M. G. Kris

Quality-of-life benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin alfa is independent of disease response or tumor type: results from a prospective community oncology study. Procrit Study Group.

PURPOSEnTo evaluate prospectively the effectiveness of epoetin alfa as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with cancer based on changes in quality-of-life parameters and hemoglobin levels, and to correlate these changes with antitumor response.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnTwo thousand three hundred seventy patients with nonmyeloid malignancies who received chemotherapy were enrolled onto this study from 621 US community-based practices. Patients received epoetin alfa 10,000 U three times weekly, which could be increased to 20,000 U three times weekly depending on the hemoglobin response at 4 weeks. Treatment continued for a maximum of 16 weeks in patients who showed evidence of hematologic response.nnnRESULTSnTwo thousand two hundred eighty-nine patients (97%) were eligible for efficacy analyses. Epoetin alfa therapy was associated with improved quality-of-life parameters; these improvements correlated significantly with hemoglobin levels and were independent of tumor response. Provider-reported Karnofsky performance scores did not correlate with the improved quality-of-life changes. Epoetin alfa therapy was also associated with a significant increase in hemoglobin levels and decrease in transfusion use. Tumor type, chemotherapy agent/regimen, prior chemotherapy, baseline hemoglobin level, and baseline erythropoietin level were not predictive of a positive response to treatment. Epoetin alfa was well tolerated.nnnCONCLUSIONnEpoetin alfa appears to have a beneficial impact on patient-reported functional capacity and quality of life in patients with cancer who received chemotherapy independent of tumor response. Concordantly, epoetin alfa appeared to increase hemoglobin levels and decrease transfusion use. Patients responded across all tumor types. The results suggest that epoetin alfa effectively improves functional outcomes in patients with cancer who receive chemotherapy.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for Antiemetics in Oncology: Update 2006

PURPOSEnTo update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.nnnUPDATE METHODOLOGYnThe Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.nnnRECOMMENDATIONSnThe three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk. CONCLUSION The Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients emetic risk categories and other characteristics.

Recommendations for the Use of Antiemetics: Evidence-Based, Clinical Practice Guidelines

THE GOAL OF ANTIEMETIC therapy is to prevent nausea and vomiting completely. This goal is achieved for many patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and is based on clinical and basic research that has steadily improved the control of emesis over the last 20 years. As therapy has become more effective, it has also become safer, with few side effects associated with the most commonly used regimens. These regimens are convenient for patients to receive and for health care professionals to administer. However, despite improvements, a significant number of patients still experience emesis, and efforts to reduce this side effect of treatment must continue. As antiemetic usage has grown, the classes of agents available for antiemetic treatment, the number of agents, and the indications for antiemetics have all increased as well. The prevention of delayed emesis and anticipatory emesis is equal in importance to the need to prevent acute chemotherapyand radiation-induced emesis. Additionally, managing special and difficult emetic problems and selecting the proper antiemetic approach necessitate identification of the patient’s emetic risk. Although the neuropharmacologic basis of emesis is still incompletely understood, the selection of an appropriate antiemetic regimen is possible and can have an impact on several aspects of clinical care. Goals related to the complete control of emesis, ie, no vomiting, include providing care that is convenient for the patient, treatment that reduces hospitalization and time in the ambulatory setting, and therapy that enhances the patient’s quality of life. Additionally, practitioners need to be mindful of reducing costs of treatment while achieving these goals. 1-3

Clinical Cancer Advances 2008: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening—A Report From the American Society of Clinical Oncology

A message from ASCOS president: Nearly 40 years ago, President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, mobilizing the countrys resources to make the conquest of cancer a national crusade. That declaration led to a major investment in cancer research that has significantly improved cancer prevention, treatment, and survival. As a result, two thirds of people diagnosed with cancer today will live at least 5 years after diagnosis, compared with just half in the 1970s. In addition, there are now more than 12 million cancer survivors in the United States--up from 3 million in 1971. Scientifically, we have never been in a better position to advance cancer treatment. Basic scientific research, fueled in recent years by the tools of molecular biology, has generated unprecedented knowledge of cancer development. We now understand many of the cellular pathways that can lead to cancer. We have learned how to develop drugs that block those pathways; increasingly, we know how to personalize therapy to the unique genetics of the tumor and the patient. Yet in 2008, 1.4 million people in the United States will still be diagnosed with cancer, and more than half a million will die as a result of the disease. Some cancers remain stubbornly resistant to treatment, whereas others cannot be detected until they are in their advanced, less curable stages. Biologically, the cancer cell is notoriously wily; each time we throw an obstacle in its path, it finds an alternate route that must then be blocked. To translate our growing basic science knowledge into better treatments for patients, a new national commitment to cancer research is urgently needed. However, funding for cancer research has stagnated. The budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute have failed to keep pace with inflation, declining up to 13% in real terms since 2004. Tighter budgets reduce incentives to support high-risk research that could have the largest payoffs. The most significant clinical research is conducted increasingly overseas. In addition, talented young physicians in the United States, seeing less opportunity in the field of oncology, are choosing other specialties instead. Although greater investment in research is critical, the need for new therapies is only part of the challenge. Far too many people in the United States lack access to the treatments that already exist, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. Uninsured cancer patients are significantly more likely to die than those with insurance, racial disparities in cancer incidence and mortality remain stark, and even insured patients struggle to keep up with the rapidly rising cost of cancer therapies. As this annual American Society of Clinical Oncology report of the major cancer research advances during the last year demonstrates, we are making important progress against cancer. But sound public policies are essential to accelerate that progress. In 2009, we have an opportunity to reinvest in cancer research, and to support policies that will help ensure that every individual in the United States receives potentially life-saving cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. Sincerely, Richard L. Schilsky, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Controlling delayed vomiting: double-blind, randomized trial comparing placebo, dexamethasone alone, and metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in patients receiving cisplatin.

