Double-Blind Phase III Randomized Trial of the Antiprogestin Agent Mifepristone in the Treatment of Unresectable Meningioma: SWOG S9005.

PURPOSE: Progesterone receptors are expressed in approximately 70% of meningiomas. Mifepristone is an oral antiprogestational agent reported to have modest activity in a phase II study. This multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial conducted by SWOG was planned to define the role of mifepristone in the treatment of unresectable meningioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone or placebo for 2 years unless disease progressed. Patients who were stable or responding to protocol therapy after 2 years had the option to continue with the same blinded therapy. Serial follow-up allowed assessment of efficacy and toxicity. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were ascertained for all randomly assigned patients. On progression, patients receiving placebo could cross over and receive active drug. RESULTS: Among 164 eligible patients, 80 were randomly assigned to mifepristone and 84 to placebo. Twenty-four patients (30%) were able to complete 2 years of mifepristone without disease progression, adverse effects, or other reasons for discontinuation. Twenty-eight patients (33%) in the placebo arm completed the 2-year study. There was no statistical difference between the arms in terms of failure-free or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Long-term administration of mifepristone was well tolerated but had no impact on patients with unresectable meningioma.

Efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron compared with IV palonosetron administered with dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid tumors receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron with intravenous (IV) palonosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: A multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolling adult chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant solid tumors scheduled to receive cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients received oral palonosetron (0.50 mg) or IV palonosetron (0.25 mg), each with oral dexamethasone. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with a complete response (CR, no emesis/no rescue medication) within the acute phase (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration). RESULTS: Of the 743 patients randomized, 739 received study medications and 738 were included in the full analysis set. The CR rate in the acute phase was high for both groups (oral 89.4 %; IV 86.2 %). As this difference in proportions (stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method) was 3.21 % (99 % confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 9.17 %), non-inferiority was demonstrated (since the lower limit of the 99 % CI was closer to zero than the predefined margin of 15 %). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to the study drug were rare (oral 3.2 %; IV 6.5 %). No TEAEs related to study drug leading to discontinuation were reported. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of oral versus IV palonosetron was demonstrated. The CR rate in the acute phase was >86 % in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable.

Unanticipated frequency and consequences of regimen-related diarrhea in patients being treated with radiation or chemoradiation regimens for cancers of the head and neck or lung.

PURPOSE: To better understand the indirect effects of standard courses of radiation therapy (RT) on distant tissue toxicity, we evaluated the frequency, course, and health and economic burden of regimen-related diarrhea in a large, multinational group of patients who were being treated for cancers of the head and neck (HNC) or lung (NSCLC). METHODS: In this exploratory, prospective study, 284 patients being treated for HNC and 60 being treated for NSCLC were stratified into four cohorts to evaluate the effect of radiation alone and radiation plus concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) on radiation-induced diarrhea (RID). RID was assessed daily throughout RT using a patient-reported five-point categorical scale. Health and resource use outcomes were evaluated at least weekly during radiation. RESULTS: Moderate to severe RID was reported in all groups and was worse among patient being treated with concomitant chemoradiation (CRT). Whereas 29 % of patients treated with radiation only developed RID, the incidence was 42 % among CRT-treated patients. Tumor site did not impact the rate of RID, but did impact the rate of development and was more acute in patients being treated for NSCLC than for HNC. Patients with significant RID had worse health and resource use outcomes than did patients without RID regardless of the form of treatment. G-tube placement, weight loss, unplanned office visits, and in-patient days were adversely affected by RID. Not surprisingly, patients treated with CRT had poorer health and resource outcomes than RT only patients, even in the absence of RID. CONCLUSION: In addition to local tissue toxicities, our results suggest that focal radiation may also be associated with significant distant tissue-centric injury here represented by RID. While these changes were seen with radiation alone, the addition of chemotherapy increased the incidence and burden of illness. RID adversely impacted resource use. This unanticipated finding supports the hypothesis that focal radiation therapy results in pathobiological changes that extend beyond the radiation field and which can produce distant changes.

