2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents-updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendation.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to identify new anticancer agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medical Agency (EMA) since the 2016 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic update and classify their emetic potential. METHODS: The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel classified the emetogenicity of the identified new antineoplastic agents based on nonsystematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, analysis of product labeling, and evaluation of emetic classification in other international guidelines and informal consensus. The emetogenic classification system for oral anticancer agents was revised into two emetic risk categories (minimal-low; moderate-high) to be consistent with the system reported by ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in their 2017 guideline update. The previously employed four emetic risk classification categories for intravenously administered antineoplastic agents were retained for this update. RESULTS: From June 2015 to January 2023, 107 new antineoplastic agents (44 intravenously administered and 63 orally administered agents) were identified. The reported incidence of vomiting varied significantly across studies for many agents, especially for oral anticancer agents. CONCLUSION: The MASCC/ESMO Expert Panel acknowledges the limitations of our efforts to classify the emetic potential of anticancer agents, especially the imprecision associated with oral agents. However, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents by searching the available literature and reviewing other available international antiemetic guidelines.

Do Patients Regret Having Received Systemic Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of patients annually receive treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but little is known about their views on the decision to receive that treatment, or regret. This trial prospectively evaluated the incidence of regret and whether baseline characteristics, patient decision-making parameters, or clinical progress early in the treatment course predicts regret. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC completed every 3-week patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment using the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (eLCSS-QL), including the 3-Item Global Index (3-IGI; assessing overall distress, activities, and quality of life [QL]). A prespecified secondary aim was to determine the frequency of regret evaluated at 3 months after starting treatment. Patients were randomized to usual care or enhanced care (which included use of the DecisionKEYS decision aid). RESULTS: Of 164 patients entered, 160 received treatment and 142 were evaluable for regret. In total, 11.5% of patients and 9% of their supporters expressed regret. Baseline characteristics did not predict regret; regret was rarely expressed by those who had a less than 20% decline or improvement in the 3-IGI PRO score after two treatment cycles. In contrast, when asked if they would make the same decision again, only 1% not having a 20% 3-IGI decline expressed regret, versus 14% with a 3-IGI decline (p = .01). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients having regret were identified early using the PRO 3-IGI of the eLCSS-QL measure. Identifying patients at risk for regret allows for interventions, including frank discussions of progress and goals early in the treatment course, which could address regret in patients and their supporters. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report documents prospectively, for the first time, the incidence of treatment-related regret in patients with advanced lung cancer and outlines that risk of regret is associated with patient-determined worsening health status early in the course of treatment. Identifying patients at risk for regret early in treatment (before the third cycle of treatment) appears to be crucial. Counseling at that time should include a discussion of consideration of treatment change and the reason for this change.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. CONCLUSION: IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Predictive value of PD-L1 and other clinical factors for chemoimmunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

We investigate if PD-L1 expression and other clinical characteristics predict chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) benefits versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of CIT versus chemotherapy identified through electronic searches. In seven randomized controlled trials (n = 4170), CIT prolonged progression-free survival over chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.58-0.67; p < 0.00001). The treatment benefits differed between PD-L1-high (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.34-0.49) and PD-L1 low (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.55-0.72; interaction-p = 0.00002) and PD-L1-high and PD-L1-negative (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.65-0.80; interaction-p < 0.00001). Similar benefits were observed regardless of gender, EGFR/ALK status and histological subtype. PD-L1 status is predictive of CIT benefit and may assist patient selection and design of future trials.

Evaluation of health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab or docetaxel in CheckMate 057.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, prolonged overall survival and had a favourable safety profile versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CheckMate 057 trial. AIM: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using two validated patient-reported instruments, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and the European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), respectively. The proportion of patients with disease-related symptom improvement at 12 weeks on the LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) was a secondary end-point. LCSS 3-item global index (3-IGI), EQ-5D utility index and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also determined. Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) and time to first deterioration analyses assessed longitudinal changes. RESULTS: Mean baseline LCSS ASBI scores were similar in both arms. By week 12, rates of disease-related improvement (95% confidence interval) were similar between nivolumab (17.8% [13.6-22.7]) and docetaxel (19.7% [15.2-24.7]); however, numerical differences in LCSS ASBI mean change from baseline favoured nivolumab. Subsequently, LCSS ASBI scores improved with nivolumab and worsened with docetaxel, with statistically significant between-arm differences at weeks 12, 24, 30 and 42. HRQoL improvements with nivolumab versus docetaxel were also supported by the LCSS 3-IGI, EQ-5D VAS and MMRM analysis. Time to first HRQoL deterioration was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab improved disease-related symptoms and overall health status versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01673867.