The majority of patients receiving cisplatin at a dose of 120 mg/m2 experience delayed nausea and vomiting occurring between 24 and 120 hours after chemotherapy administration. Ninety-one patients who were receiving cisplatin (120 mg/m2) as initial chemotherapy were entered into this double-blind trial. All patients received intravenous (IV) metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and lorazepam for the control of acute emesis during the period from 0 to 24 hours after cisplatin. Patients were then randomized to one of three treatment regimens: placebo; oral dexamethasone, 8 mg twice daily for two days, then 4 mg twice daily for two days; or the combination of oral metoclopramide, 0.5 mg/kg four times daily for four days, plus oral dexamethasone administered as above. Forty-eight percent of individuals who received the two-drug combination of metoclopramide plus dexamethasone experienced delayed vomiting as opposed to 65% who were administered dexamethasone alone and 89% who received placebo (P = .006). Scores assessing the severity of delayed nausea and vomiting were consistently worse in individuals receiving placebo. The incidences of sleepiness, restlessness, heartburn, hiccoughs, loose bowel movements, insomnia, and acute dystonic reactions did not differ significantly among the three regimens and were mild and self-limited. The two-drug combination of oral metoclopramide plus dexamethasone is well tolerated, safe, and more effective than dexamethasone alone or placebo in controlling delayed vomiting following cisplatin.

Double-blind, randomized comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis in patients with cancer. Dolasetron Comparative Chemotherapy-induced Emesis Prevention Group.

PURPOSEnTo assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in preventing cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnCancer patients (n = 609) receiving first-course cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to one of three treatments: 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg dolasetron mesylate salt (equivalent to 1.3 and 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron base, respectively) or 32 mg ondansetron. Each treatment was infused over 15 minutes, 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Patients were stratified to cisplatin doses of > or = 70 and less than 91 mg/m2 (n = 368) or > or = 91 mg/m2 (n = 241), administered over < or = 3 hours. Protocol-defined efficacy criteria included complete response (zero emetic episodes and no rescue medication), major response (1 to 2 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), and patients report of nausea severity and satisfaction recorded on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).nnnRESULTSnThe three treatments met protocol-specified criteria for equivalence. Complete response rates for dolasetron mesylate 1.8 mg/kg, 2.4 mg/kg, and ondansetron, respectively, were 49.2%, 45.6%, and 50.4% for patients in the lower cisplatin stratum (mean, 74.7 mg/m2) and 36.8%, 31.3%, and 31.8% in the higher cisplatin stratum (mean, 100.6 mg/m2). No significant differences were observed in the extent of nausea with either dolasetron dose compared with ondansetron. Less nausea was noted with 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose (P = .044) All three antiemetic treatments were well tolerated. Asymptomatic electrocardiogram changes were recorded with both dolasetron and ondansetron.nnnCONCLUSIONnA single IV dose of dolasetron mesylate (1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg) has comparable safety and efficacy to a single 32-mg IV dose of ondansetron in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

Dose-ranging evaluation of the serotonin antagonist GR-C507/75 (GR38032F) when used as an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy.

GR-C507/75 (GR38032F) antagonizes the 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor and prevents cisplatin-induced emesis in animals. In this dose-ranging trial, 44 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy known to produce nausea and vomiting (including cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin) received three intravenous (IV) infusions of GR-C507/75 every two hours beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Ten dosage levels were explored, ranging from 0.04 mg/kg to 0.35 mg/kg in each of the three infusions. Toxicities were mild and included sedation, dizziness, headache, transient elevations of SGOT or alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and dry mouth. No akathisia or acute dystonic reactions were observed. Antiemetic effects were seen in patients receiving cisplatin at 120 mg/m2. GR-C507/75 can be safely administered on this schedule at IV dosages up to 0.35 mg/kg in patients receiving chemotherapy. Further studies of this agent at higher dosages and by different schedules are appropriate.