Risk and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (CID) among patients with colorectal cancer receiving multi-cycle chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea is a common toxicity of chemotherapy, but the practice of reporting only severe grades (≥ 3) in clinical trials results in misleading conclusions of significance. Epidemiology remains poorly described, and effects of multi-cycle regimens have not been investigated. To better understand the risks, symptom burden and consequences of CID, we studied patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients receiving FOLFOX (95 patients, 530 cycles), FOLFOX + monoclonal antibodies (10 patients, 49 cycles) or FOLFIRI (9 patients, 50 cycles) were enrolled. CID was identified from diaries at baseline and daily during up to 8 chemotherapy cycles using supplemental questions on the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire, a valid tool for collecting patient-reported outcomes of regimen-related mucosal injury. Patients scored CID severity from 0 "none" to 10 "worst possible," and quantity from "little" to "severe" on a 5-point scale. Quality of life was measured using the FACT-G, and fatigue using the FACIT fatigue scale. RESULTS: CID occurred in 89% of patients on FOLFIRI, 50% on FOLFOX + monoclonal antibodies and 56% on FOLFOX alone. The risk of a first episode was highest during Cycle 1 (35 %) and dropped to <10% during Cycles 3-5. Patients with CID reported poorer quality of life scores than those without CID (77.1 vs 80.7). CONCLUSIONS: Diarrhea occurs more commonly than typically appreciated during chemotherapy for CRC. Risk is highest during first exposure, suggesting variable susceptibility. Identification of this high-risk subgroup for prophylaxis could improve the quality of life.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

Emerging treatments in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a concern for many cancer patients. It can have an enormous impact on quality of life. CINV occurring in the first 24 hours after treatment is considered acute, and CINV occurring on days 2 through 5 after treatment is considered delayed. Anticipatory nausea and depression can also occur when patients are reminded of their chemotherapy treatment. CINV can lead to weight changes, fatigue, and the need for additional medications. Even mild to moderate CINV can increase health care utilization and costs, as well as delay treatment. Nausea and vomiting are separate events, although their mechanisms are entwined. Drugs that stop vomiting do not necessarily treat nausea. Control of CINV allows patients to complete treatment and to minimize use of health care resources and additional medications. Current antiemesis agents, such as 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) antagonists and neurokinin-1 (NK-1) antagonists, have markedly decreased hospitalization for chemotherapy and have nearly eliminated acute emesis. The second-generation 5-HT3 receptor palonosetron has a unique pharmacology that makes it especially effective at preventing delayed emesis.

Molecular mechanisms underlying skeletal muscle weakness in human cancer: reduced myosin-actin cross-bridge formation and kinetics.

Many patients with cancer experience physical disability following diagnosis, although little is known about the mechanisms underlying these functional deficits. To characterize skeletal muscle adaptations to cancer in humans, we evaluated skeletal muscle structure and contractile function at the molecular, cellular, whole-muscle, and whole-body level in 11 patients with cancer (5 cachectic, 6 noncachectic) and 6 controls without disease. Patients with cancer showed a 25% reduction in knee extensor isometric torque after adjustment for muscle mass (P < 0.05), which was strongly related to diminished power output during a walking endurance test (r = 0.889; P < 0.01). At the cellular level, single fiber isometric tension was reduced in myosin heavy chain (MHC) IIA fibers (P = 0.05) in patients with cancer, which was explained by a reduction (P < 0.05) in the number of strongly bound cross-bridges. In MHC I fibers, myosin-actin cross-bridge kinetics were reduced in patients, as evidenced by an increase in myosin attachment time (P < 0.01); and reductions in another kinetic parameter, myosin rate of force production, predicted reduced knee extensor isometric torque (r = 0.689; P < 0.05). Patients with cancer also exhibited reduced mitochondrial density (-50%; P < 0.001), which was related to increased myosin attachment time in MHC I fibers (r = -0.754; P < 0.01). Finally, no group differences in myofilament protein content or ultrastructure were noted that explained the observed functional alterations. Collectively, our results suggest reductions in myofilament protein function as a potential molecular mechanism contributing to muscle weakness and physical disability in human cancer.

