Thomas M. Beck

Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE To propose a classification of the acute emetogenicity of antineoplastic chemotherapy agents, and to develop an algorithm to define the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS A Medline search was conducted to identify (1) clinical trials that used chemotherapy as single-agent therapy, and (2) major reviews of antiemetic therapy. The search was limited to patients who received commonly used doses of chemotherapy agents, primarily by short (< 3 hours) intravenous infusions. Based on review of this information and our collective clinical experience, we assigned chemotherapy agents to one of five emetogenic levels by consensus. A preliminary algorithm to determine the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens was then designed by consensus. A final algorithm was developed after we analyzed a data base composed of patients treated on the placebo arms of four randomized antiemetic trials. RESULTS Chemotherapy agents were divided into five levels: level 1 (< 10% of patients experience acute [< or = 24 hours after chemotherapy] emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis); level 2 (10% to 30%); level 3 (30% to 60%); level 4 (60% to 90%); and level 5 (> 90%). For combinations, the emetogenic level was determined by identifying the most emetogenic agent in the combination and then assessing the relative contribution of the other agents. The following rules apply: (1) level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenic level of a combination; (2) adding > or = one level 2 agent increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination; and (3) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent. CONCLUSION The proposed classification schema provides a practical means to determine the emetogenic potential of individual chemotherapy agents and combination regimens during the 24 hours after administration. This system can serve as a framework for the development of antiemetic guidelines.

Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Trastuzumab Predicts Favorable Survival in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Overexpressing Breast Cancer: Results From the TECHNO Trial of the AGO and GBG Study Groups

PURPOSE To evaluate efficacy and safety of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with centrally confirmed HER2-overexpressing breast cancer (≥ 2 cm or inflammatory) received four 3-week cycles epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (90/600 mg/m(2)) followed by four 3-week cycles paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and trastuzumab (6 mg/kg) before surgery. Trastuzumab was continued after surgery to complete 1 year of treatment. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) defined as no residual invasive tumor in breast and lymphatic tissue. RESULTS Thirty-nine percent of 217 enrolled patients achieved a pCR. Breast conservation was possible in 64% of patients. Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 88% in patients with pCR compared to 73% in patients without pCR (P = .01). Three-year overall survival (OS) was 96% in patients with pCR compared to 86% in patients without pCR (P = .025). pCR was the only significant prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.1; P = .013) and OS (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 17.4; P = .012) in multivariable analysis. Cardiac toxicity was reported in eight patients (3.7%) of whom six presented with an asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction decrease and two with symptomatic chronic heart failure. CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy resulted in a high pCR rate in HER2-overexpressing primary breast cancer. Patients with a pCR after neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance trastuzumab have an improved long-term outcome. Patients without a pCR had an increased risk for relapse and death.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron alone and in combination with intravenous dexamethasone in the prevention of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis.

PURPOSE This study compares the efficacy and safety of ondansetron alone with that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2). PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter study used a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design. Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran, Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg for three doses every 4 hours beginning 30 minutes before cisplatin administration either alone or in combination with dexamethasone 20 mg administered 45 minutes before cisplatin. Cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2) was administered as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes (EEs), adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS A total of 275 patients were enrolled. Of these, 245 were assessable for efficacy. Patients who received ondansetron plus dexamethasone had a higher complete antiemetic response rate (61% v 46%, P = .02) and less nausea (posttreatment visual analog scale mean 18.2 v 32.8, P < .001) than did those who received ondansetron alone. The time to the first EE was longer for patients in the group that received ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P = .005). Headache (12%), diarrhea (2%), and abdominal colic (1%) were the most common antiemetic-related adverse events reported. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION IV ondansetron in combination with dexamethasone is safe and more effective than ondansetron alone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.

MOPP/ABV hybrid chemotherapy for advanced Hodgkin's disease significantly improves failure-free and overall survival: the 8-year results of the intergroup trial.