Clinical cancer advances 2007

A MESSAGE FROM ASCOS PRESIDENT: For the third year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is publishing Clinical Cancer Advances: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening, an annual review of the most significant cancer research presented or published over the past year. ASCO publishes this report to demonstrate the important progress being made on the front lines of clinical cancer research today. The report is intended to give all those with an interest in cancer care-the general public, cancer patients and organizations, policymakers, oncologists, and other medical professionals-an accessible summary of the years most important cancer research advances. These pages report on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening, the association between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer incidence, the link between human papillomavirus and head and neck cancers, and the use of radiation therapy to prevent lung cancer from spreading. They also report on effective new targeted therapies for cancers that have been historically difficult to treat, such as liver cancer and kidney cancer, among many others. A total of 24 advances are featured in this years report. These advances and many more over the past several years show that the nations long-term investment in cancer research is paying off. But there are disturbing signs that progress could slow. We are now in the midst of the longest sustained period of flat government funding for cancer research in history. The budgets for the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have been unchanged for four years. When adjusted for inflation, cancer research funding has actually declined 12% since 2004. These budget constraints limit the NCIs ability to fund promising cancer research. In the past several years the number of grants that the NCI has been able to fund has significantly decreased; this year, in response to just the threat of a 10% budget cut, the nations Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups reduced the number of patients participating in clinical trials by almost 2,000 and senior researchers report that many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in science, choosing other careers instead. Its time to renew the nations commitment to cancer research. Without additional support, the opportunity to build on the extraordinary progress to date will be lost or delayed. This report demonstrates the essential role that clinical cancer research plays in finding new and better ways to care for the more than 1.4 million people expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. I want to thank the Editorial Board members, the Specialty Editors, and the ASCO Cancer Communications Committee for their dedicated work to develop this report. I hope you find it useful. Sincerely, Nancy E. Davidson, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Adjusting the dose of intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone to the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen.

PURPOSEnThis pilot, open-label study evaluates the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a single 20-mg intravenous (IV) dose of dexamethasone combined with a single IV dose of ondansetron (32, 24, or 8 mg) in patients receiving highly emetogenic (HE), moderately high emetogenic (MHE), or moderately emetogenic (ME) chemotherapy, respectively.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnOne hundred forty-six patients received a single 20-mg IV dose of dexamethasone over 15 minutes beginning 45 minutes before chemotherapy and either a single 32-, 24-, or 8-mg IV dose of ondansetron over 15 minutes beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Patients were evaluated for emetic episodes, extent of nausea, and adverse events for 24 hours after chemotherapy.nnnRESULTSnComplete response (no emetic episodes) was noted in 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60% to 84%), 88% (95% CI, 79% to 97%), and 77% (95% CI, 63% to 92%) of patients in the HE, MHE, and ME categories, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced no nausea on the posttreatment assessment was 51% (95% CI, 37% to 64%), 69% (95% CI, 56% to 81%), and 47% (95% CI, 29% to 65%), respectively. The antiemetic regimens were all well tolerated. The proportion of patients with any drug-related adverse events did not vary across the three study groups despite the range of ondansetron doses and variety of chemotherapy regimens. Mild headache was noted in 28% of patients. Other adverse events, all of which were noted in fewer than 10% of patients, included lightheadedness, fatigue, dizziness, and constipation.nnnCONCLUSIONnA single IV dose of either 8, 24, or 32 mg of ondansetron combined with a single 20-mg IV dose of dexamethasone resulted in good control of acute emesis across a wide spectrum of chemotherapy regimens. Nausea control proved somewhat more difficult, with approximately 50% of patients in the HE and ME emetogenic categories experiencing some degree of nausea. The results of our pilot study suggest that adjusting the dose of ondansetron to the intrinsic emetogenicity of the chemotherapy regimen permits a more efficient use of ondansetron while maintaining good antiemetic control. Such an approach appears worthy of further investigation.

Control of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea with the synthetic enkephalin BW942C: a randomized trial with placebo in patients receiving cisplatin.

Diarrhea commonly occurs following the administration of cisplatin. BW942C, a pentapeptide, is a synthetic enkephalin shown to control castor oil-induced and travelers diarrhea. To assess the safety and efficacy of BW942C in controlling diarrhea caused by cisplatin, 30 adults with lung cancer who had already experienced diarrhea (three or more loose bowel movements) during the 24-hour period following a prior cisplatin administration were randomized to receive either BW942C or placebo during the next cisplatin course. All patients received a concomitant antiemetic regimen including metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and lorazepam during all courses. Patients administered BW942C experienced less diarrhea (27% v 67%, P = .02). Twenty-seven percent of patients given the pentapeptide had loose bowel movements as opposed to 93% who received placebo (P = .0002). There were no significant differences in the incidence and degree of vomiting and other treatment-related side effects observed between the placebo and treatment groups. We conclude that oral BW942C is more effective than placebo in controlling diarrhea following cisplatin chemotherapy.