Efficacy of oral palonosetron compared to intravenous palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Palonosetron (Aloxi(®), Onicit(®)) is a pharmacologically unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) approved as a single IV injection for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) of either moderate or highly emetogenic potential (MEC and HEC, respectively). An oral palonosetron formulation has been developed and compared to the IV formulation. METHODS: In this multinational, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging trial, 651 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following as a single dose prior to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: oral palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg or IV palonosetron 0.25 mg. Patients were also randomized (1:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg IV or matched placebo on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue therapy) during the acute phase (0-24 h). RESULTS: Acute CR rates were 73.5, 76.3, 74.1, and 70.4 % for all patients receiving the palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg oral doses, and for IV palonosetron 0.25 mg, respectively; delayed CR (24-120 h) rates were 59.4, 62.5, 60.1, and 65.4 %, and overall CR (0-120 h) rates were 53.5, 58.8, 53.2, and 59.3 %, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone improved emetic control (acute CR rate) by at least 15 % for all groups except oral palonosetron 0.25 mg, where the acute CR improvement was approximately 7 %. Adverse events were similar in nature, incidence, and intensity for all oral and IV palonosetron groups, and were the expected adverse events for 5-HT3 RAs (primarily headache and constipation). CONCLUSION: Oral palonosetron has a similar efficacy and safety profile as IV palonosetron 0.25 mg and may be the preferred formulation in certain clinical situations. Among the tested oral treatments, a palonosetron 0.50-mg oral dose has been favored for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy due to a numerical gain in efficacy without a side effect disadvantage.

Patient-centered management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Oncology providers frequently underestimate the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and patients often are reluctant to report symptoms. Inadequate patient-provider communication is a significant barrier to optimal management of this debilitating toxicity. METHODS: The author reviews relevant published data and methods to optimize the clinical care of patients receiving chemotherapy with moderate-to-high emetogenic potential. RESULTS: Patient reticence plus physician expectations that patients will report symptoms accurately lead to lapses in communication and suboptimal clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Communication strategies should serve to encourage patients to share the responsibility for establishing goals of therapy and understanding the risks and benefits of their selected antiemetic regimen, thereby becoming active participants in their own cancer care.

Communicating about chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a comparison of patient and provider perspectives.

Despite recent progress, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially delayed CINV, continues to be a problem. Delayed CINV is underestimated and perceived differently by providers and patients. Communication between providers and patients about this side effect may help improve outcomes. This study identifies patients' and providers' perceptions of management and barriers to quality CINV care. Provider and patient versions of a Nausea and Vomiting Management Barriers Questionnaire were developed to address potential barriers. Providers and patients were given opportunities to add detail in open-ended questions. Providers were recruited through the NCCN and the Oncology Nursing Society mailing lists. Patients who received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy and experienced CINV were recruited through a consortium of advocacy groups. Both providers (n = 141) and patients (n = 299) completed the survey. Providers (41%) and patients (42%) agreed medication side effects were a concern, but more patients (63%) than providers (36%) tried to limit the number of medications taken (P < .0001). Many providers (67%) spontaneously reported barriers to managing CINV, with financial and patient-related factors among the most common. Few patients (10%) reported cost as a barrier, but 37% endorsed the desire "to be strong by not complaining." Barriers to communication and quality care of CINV differ between caregivers and patients. Addressing misconceptions and establishing mutually consistent goals will lead to more effective overall care.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting incidence and prevalence.

Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is recognized as having been an important problem during the initial introduction of chemotherapy into the antineoplastic armamentarium, the assumption that this problem has already been solved can restrict optimal management and further advances. Underestimation of nausea and vomiting may have many causes. If these toxicities are assumed to be necessary properties of chemotherapy, then their incidence may be taken for granted. If nausea and vomiting appear after discharge from the clinic several days after chemotherapy, these toxicities may not be reported because of poor recall or because of efforts by patients to avoid unnecessary complaints. Physician education may be compromised if physicians see nausea and vomiting as population problems but not problems for their own patients. Failure to recognize nausea and vomiting as two distinct entities that may appear independently of each other can also limit understanding of the prevalence of these problems and efforts at effective management. Continued attention to the impact of nausea and vomiting on the patient experience will be necessary to insure optimal maintenance of quality of life.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin therapy: randomized, double-blind study protocol--EASE.

PURPOSE: Addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), to an ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase (DP; 25 to 120 hours). Therefore, recommended antiemetic regimens include multiple-day NK1RA administration. Preliminary data suggested that single-dose aprepitant before chemotherapy could provide CINV protection throughout the overall risk phase (OP; 0 to 120 hours). This study compared a 3-day oral aprepitant schedule to a regimen containing a single dose of the intravenous NK1RA fosaprepitant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active-control design was used to test whether fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m(2) for the first time received ondansetron and dexamethasone with a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2, 80 mg on day 3) or a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen (150 mg on day 1). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting, no rescue medication) during OP. Secondary end points were CR during DP and no vomiting during OP. Accrual of 1,113 evaluable patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 67.7% and noninferiority margin of minus 7 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 2,322 patients were randomly assigned, and 2,247 were evaluable for efficacy. Antiemetic protection with aprepitant and fosaprepitant was equivalent within predefined bounds for noninferiority. Both regimens were well tolerated, although more frequent infusion site pain/erythema/thrombophlebitis was seen with fosaprepitant relative to aprepitant (2.7% v 0.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Given with ondansetron and dexamethasone, single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) was noninferior to standard 3-day oral aprepitant in preventing CINV during OP and DP.

Efficacy and tolerability of transdermal granisetron for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately and highly emetogenic multi-day chemotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study.

PURPOSE: A novel transdermal formulation of granisetron (the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS)) has been developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to daily oral granisetron for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred forty-one patients were randomized to oral (2 mg/day, 3-5 days) or transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days), before receiving multi-day chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete control of CINV (no vomiting/retching, no more than mild nausea, no rescue medication) from chemotherapy initiation until 24 h after final administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 15%. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-two patients were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS displayed non-inferiority to oral granisetron: complete control was achieved by 60% of patients in the GTDS group, and 65% in the oral granisetron group (treatment difference, -5%; 95% confidence interval, -13-3). Both treatments were well tolerated, the most common adverse event being constipation. CONCLUSIONS: The GTDS provides effective, well-tolerated control of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic multi-day chemotherapy. It offers a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days that is as effective as oral granisetron.

Consensus recommendations for the prevention of vomiting and nausea following high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.

In this update of our 2005 document, we used an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents for the prevention of emesis and nausea following anticancer chemotherapies of high emetic risk. A three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant beginning before chemotherapy and continuing for up to 4 days remains the standard of care. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. We conclude that, for each of these five drugs, there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. In trials designed to prove the equivalence of palonosetron to ondansetron and granisetron, palonosetron proved superior in emesis prevention, while adverse effects were comparable. Furthermore, for all classes of antiemetic agents, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or a continuous infusion. The oral route is as efficacious as the intravenous route of administration.

Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity--state of the art.