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of sequential mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP) followed by doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) versus the MOPP/ABV hybrid regimen in advanced-stage Hodgkins disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 737 patients with previously untreated stages III2A, IIIB, IVA, or IVB Hodgkins disease and patients in first relapse after radiotherapy were prospectively randomized to sequential MOPP-ABV or MOPP/ABV hybrid. Of 691 eligible patients, 344 received the sequential regimen and 347 received the hybrid. RESULTS The overall response rate was 95%, with complete responses (CRs) in 79%: 83% on the MOPP/ABV hybrid and 75% on the sequential MOPP-ABVD arm (P = .02). With a median follow-up time of 7.3 years, the 8-year failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 64% for MOPP/ABV hybrid and 54% far sequential MOPP-ABVD (P = .01; 0.69 relative risk of failure, comparing MOPP/ABV hybrid v MOPP-ABVD). The 8-year overall survival rate was significantly better for the MOPP/ABV hybrid (79%) as compared with sequential MOPP-ABVD (71%) (P = .02; relative risk, 0.65). MOPP/ABV hybrid had significantly more life-threatening or fatal neutropenia and pulmonary toxicity than the sequential MOPP-ABVD arm, which was associated with significantly greater thrombocytopenia. Nine cases of acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplasia were reported on the sequential regimen as compared with only one on the hybrid (P = .01). CONCLUSION MOPP/ABV hybrid chemotherapy was significantly more effective than sequential MOPP-ABVD. FFS and overall survival were significantly improved on the hybrid arm, which was also associated with a lower incidence of acute leukemia or myelodysplasia.

Stratified, randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron administered as a multiple-dose regimen versus two single-dose regimens in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE This study compares the efficacy and safety of two single-dose regimens with the approved three-dose regimen of ondansetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter study was a stratified, randomized, double-blind, and parallel group design. Chemotherapy-naive inpatients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran; Glaxo Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg times three doses, every 4 hours or a single 8-mg or 32-mg dose followed by two saline doses that began 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Cisplatin (high-dose > or = 100 mg/m2 or medium-dose 50 to 70 mg/m2) was given as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes, adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS A total of 699 patients (359 high-dose, 340 medium-dose) were enrolled. Of these, 618 were assessable for efficacy (15 ineligible, 66 protocol deviations). The 32-mg dose was superior to the 8-mg single dose with regard to total number of emetic episodes (high-dose, P = .015; medium-dose, P < .001), complete response (no emetic episodes: high-dose, 48% v 35%; P = .048; medium-dose, 73% v 50%; P = .001) and failure rate (> 5 emetic episodes, withdrawn or rescued: high-dose, 20% v 34%; P = .018; medium-dose, 9% v 23%; P = .005). The 32-mg single dose was also superior to the 0.15 mg/kg times three dose regimen with regard to total number of emetic episodes (medium-dose, P = .033) and failure rate (high-dose, 20% v 36%; P = .009; medium-dose, 9% v 22%; P = .011). Ondansetron was well tolerated. The most common adverse event was headache. An approximate 10-fold increase in the incidence of clinically significant transaminase elevations was observed in the high-dose versus medium-dose cisplatin strata (aspartate aminotransferase [AST], 6.5% v 0.7%; serum alanine aminotransferase [ALT], 5.0% v 0.3%). CONCLUSION A 32-mg single dose of ondansetron is more effective than a single 8-mg dose and is at least as effective as the standard regimen of 0.15 mg/kg times three doses in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis.

Treatment of limited small-cell lung cancer with etoposide and cisplatin alternating with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide and chest radiotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group Study.

The Goldie-Coldman model explaining the kinetics of tumor cell kill and drug resistance has a potential application in designing chemotherapy regimes. In this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial we tested the alternation of two potentially noncrossresistant drug combinations with a concurrent drug combination in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. The concurrent drug combination consisted of etoposide (VP-16), 75 mg/m2/intravenously (IV), days 1, 2, and 3; vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 40 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (EVAC). The alternating combination consisted of VP-16, 100 mg/m2/IV, days 1, 2, and 3; and cisplatin (CDDP), 100 mg/m2/IV, day 1, alternating with vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin, 50 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (VP-16/CDDP-VAC). Chemotherapy was administered at 3-week intervals for six cycles both before and after chest (5,000 rads/5 weeks) and whole brain radiotherapy (3,000 rads/2 weeks). One hundred ninety-nine patients received EVAC and 201 received the alternating combination. There was no significant difference in the response rate to the initial six cycles of treatment with EVAC (CR, 40%) versus the alternating combination (CR, 38%). There was no significant difference between the best response, EVAC (CR, 48%) and VP-16/CDDP-VAC (CR, 51%). Median survival for all randomized patients on EVAC is 15.1 months versus 16.5 months on the alternating combination (P = .58). Toxicities consisted primarily of bone marrow suppression, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathies, and alopecia. As in previous trials, the chest was the most common site of relapse (33%). There were no differences in the incidence and sites of relapse between the two treatment arms. These treatments appear equally effective at inducing remission and prolonging survival in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