Enhancing evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by assessing skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the first lumbar (L1) level on routine chest computed tomography (CT).

PURPOSE: Ongoing cancer cachexia trials evaluate sarcopenia by skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the L3 vertebrae level, commonly used as a standard. Routine chest CT institutional protocols widely differ in including L3. We investigated whether SMI at L1 assessment, rather than L3, would be reliable and more practicable for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: NSCLC patients with routine CT chest had SMI measurements performed at L1 using Slice-O-Matic software. Accuracy of including L1 level, imaging quality, and ability to detect sarcopenia was collected and correlation of L1 SMI with body mass index (BMI) was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with NSCLC (73 CT assessments) were enlisted at three institutions. Characteristics: 47% female; medians: age 59, KPS 80%; BMI 25.49, weight 72.97 kg, SMI 59.24. Sarcopenia was detected in 14.7% of patients; 20% had sarcopenic obesity. Of the 73 CTs, 94.5% included L1 (95% CI 86.6-98.5%). Three images (4%) were difficult to evaluate. Inclusion of L1 was similar among the three participating institutions (90.4 to 96.7% inclusion). BMI correlation with SMI was weak (r = 0.329). CONCLUSIONS: SMI assessment at L1 is achievable in patients with NSCLC receiving routine chest CT, with 96% having acceptable quality evaluations. Similar to results previously reported at L3, BMI showed poor correlation and low sensitivity to detect muscle mass loss. The use of CT at L1 is reliable and presents the opportunity for easier patient evaluation of sarcopenia in patients with lung cancer without the need for additional testing or radiation exposure.

Content validity and electronic PRO (ePRO) usability of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale-Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) in mesothelioma patients.

PURPOSE: Obtaining qualitative data directly from the patient perspective enhances the content validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate the content validity of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for Mesothelioma (LCSS-Meso) and its usability on an electronic device. METHODS: A cross-sectional methodological study, using a qualitative approach, was conducted among patients recruited from four clinical sites. The primary target population included patients with pleural mesothelioma; data were also collected from patients with peritoneal mesothelioma on an exploratory basis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted consisting of concept elicitation, cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) usability. RESULTS: Participants (n = 21) were interviewed in person (n = 9) or by telephone (n = 12); 71% were male with a mean age of 69 years (SD = 14). The most common signs and symptoms experienced by participants with pleural mesothelioma (n = 18) were shortness of breath, fluid build-up, pain, fatigue, coughing, and appetite loss. The most commonly described symptoms for those with peritoneal mesothelioma (n = 4) were bloating, changes in appetite, fatigue, fluid build-up, shortness of breath, and pain. Participants with pleural mesothelioma commonly described symptoms assessed by the LCSS-Meso in language consistent with the questionnaire and a majority understood and easily completed each of the items. The ePRO version was easy to use, and there was no evidence that the electronic formatting changed the way participants responded to the questions. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the content validity of the LCSS-Meso and the usability of the electronic format for use in assessing symptoms among patients with pleural mesothelioma.

Clinical and Molecular Characteristics Associated With Survival Among Patients Treated With Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors have replaced docetaxel as the new standard second-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), but little is known about the potential predictive value of clinical and molecular characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor vs docetaxel overall and in subgroups defined by clinicopathological characteristics. DATA SOURCES: This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials published in the English language between January 1, 1996, and January 30, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab) with docetaxel. For each trial included in this study, the trial name, year of publication or conference presentation, patients' clinicopathological characteristics, type of chemotherapy, and type of checkpoint inhibitor were extracted. Data collection for this study took place from February 1 to March 31, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the overall population and subgroups were extracted. Pooled treatment estimates were calculated using the inverse-variance-weighted method. RESULTS: In total, 5 trials involving 3025 patients with advanced NSCLC were included in this meta-analysis. These patients were randomized to receive a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, 427 [14.1%]; pembrolizumab, 691 [22.8%]; or atezolizumab, 569 [18.8%]) or docetaxel (1338 [44.2%]). Checkpoint inhibitors were associated with prolonged overall survival, compared with docetaxel (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75; P < .001). They prolonged overall survival in the EGFR wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001), but not in the EGFR mutant subgroup (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80-1.53; P = .54; interaction, P = .005), and they prolonged overall survival in the KRAS mutant subgroup (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97; P = .03) but not in the KRAS wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67-1.11; P = .24; interaction, P = .24). The relative treatment benefits were similar according to smoking status (never smokers [HR, 0.79] vs ever smokers [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .40), performance status (0 [HR, 0.69] vs 1 [HR, 0.68]; interaction, P = .85), age (<65 years [HR, 0.71] vs ≥65 years [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .74), histology (squamous [HR, 0.67] vs nonsquamous [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .71), or sex (male [HR, 0.69] vs female [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors, compared with docetaxel, are associated with significantly prolong overall survival in second-line therapy in NSCLC. The finding of no overall survival benefit for patients with EGFR mutant tumors suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be considered only after other effective therapies have been exhausted. The findings of this meta-analysis could also assist in the design and interpretation of future trials and in economic analyses.