Antiemetic drug development can follow the same logical path as antineoplastic drug development from appropriate preclinical models through Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III testing. However, due to the marked success of antiemetic therapy over the last 25 years, placebo antiemetic treatment against highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is not acceptable. Promising antiemetic agents therefore rapidly reach Phase III testing, where they are substituted into or added to effective and accepted regimens. One challenge of antiemetic drug development is determining whether substitution is indeed acceptable or whether prior regimens must be maintained intact as a basis for further antiemetic drug development. An additional challenge is the classification of emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of such antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment may not be available. However, at the 2009 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Consensus Conference, an expert panel used best available data to establish rankings of emetogenicity. Oral chemotherapeutic agents are ranked separately from intravenous agents, recognizing intrinsic differences in emetogenicity as well as differing schedules of administration. Since oral chemotherapeutic agents are often administered in extended regimens, the distinction between acute and delayed emesis is less clear, and cumulative emesis must be considered. As control of vomiting has improved, attention has shifted to control of nausea, a related but distinct and equally important problem. Additional efforts will be necessary to understand mechanisms of nausea and to identify optimal remedies.

Antiemetic therapy for multiple-day chemotherapy and additional topics consisting of rescue antiemetics and high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant: review and consensus statement.

This paper will evaluate various topics related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The results published reflect a consensus conference convened in Perugia, Italy. The topics discussed include antiemetic therapy of multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and rescue antiemetics.

Recent advances and updated guidelines in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

One of the most dreaded side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) plays a significant role in cancer patients' morbidity and quality of life. The management of CINV has been refined over the past several decades, and CINV can now be addressed with targeted prophylactic medications aimed at inhibiting the molecular pathways involved in emesis, including serotonin receptor antagonists and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Advances in the understanding of the physiology of CINV, coupled with the introduction of several agents that inhibit activation of these receptors, are reflected in current CINV guidelines. These guidelines, which are largely similar, provide recommendations based on expert review of available clinical trial data. Despite the availability of effective prophylaxis, many patients still suffer from CINV. To minimize these side effects, clinicians should ensure widespread adoption and implementation of at least 1 CINV guideline in their practice. Even when the recommendations are followed, a small group of patients continue to experience CINV, often in the form of nausea, for which few treatments are effective. Current and future studies will begin to delineate the specific pathways for the development of nausea, hopefully leading to the identification of novel agents and regimens with improved efficacy in this setting.

Antiemetic research: future directions.

PURPOSE AND METHODS: As a part of reviewing the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) antiemetic guidelines in Perugia in 2009, an expert group identified directions for future antiemetic research. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In future trials, the prediction of nausea and vomiting may combine algorithms based on observed prognostic factors relating to the patient and the anticancer therapy, the identification of the genes that code for receptors, and pharmacogenetic studies of the metabolism of drugs. Design issues for future trials include standardising the emetic stimulus across studies and finding the minimum tolerated effective dose and schedule of an antiemetic. Also control of delayed emesis is not independent of the control of acute emesis. The full range of side effects and the impact on global quality of life scores should be part of the routine assessment of an antiemetic. With current high rates of control of acute vomiting, future trials will need to consider new primary endpoints such as nausea, a complex symptom, where improvement is needed. Economic endpoints should be incorporated to ascertain the cost benefit of antiemetic prophylaxis, taking into account the impact of nausea on work capacity. New antiemetic drugs may be targeted at different receptors, such as opioid, cannabinoid and peptide YY receptors. New research is needed into determining the extent of corticosteroid use. The emetic potential of a range of newer cytotoxics particularly when used in combinations and different scheduling, such as prolonged oral dosing of cytotoxics and use of targeted therapies, are all areas in need of research. More antiemetic studies are needed in niche areas such as in patients receiving high dose chemotherapy, radiation therapy or combined modality therapy. Further evidence of the efficacy of newer antiemetic agents is required in children.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: contemporary approaches to optimal management. Proceedings from a symposium at the 2008 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Annual Meeting.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remains a significant problem for cancer patients. DISCUSSION: Patient factors such as polypharmacy, medication costs, mucositis, and depression may hinder good antiemetic control, while high workloads, poor communication, and underestimation of the problem on the part of healthcare professionals also play a role. Improving outcomes requires accurate assessment of risk factors, use of guidelines, and better adherence to antiemetic regimens. CONCLUSION: Extended-release formulations and new delivery systems such as transdermal patches, nasal sprays, and pumps provide a new strategy that may improve patient outcomes.