Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (C-RINV) in Locally Advanced Head and Heck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (LA-HNSCC): A Prospective Phase Ⅱ Trial

Purpose To provide a direct evidence for the current practice of prescribing antiemetic with aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC) receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Methods Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given orally aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80mg once on d2-5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8mg on d2-5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ=0.2 and α=0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%. Results A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years old, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% CI: 72.1-94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6-97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3-84.7). The emesis-free response and nausea-free response in overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4-75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1-2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse event with antiemetic usage. Conclusion The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving CCRT. Trial registration ID: NCT03572829.

Assessing duration of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): A pooled study analysis of NEPA versus aprepitant.

12091 Background: The historical standard clinical trial endpoint for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been assessment of complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication use) over five days. Recent evaluations focused on the duration of breakthrough CINV suggest that long duration of CINV results in more lost work time and impaired activity and is also a strong predictor for CINV in subsequent cycles. A recent pooled analysis of three similarly designed registration trials of NEPA, a fixed oral combination NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant)/5-HT3RA (palonosetron), showed significantly higher CR rates during the delayed phase (≥24-120h) for NEPA compared to an aprepitant (APR) regimen. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the extent and duration of breakthrough CINV in these pooled studies. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and antiemetic prophylaxis of either a single dose of NEPA plus dexamethasone (DEX) or a 3-day APR/5-HT3 RA/DEX regimen from three randomized, double-blind pivotal trials were included. Patients without a CR were defined as treatment failures. Extent of CINV was evaluated using proportions of patients with treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea (defined as >25 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale). Over the 5-day overall phase, duration was categorized as 1-2, and ≥3 days. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to compare risks between treatments for each duration category in each of the previously mentioned endpoints. Results: Among all 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, a significantly greater proportion of APR patients experienced treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea for ≥3 days. Specifically, among patients with treatment failure, 31% (41/134) who received NEPA and 43% (61/143) who received APR experienced breakthrough CINV for ≥3 days. Conclusions: Expanding on data suggesting single-day NEPA is more effective than 3-day APR in preventing delayed CINV, NEPA is also more effective in minimizing the extent and duration of CINV in patients with breakthrough emesis and nausea.[Table: see text]

ICES (International Carboplatin Emesis Survey) for the evaluation of the emetogenicity of continuous cycles of carboplatin-based chemotherapy with focus on nausea: A MASCC emesis study group, prospective, observational, real-world multi-centric study.

e24086 Background: Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following carboplatin containing chemotherapy regimen remains a considerable problem for cancer patients (pts) despite standard antiemetic prophylaxis. This study was undertaken to prospectively evaluate the incidence of CINV in pts undergoing carboplatin-based chemotherapy receiving guidelines consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP). All sites did not prescribe NK1-RA as it is not included in all institutional guidelines. Methods: The study enrolled 207 pts undergoing carboplatin-based chemotherapy, the final analysis evaluated cycle 1 - 6 with a total of 183 evaluable pts from 6 countries. Pt diaries were used to collect data from day 1-10 beginning with cycle 1. Nausea was reported by the pts using a visual analog scale (VAS) with the end-point being no nausea. Vomiting episodes were recorded in the pts’ diaries. Demographic, occurrence and severity of emesis, numbers of emetic episodes and time to the onset of emesis, were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: There were 129 females and 54 males. The overall incidence of acute and delayed nausea for was 17% and 25% respectively. The incidence of nausea of entire population was significantly higher than vomiting (58% vs. 14%; Chi2 22.271 p<0.000). The use of NK1-RA was associated with a significant decrease in time to first vomiting for cycle 1 (p<0.041) and subsequent cycle 2-6 (p<0.0075). Additional results are reported in the Table. In a logistic regression model factors associated with acute nausea in cycle 1 included history of motion sickness (p< 0.0090), comorbidities (p< 0.0084), history of morning sickness (p< 0.0090), previous chemotherapy (p< 0.0096), anemia (p< 0.0209). A separate logistic regression analysis for delayed nausea in cycle 1 showed that prior radiotherapy (p<0.0093) and a history of morning sickness (p<0.0195) were also significant. During subsequent cycles (1 – 6), the incidence of nausea remained higher than vomiting and was documented in the acute and delayed phases ranging from 6% to 25%. The use of NK1-RA was associated with a lower incidence of vomiting during cycle 1-6 with 91% patient receiving NK1-RA experiencing no vomiting vs 78% of patients not receiving NK1-RA with no vomiting (log rank = 0.0287). Conclusions: Despite GCCP and the usage of NK1-RA, carboplatin induced nausea remains a major unmet medical need in cancer pts. Further research should focus on management of nausea, risk factors and the impact of nausea on quality of life and in pts undergoing carboplatin-based treatment.[Table: see text]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with carboplatin plus pemetrexed or carboplatin plus paclitaxel in patients with lung cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background Patients with lung cancer who are treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens often experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, knowledge on the effect of regimen and cofactors on the risk of CINV is limited. This study aimed to analyze and compare the incidence of CINV between lung cancer patients undergoing carboplatin plus pemetrexed (CBDCA+PEM) and those undergoing carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CBDCA+PTX) chemotherapy. Methods Pooled data of 240 patients from two prospective observational studies were compared using propensity score matching. Separate multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy. Results Delayed nausea was significantly more common in patients treated with CBDCA+PEM than in those treated with CBDCA+PTX (51.1% vs. 36.2%, P = 0.04), but the incidence of vomiting did not significantly differ between the two groups (23.4% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.14). The occurrence of CINV peaked on day 4 in the CBDCA+PTX group and on day 5 in the CBDCA+PEM group. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, younger age, and CBDCA+PEM regimen were independent risk factors for delayed nausea, while female sex was an independent risk factor for delayed vomiting. Conclusions The CBDCA + PEM regimen has a higher risk of causing delayed nausea than the CBDCA + PTX regimen, and aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be offered to patients treated with CBDCA + PEM.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

Background Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen. Methods This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control. Results A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21–81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1–5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%. Conclusion Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

The prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents receiving cancer treatment: the current status and possibilities for improvement

Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) rarely become life-threatening, they are regarded by patients as one of the most unbearable complications and can often cause great suffering. CINV may also be an aggravating factor for other complications and pathological conditions. The currently available antiemetic prophylaxis can greatly reduce the incidence of CINV in children and adolescents receiving cancer treatment. However, inadequate management of CINV is still much more common in children than in adults, and the integration of new antiemetic drugs into pediatric care is delayed because of specific regulatory requirements for drug studies in children. The aim of this article is to present current standards for prevention and treatment of CINV in children and adolescents as well as to suggest ways to improve them.