Impact of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel on Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from the CheckMate 017 Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase III CheckMate 017 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. Study objectives included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom assessments. METHODS: Patients serially completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) (mean score for six lung cancer-specific symptoms; range 0-100), LCSS three-item global index, EQ-5D utility index, and EQ-5D visual analog scale scores were analyzed. The proportion of patients exhibiting clinically meaningful improvement (a ≥10-point decrease) in ASBI scores by week 12 was a secondary end point. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analysis of HRQoL changes from baseline and analyses of time to HRQoL deterioration were conducted. RESULTS: Baseline mean plus or minus SD LCSS ASBI scores were similar in the nivolumab (29.6 ± 16.4) and docetaxel (29.6 ± 14.7) groups. By week 12, the proportions of patients (95% confidence interval) with clinically meaningful improvement in ASBI scores were 20.0% (13.6-27.7) with nivolumab and 21.9% (15.3-29.8) with docetaxel. At weeks 16 to 54, significant improvements in ASBI scores from baseline were seen with nivolumab; clinically meaningful improvements were observed at weeks 42 to 84. No significant changes in ASBI scores from baseline were observed with docetaxel; at week 36, a clinically meaningful deterioration was seen. Improvements in HRQoL with nivolumab versus with docetaxel were supported by other measures, and time to first HRQoL deterioration was longer. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab alleviates symptom burden and improves health status versus docetaxel as second-line squamous NSCLC treatment.

Gefitinib or Erlotinib vs Chemotherapy for EGFR Mutation-Positive Lung Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival.

Background: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to examine the impact of first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy on overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Data from trials comparing EGFR-TKI against chemotherapy in exon 19 deletion (del19) or exon 21 L858R (L858R) EGFR mutations patients were used. We performed Cox regression to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Impact of postprogression therapies was examined in exploratory analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Six eligible trials (gefitinib = 3, erlotinib = 3) included 1231 patients; 632 received EGFR-TKI and 599 received chemotherapy. At a median 35.0 months follow-up, there were 780 deaths and 1004 progressions. There was no difference in OS between EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.17, P = .84). There was also no difference in OS for Del19 (n = 682, HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.16, P = .68) and L858R (n = 540, HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.32, P = .59) subgroups ( P interaction = .47), or according to smoking status, sex, performance status, age, ethnicity, or histology. However, EGFR-TKI statistically significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) overall (HR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.42, P < .001) and in all subgroups. Following progression, 73.8% from the chemotherapy arm received EGFR-TKI, and 65.9% from the EGFR-TKI arm received chemotherapy. Nine percent from the EGFR-TKI arm received no further treatment vs 0.6% from the chemotherapy arm. Following disease progression, patients randomly assigned to EGFR-TKI had shorter OS than those randomly assigned to chemotherapy (12.8 months, 95% CI = 11.4 to 14.3, vs 19.8 months, 95% CI = 17.6 to 21.7). Conclusions: Despite statistically significant PFS benefit, there is no relative OS advantage with frontline gefitinib or erlotinib vs chemotherapy in EGFR -mutated NSCLC. This finding is likely due to the high rate of crossover at progression.

Tolvaptan use in cancer patients with hyponatremia due to the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone: a post hoc analysis of the SALT-1 and SALT-2 trials.

Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte disorder in cancer patients and has been associated with poor prognosis. A frequent cause of cancer-related hyponatremia is the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH). This study was a post hoc subgroup analysis of the SALT-1 (Study of Ascending Levels of Tolvaptan in Hyponatremia) and SALT-2 clinical trials. Hyponatremic subjects with SIADH and cancer received the oral selective vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist tolvaptan (n = 12) or matching placebo (n = 16) once-daily for 30 days. The initial tolvaptan dose (15 mg) was titrated over 4 days to 30 or 60 mg per day, as needed, according to serum sodium level and tolerability. Baseline serum sodium levels in the SIADH/cancer cohort of the SALT trials was 130 and 128 mEq/L for tolvaptan and placebo, respectively. Mean change from baseline in average daily serum sodium AUC for tolvaptan relative to placebo was 5.0 versus -0.3 mEq/L (P < 0.0001) at day 4, and 6.9 versus 1.0 mEq/L (P < 0.0001) at day 30; the observed treatment effects were similar to those in the overall SIADH population (i.e., with and without cancer) at both time points. Serum sodium normalization was observed in 6/12 and 0/13 subjects at day 4 and 7/8 and 2/6 subjects at day 30 in the tolvaptan and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.05 for both). Common treatment-emergent AEs for tolvaptan were consistent with previously reported results. In this post hoc study of the SALT trial population, oral tolvaptan was an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of hyponatremia in subjects with SIADH and cancer.

Key issues affecting quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer: an analysis conducted in 2128 patients with initial psychometric assessment of the prostate cancer symptom scale (PCSS).

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based quality of life (QL) questionnaires require the identification of issues of importance to patients. The primary aim of this study was to inform providers on patient-expressed issues while enhancing the content validity of instruments assessing QL and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in prostate cancer. The study provided additional psychometric properties for the new PRO and QL instrument, the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS). METHODS: An anonymous web-based survey of 2128 patients with prostate cancer was conducted with patients rating 18 QL items on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Most respondents (74%) were aged 55-74 years, had early stage disease at diagnosis (81%) and were diagnosed within 2 years of the survey (81%). The top five-rated issues were: overall QL, ability to perform normal activities, maintaining independence, ability to sleep and not being a burden. These items were ranked as either 'very important' or 'important' by at least 88% of patients. None of the most highly ranked issues were symptoms. Instead, the highest ranked items were global issues reflecting the impact of symptoms on patients. In addition to the enhanced content validity findings, good reliability results and initial support for construct validity are reported for the PCSS. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey providing patient-expressed background for content validity for QL and PRO measures. The findings of this study should aid development of newer practical questionnaires, such as the PCSS, which can be adapted to electronic platforms enhancing rapid and accurate PRO and QL evaluation.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK1RAs when combined with 5-HT3RA-dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron-dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin- or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone-metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant-dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK1RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant-granisetron-dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK1RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

Risk of Treatment-Related Toxicities from EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials of Gefitinib, Erlotinib, and Afatinib in Advanced EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used for treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Estimating differences in toxicity between these EGFR TKIs is important for personalizing treatment. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared EGFR TKI therapy against chemotherapy or placebo. We extracted data from the EGFR TKI arm for indirect comparisons to estimate the relative risk for toxic death, grade 3 to 4 (G3/4) adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation of treatment because of AE for each EGFR TKI. RESULTS: Sixteen trials included 2535 patients with mutated or wild-type EGFR. Toxic deaths were rare (1.7%), with pneumonitis being most frequent cause and no significant differences between EGFR TKIs. Overall, 40% of patients experienced G3/4 AEs. The risk for G3/4 AEs was lower with gefitinib (29.1%) than with erlotinib (54.1%) or afatinib (42.1%) (p < 0.01). Discontinuation of treatment because of AEs occurred in 7.7% of patients, with no significant differences between EGFR TKIs. Diarrhea (in 53.3% of cases) and rash (in 66.5%) were the most frequent AEs. The risk for rash was higher with afatinib (84.8%) than with erlotinib (62.0%) or gefitinib (62.0%) (p < 0.01). The risk for diarrhea was higher with afatinib (91.7%) than with erlotinib (42.4%) or gefitinib (44.4%) (p < 0.01). The risk for increased liver enzyme levels was higher with gefitinib (61.7%) than with erlotinib (17.8%) or afatinib (20.1%) (p < 0.01). A risk-benefit contour was used to assess the trade-off between efficacy and toxicity for different EGFR TKIs. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR TKIs are well tolerated, with less than 10% of patients discontinuing treatment because of AEs. The profile of and risk for toxicities vary between EGFR TKIs and can be used to inform the selection of treatment.