Multicenter Phase II Study to Evaluate a 28-Day Regimen of Oral Fluorouracil Plus Eniluracil in the Treatment of Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of fluorouracil (5-FU) plus eniluracil when administered to patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this single-arm phase II study, patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer received oral eniluracil plus 5-FU (10:1 dose ratio), at 5-FU doses of 1.00 mg/m(2) or 1.15 mg/m(2) twice daily (every 12 hours) for 28 consecutive days repeated every 5 weeks (one cycle). Treatment continued until there was documented disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS Thirty and 25 patients were enrolled at a starting dose of 1.00 mg/m(2) and 1.15 mg/m(2), respectively. Fourteen (25%) of 55 patients (95% confidence interval, 15% to 39%) had a partial response, and 20 patients (36%) had stable disease. The median durations of the partial responses and stable disease were 23.9 weeks (range, 12.3 to 52.1+ weeks) and 24.1 weeks (range, 17.1 to 55.6+ weeks), respectively. The median durations of progression-free and overall survival were 22.6 weeks (range, 21.0 to 29.0 weeks) and 59 weeks (range, 4 to 84+ weeks), respectively. The response rate in the 1.15 mg/m(2)-dose group was similar to the 1.00 mg/m(2)-dose group (28% v 23%, respectively). Severe (grade 3/4) nonhematologic treatment-related toxicity included diarrhea (nine patients), nausea/vomiting (one patient each), mucositis (two patients), and anorexia (one patient). Severe hematologic toxicities were rare. At the 1.15 mg/m(2)-dose level, two patients exhibited grade 3 granulocytopenia, and two patients had grade 3 anemia. CONCLUSION The response rate with oral 5-FU plus eniluracil is comparable with that observed with infusional 5-FU or bolus 5-FU and leucovorin. The toxicity profile of this oral regimen is acceptable for use in an outpatient home-based setting.

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

PURPOSE This 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS One 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. RESULTS Complete 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. CONCLUSION A 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.

Comprehensive Survivorship Care With Cost and Revenue Analysis

PURPOSE The 2015 Commission on Cancer standards require that cancer survivors receive an individualized survivorship care plan (SCP). To meet this new standard, St Lukes Mountain States Tumor Institute (MSTI), with support from the National Community Cancer Centers Program, implemented a successful survivorship model. PATIENTS AND METHODS At MSTI, the patients SCP is prepared in the electronic health record by a registered health information technician. This document is reviewed during an appointment with a nurse practitioner and social worker. The providers dictation is mailed to the primary care physician with the SCP. From August 2011 to Oct 2012, 118 patients with breast cancer were seen for survivorship appointments. Medical record audit and follow-up telephone call were completed to evaluate patient survivorship needs and satisfaction with the appointment. Patient accounts were reviewed for reimbursement. RESULTS From medical record review, the most common patient concerns were weight management (35%), fatigue (30%), sexuality (27%), anxiety (23%), caregiver stress (17%), and depression (16%). Telephone calls showed high patient satisfaction and understanding. Patients rated the following statements on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree): I understand my treatment summary and care plan (88% strongly agree or agree), and I feel the survivorship visit met my survivorship needs (86% strongly agree or agree). At 1 month, 80% of participants were still working on wellness goals. Patient accounts analysis showed revenue covered costs. CONCLUSION Survivorship care at MSTI meets new standards, allows for patient engagement and satisfaction, and improves care coordination. Costs are covered by reimbursement.

Abstract P1-11-03: Pathological Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy + Trastuzumab Treatment Predicts Survival and Detects a Patient Subgroup at High Need for Improvement of Anti-HER2 Therapy. Three Year Median Follow-Up Data of the TECHNO Trial

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel/trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing primary breast cancer (BC). Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-overexpressing primary BC (≥2cm or inflammatory BC) received preoperative 4 cycles epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (90/600 mg/m2), q3w) followed by 4 cycles paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q3w with trastuzumab 6 mg/kg body weight q3w (8 mg/kg as loading dose) followed by surgery. Trastuzumab was continued after surgery until completion of 12 months treatment. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR) defined as no invasive tumor in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. Results: Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled. 39% achieved a pCR. Breast conserving surgery was possible in 138/217 (64%) of the patients. Median follow-up was 41 months and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 88% in patients with pCR compared to 73% in patients without pCR (p=0.01). Three year overall survival (OS) was 96% in patients with pCR compared to 86% without pCR (p=0.025). In multivariate analysis pCR remained a significant prognostic factor for DFS and OS (DFS hazard ratio (HR) 2.5 [95% CI 1.2-5.1] p=0.013; OS HR 4.9 [95% CI 1.4-17.4] p=0.012). A cardiac event was reported in 8/217 (3.7%) patients; 6 had an LVEF decrease and two developed 2 (0.9%) clinical congestive heart failure. Conclusion: The neoadjuvant combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy results in a high chance for a pCR. However, those patients without a pCR have an increased risk for relapse and death and are therefore candidates for further improvement of anti-HER2 directed therapy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-11-03.