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.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential. RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs. CONCLUSION: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

Treatment of Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An ASTRO/ESTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: This joint guideline by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) was initiated to review evidence and provide recommendations regarding the use of local therapy in the management of extracranial oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Local therapy is defined as the comprehensive treatment of all known cancer-primary tumor, regional nodal metastases, and metastases-with definitive intent. METHODS: ASTRO and ESTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions focused on the use of local (radiation, surgery, other ablative methods) and systemic therapy in the management of oligometastatic NSCLC. The questions address clinical scenarios for using local therapy, sequencing and timing when integrating local with systemic therapies, radiation techniques critical for oligometastatic disease targeting and treatment delivery, and the role of local therapy for oligoprogression or recurrent disease. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using ASTRO guidelines methodology. RESULTS: Based on the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach was strongly recommended for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. Integration of definitive local therapy was only relevant if technically feasible and clinically safe to all disease sites, defined as 5 or fewer distinct sites. Conditional recommendations were given for definitive local therapies in synchronous, metachronous, oligopersistent, and oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial disease. Radiation and surgery were the only primary definitive local therapy modalities recommended for use in the management of patients with oligometastatic disease, with indications provided for choosing one over the other. Sequencing recommendations were provided for systemic and local therapy integration. Finally, multiple recommendations were provided for the optimal technical use of hypofractionated radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy as definitive local therapy, including dose and fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, data regarding clinical benefits of local therapy on overall and other survival outcomes is still sparse for oligometastatic NSCLC. However, with rapidly evolving data being generated supporting local therapy in oligometastatic NSCLC, this guideline attempted to frame recommendations as a function of the quality of data available to make decisions in a multidisciplinary approach incorporating patient goals and tolerances.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a RET rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a RET rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. A guideline update for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations was published separately. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from December 2015 to January 2020 and meeting abstracts from ASCO 2020. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Twenty-seven RCTs, 26 observational studies, and one meta-analysis provide the evidence base (total 54). Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations, when possible, following other existing high-quality testing guidelines. Most patients should receive targeted therapy for these alterations: Targeted therapies against ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions should be offered to patients, either as initial or second-line therapy when not given in the first-line setting. New or revised recommendations include the following: Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R, and exon 20 T790M); alectinib or brigatinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusions. For the first time, to our knowledge, the guideline includes recommendations regarding RET, MET, and NTRK alterations. Chemotherapy is still an option at most stages.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Development of a Novel Communication Liaison Program to Support COVID-19 Patients and Their Families.

In the spring of 2020, our hospital faced a surge of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, with intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy peaking at 204% of the baseline maximum capacity. In anticipation of this surge, we developed a remote communication liaison program to help the ICU and palliative care teams support families of critically ill patients. In just nine days from inception until implementation, we recruited and prepared ambulatory specialty providers to serve in this role effectively, despite minimal prior critical care experience. We report here the primary elements needed to reproduce and scale this program in other hospitals facing similar ICU surges, including a checklist for replication (Appendix I). Keys to success include strong logistical support, clinical reference material designed for rapid evolution, and a liaison team structure with peer coaching.

Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non-small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor-containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. A guideline update for patients with stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations will be published separately. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel made updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from December 2015 to 2019. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Five randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations apply to patients without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK. For patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. Additional treatment options include pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. For most patients with non-SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive (1% to 49%) PD-L1, the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed. Additional options are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy, or non-platinum-based two-drug therapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option for low positive PD-L1. For patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%) and SCC, the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. An additional treatment option is pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel). For most patients with SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive PD-L1 (TPS 1% to 49%), the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) or chemotherapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option in select cases of low positive PD-L1. Recommendations are conditional on the basis of histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines.

Multiple configurations of EGFR exon 20 resistance mutations after first- and third-generation EGFR TKI treatment affect treatment options in NSCLC.

After sequential treatment with first- and third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancers frequently harbor multiple resistance mutations in exon 20 of EGFR including T790M, mediating resistance to first-generation TKIs, and at codons 792, 796, or 797 mediating resistance to third-generation TKIs. However, whether these resistance mutations are in cis or trans has therapeutic implications for patients. We analyzed a cohort of 29 patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations at codons 792, 796, or 797 to establish the configuration of these mutations. We performed hybrid capture-based, next-generation sequencing on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy tissue or liquid biopsy. 27 samples had both a T790M mutation and a mutation at codons 792, 796, or 797. In all of these cases, the mutations were found in the cis configuration; the trans configuration was not observed. Two patients' samples harbored a mutation at codon 797 but no T790M mutation. In these two cases, longitudinal analysis showed earlier biopsies harbored EGFR T790M, which was undetectable following osimertinib treatment. Treatment of one these patients with both first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs resulted in a mixed response. Here we describe multiple configurations of EGFR T790M and third-generation TKI resistance mutations at codons 792, 796, and 797. These mutations are most commonly found in cis, which confers resistance to all current EGFR TKIs. We also describe two patients that exhibited T790M loss with acquisition of a mutation at codon 797. In addition, one of these patients, with an EGFR C797S in a lung biopsy was subsequently found to have EGFR C797N in a later biopsy of pleural fluid, highlighting the dynamic multiclonal nature of advanced NSCLC.

Randomized phase 2 study of tivantinib plus erlotinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in previously treated KRAS mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are identified in approximately 25% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and are associated with resistance to currently available targeted therapies. The MET oncogene may be implicated in malignant progression of KRAS-mutant tumors. In a pre-specified subset analysis of KRAS mutant cancers in an earlier phase 2 study of erlotinib plus the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib, combination therapy was associated with substantial clinical benefit compared to erlotinib alone (progression-free survival [PFS] HR 0.18; P < 0.01). The current study was conducted to evaluate this combination further in KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Previously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC were randomized to receive either oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) plus erlotinib (150 mg daily) (ET) or single-agent chemotherapy (investigator's choice of pemetrexed, docetaxel, or gemcitabine) (C). The primary endpoint was PFS. At progression, crossover from C to ET was permitted. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 51) or to C (n = 45). Median PFS was 1.7 months (mos) for ET and 4.3 mos for C (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = 0.50). There was no difference in overall survival (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.76-1.88; P = 0.44). There were 4 partial responses in the C arm, and none in the ET arm. Overall, adverse events occurred more frequently in the C arm, with more cytopenias, nausea, fatigue, and alopecia. Dermatologic toxicities were more common in the ET arm. CONCLUSION: In previously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC, the combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is not superior to conventional single-agent chemotherapy.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer: efficacy of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron), the first combination antiemetic.

PURPOSE: Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin. METHODS: In each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1-4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: NEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention's benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016. Results Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy. Recommendation Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient's emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

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: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included. CONCLUSIONS: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.