FLOT; To Be Treated as a Highly Emetogenic Regimen or a Moderately Emetogenic One? Comparison of the Emetogenic Potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC Regimens

PurposeThe current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (Fluorouracil+Leucovorin+Oxaliplatin+Docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.StudyPatients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (Fluorouracil+Leucovorin+ Oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic-risk), or TAC (Docetaxel+Doxorubicin+Cyclophosphamide/high-emetic-risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.ResultsA total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day five, “complete response” (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning “complete response” achievement in delayed (p=0.014) and overall (p=0.017) phases, “no emesis” in delayed (p=0.018) and overall (p=0.010) phases, also “complete protection” in acute (p=0.023), delayed (p=0.009) and overall (p=0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison to the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison to the TAC group.ConclusionAccording to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen. To better management of highly emetogenic regimens, antiemetic guidelines recommend adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen besides continuing dexamethasone and olanzapine administration on days 2-4.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Analysis of Quality-of-Life (QoL) in Patients Receiving NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea (CINV) and Vomiting

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing side effect that has a detrimental impact on QoL. For pts receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), which includes those on anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens, a triple combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA and dexamethasone is recommended by the NCCN and MASCC/ESMO. The complexity of the NK1 RA-based schedules may be a reason for the low adherence to antiemetic guidelines and a not sufficient control of CINV in pts receiving HEC and MEC. NEPA is the only available fixed-combination antiemetic. It is composed of an NK1 RA, netupitant (300 mg) and a 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (0.50 mg); thus, it acts by blocking two main emetic pathways in a single dose and eases compliance to guidelines. Methods: Prospective, non-interventional study at 162 sites in Germany from 09/2015 to 03/2018. The aim was to determine QoL of adult cancer pts receiving NEPA for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with 1 or 2 day HEC or MEC in daily clinical practice. The primary outcome was measured via the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. FLIE questionnaires were analyzed according to the FLIE scoring and administration manual v12; higher scores correlated to better performance on daily life activities due to the lower occurrence of nausea and vomiting. 'No impact on daily life (NIDL) activities' for individual nausea and vomiting domains was defined as a FLIE score higher than 53.8; NIDL for the combined domains of nausea and vomiting was defined as a FLIE score higher than 108. Secondary objectives included evaluating effectiveness, as determined by measuring the rate of complete response (CR) and rescue medication, as well as safety outcomes. Efficacy was documented by the treating physicians and via patient diaries for 3 Ctx cycles within 24 hrs and on 4 additional d after Ctx. Safety, additional medication and physicians' overall satisfaction was reported via eCRF. Results: A total of 2429 pts were enrolled, 2405 of whom were assessed for eligibility; of these, 2173 were included in the final analysis and constitute the full analysis set population (FAS). Evaluable FLIE questionnaires were collected from 1886 (88%) pts in cycle 1, 1795 (88%) pts in cycle 2 and 1698 (86%) pts in cycle 3. A total of 1389 pts received HEC and 764 MEC in cycle 1. The majority of pts (91%) were scheduled to receive 1-day ctx at study entry. More than half of the pts (1230, 56%) received anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-(AC), 19% carboplatin-, 8% cisplatin-, 7% oxaliplatin- and 9% other CTs. NIDL due to vomiting during cycle 1 was reported by 84% of pts in the HEC group and 82% in the MEC group. These frequencies were maintained in cycles 2 and 3. NIDL due to nausea increased from 54% in cycle 1 to 58% in cycle 3 for pts receiving HEC, and from 59% in cycle 1 to 66% in cycle 3 for pts in the MEC group. The rates for the combined domain of NIDL due to nausea and vomiting were consistent across cycle 1 (64%) and in cycles 2 and 3 (66% in each cycle) for pts in the HEC group, while the rates increased from 67% in cycle 1 to 73 and 74% in cycles 2 and 3, respectively, for pts receiving MEC. The CR rate (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was 89% in the acute phase (0-24 h), 87% in the delayed phase (25-120 h) and 83% in the overall period (0-120 h) in cycle 1. The no significant nausea (NSN) rate was 79 % in the acute, 75 % in the delayed and 67 % in the overall phase in cycle. The majority of physicians (≥89%) and pts (≥86%) rated the effectiveness of NEPA prophylaxis as 'very good' or 'good' during all three ctx cycles. The most common NEPA-related AEs, which occurred in >1% of pts in the overall study period, were fatigue (3%), constipation (3%), nausea (2%) and insomnia (2%). There were no reports of NEPA-related deaths. Conclusions: Real-life data show that NEPA was effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life and was highly effective in the acute and delayed phase of HEC and MEC. NEPA antiemetic effectiveness was rated highly both by patients and physicians. Disclosures Karthaus: RIEMSER: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schilling:Riemser: Honoraria.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) with GI Cancer Chemotherapy: Do We Need CINV Risk Score Over and Above Antiemetic Guidelines in Prescribing Antiemetic Regime?

Background Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28–77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant (p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy (p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea (p = 0.001), acute (p = 0.038), and delayed (p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

What the HEC? Clinician Adherence to Evidence-Based Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): Results of the Nausea/Emesis Registry in Oncology (NERO).

12083 Background: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for CINV prophylaxis. However, studies and surveys suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored potential inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective, non-interventional, observational, multicenter study designed to assess overall (0-120 h) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either 1) anthracycline/cyclosphosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA, and dexamethasone (DEX) prior to chemotherapy or 2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and DEX prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC 2016 guidelines. CR rates for cohorts deemed to be GCCP and GICP were compared using a chi-square test. Results: A total of 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23% for all patients. CR rates were significantly higher in patients receiving GCCP versus GICP (Table). Conclusions: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low. The primary endpoint of the study was achieved as there was a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV when administering GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines. [Table: see text]

Impact of Addition of Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 to Antiemetic Guidelines for Triple Antiemetic Prophylaxis: A Gap in Quality of Care, Guideline Adoption, and Avoiding Acute Care

PURPOSE: After ASCO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations for triple antiemetic prophylaxis for carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4, and the publication of studies documenting avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involving nausea and vomiting (NV) and other toxicities, we studied clinician adherence to the guideline change and assessed avoidable acute-care use. METHODS: Using a large electronic health record database, we evaluated antiemetic prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines and post-chemotherapy avoidable acute-care use (defined as involving any of NV or 8 other toxicities) for patients initiating carboplatin or other chemotherapy from October 2012 to August 2018. RESULTS: We identified 11,554 carboplatin courses. After the guideline change adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (RAs) for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4, its use rose to 20% of courses from the prior average of 16%; virtually all courses also included a 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone. We found avoidable acute care in 23% of courses; one quarter of these events were associated with NV. Acute care rates after carboplatin mirrored those after other highly emetogenic chemotherapy or oxaliplatin and exceeded those after other chemotherapy regimens. The > 80% shortfall in adherence may have been caused by low awareness or acceptance of the guideline change and/or by poor awareness of avoidable acute-care use after carboplatin. CONCLUSION: Neurokinin-1 RA prophylaxis for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 remains low and largely unchanged despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network and ASCO 2017 recommendations for inclusion. NV and avoidable acute care involving NV seen after carboplatin were consistent with other highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Clinician action is required to remediate incomplete prophylaxis and to no longer place patient outcomes, resources for cancer treatment, and clinician reimbursement at risk.