Safety and efficacy of NEPA, an oral fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in older patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300mg, a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 and ≥70years from one phase II and two phase III trials were considered. Chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant tumors were treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC), non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (non-AC MEC), or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Following single-dose NEPA, patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (AC and non-AC MEC) or days 1-4 (HEC). Efficacy was evaluated through complete response (CR) in cycle 1. Safety was evaluated by AEs and ECGs. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 214 patients were ≥65years and 80 were ≥70years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase >90% of patients ≥65years experienced CR. Efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. No significant nausea rates were generally higher in the older patients versus total population. Similar rates of AEs in the first treatment cycle were reported for patients ≥65years, ≥70years, and total population (72.9% vs 67.5% vs 70.0%, respectively). No cardiac safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: NEPA is highly effective in older patients receiving MEC or HEC regimens. NEPA is also well tolerated, demonstrating suitability for use in older patients who may have comorbidities.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Employing the same framework as in previous guideline updates, antineoplastic agents were classified into four emetic risk categories. The classification of the emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents, especially for the oral drugs, represents an increasing challenge. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment is rarely available. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for drugs approved after 2009 until June 2015 using EMBASE and PubMed. The search term was "drug name." The restrictions were language (English records only), date (2009 to 2015), and level of evidence ("clinical trial"). RESULTS: From January 2009 to June 2015, 42 new antineoplastic agents were identified and a systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies to help define emetic risk levels. The reported incidence of vomiting varied across studies for many agents, but there was adequate evidence to allow 41 of the 42 new antineoplastic agents to be classified according to emetogenic risk. No highly emetogenic agents were identified. Seven moderately emetogenic agents, 26 low emetogenic, agents and eight minimal emetogenic agents were identified and classified accordingly. The MASCC/ESMO update committee also recommended reclassification of the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) as highly emetogenic. CONCLUSION: Despite several limitations, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents through a comprehensive search of the available literature. Hopefully by the next update, more precise information on emetic risk will have been collected during new agent development process.

Study Design and Rationale for the Phase 3 Clinical Development Program of Enobosarm, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator, for the Prevention and Treatment of Muscle Wasting in Cancer Patients (POWER Trials).

Muscle wasting in cancer is a common and often occult condition that can occur prior to overt signs of weight loss and before a clinical diagnosis of cachexia can be made. Muscle wasting in cancer is an important and independent predictor of progressive functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Although several therapeutic agents are currently in development for the treatment of muscle wasting or cachexia in cancer, the majority of these agents do not directly inhibit muscle loss. Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) have the potential to increase lean body mass (LBM) and hence muscle mass, without the untoward side effects seen with traditional anabolic agents. Enobosarm, a nonsteroidal SARM, is an agent in clinical development for prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in patients with cancer (POWER 1 and 2 trials). The POWER trials are two identically designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, and multinational phase 3 trials to assess the efficacy of enobosarm for the prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in subjects initiating first-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To assess enobosarm's effect on both prevention and treatment of muscle wasting, no minimum weight loss is required. These pivotal trials have pioneered the methodological and regulatory fields exploring a therapeutic agent for cancer-associated muscle wasting, a process hereby described. In each POWER trial, subjects will receive placebo (n = 150) or enobosarm 3 mg (n = 150) orally once daily for 147 days. Physical function, assessed as stair climb power (SCP), and LBM, assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), are the co-primary efficacy endpoints in both trials assessed at day 84. Based on extensive feedback from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the co-primary endpoints will be analyzed as a responder analysis. To be considered a physical function responder, a subject must have ≥10 % improvement in physical function compared to baseline. To meet the definition of response on LBM, a subject must have demonstrated no loss of LBM compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints include durability of response assessed at day 147 in those responding at day 84. A combined overall survival analysis for both studies is considered a key secondary safety endpoint. The POWER trials design was established with extensive clinical input and collaboration with regulatory agencies. The efficacy endpoints are a result of this feedback and discussion of the threshold for clinical benefit in patients at risk for muscle wasting. Full results from these studies will soon be published and will further guide the development of future anabolic trials. Clinical Trial ID: NCT01355484. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355484 , NCT01355497. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355497?term=g300505&rank=1 .

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures. RESULTS: Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare. CONCLUSION: NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.