those who vomited (n = 230), it was found that patients who did not vomit had better physical, role, and social function scores as well as a better global quality of life score than did patients who had one or more episodes of vomiting. Furthermore, in patients who did not vomit, the pretreatment fatigue and anorexia scores were better than in patients who did vomit. Thus, pretreatment HQL scores appear to have value in predicting which patients will experience chemotherapy-induced emesis. In the week following chemotherapy, HQL change scores from prechemotherapy values for cognitive function, global quality of life, fatigue, anorexia, insomnia and dyspnea were significantly worse in the group experiencing emesis than in the group who remained completely free of emesis. There were no differences in physical, role, emotional and social function attributable to chemotherapy-induced vomiting.