Olanzapine With or Without Fosaprepitant for Preventing Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (ALLIANCE A221602).

PURPOSE: A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. RESULTS: A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. CONCLUSION: This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

The impact of the affordable care act on breast cancer care in the USA: A multi-institutional analysis.

There are less data available on the effect of the ACA on breast cancer care beyond the screening level. A retrospective review at participating iCaRe2/BCCR institutions was completed before and after ACA. Post-ACA, patients were older, more urban, and more likely to be insured through Medicaid. Increased imaging use was noted post-ACA. These patients were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancers, received fewer mastectomies, and were more likely to have radiation.

NOLAN: a randomized, phase 2 study to estimate the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on bone pain in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim.

PURPOSE: Mild-to-moderate bone pain is a commonly reported adverse event (AE) associated with pegfilgrastim. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. METHODS: In this open-label study (NCT01712009), women ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I-III breast cancer and an ECOG performance status ≤ 2 who were planning ≥ 4 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive naproxen, loratadine, or no treatment to prevent pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. The primary endpoint was all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting. Secondary endpoints included bone pain in cycles 2-4 and across all cycles from AE reporting and patient-reported bone pain by cycle and across all cycles. RESULTS: Six hundred patients were enrolled. Most patients (83.0%) were white, and mean (SD) age was 54.2 (11.1) years. The percentage of patients with all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting in the naproxen, loratadine, and no prophylaxis groups was 40.3, 42.5, and 46.6%, respectively; differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant. Maximum, mean, and area under the curve for patient-reported bone pain were consistently lower in the naproxen and loratadine groups than in the no prophylaxis group; some of these differences were significant. Loratadine was associated with fewer treatment-related AEs and discontinuations than naproxen. CONCLUSIONS: Given its tolerability, its ease of administration, and its potential benefit, treatment with loratadine should be considered to help prevent bone pain in patients receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT01712009.