Search

Background: Opioid analgesics possess a number of side effects, among which constipation and nausea/vomiting occur most frequently. Although pretreatment with laxatives and antiemetics for the prophylaxis of opioid-induced constipation and nausea/vomiting, respectively, is recommended, such side effects are still a matter of concern in clinical setting.Methods: We first surveyed the prevalence of premedication in 83 cancer patients who took opioid analgesics and the incidence of such side effects. Subsequently, intervention was carried out to promote premedication, and the effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated in 107 patients.Results: Prophylactic treatment with laxatives and antiemetics were conducted in 57% and 52%, respectively. The most frequently prescribed laxatives and antiemetics were magnesium oxide in combination with pantethine, a mild stimulant laxative, and prochlorperazine, respectively. The lack of premedication increased the risk of constipation (odds ratio, 5.25; 95% confidence intervals, 1.93-14.31; p = 0.001) and vomiting (4.67, 1.04-21.04; p = 0.045). Intervention such as provision of drug information to physicians, verification of prescription orders, and instructions to patients increased the rates of prophylactic medications to 93% (p < 0.001) for laxatives and 81% (p < 0.001) for antiemetics. The incidence of side effects was lowered from 36% to 9% (p < 0.001) for constipation, from 28% to 17% for nausea (p = 0.077), and from 16% to 4% for vomiting (p = 0.0085).Conclusion: Intervention to promote prophylactic medication was highly effective in reducing the risk of opioid-induced constipation and nausea/vomiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT 3 RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT 3 RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT 3 RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC., Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were "prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate)," "prevention of nausea" (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)" in the delayed phase, "prevention of blood glucose level elevation," and "prevention of osteoporosis.", Results: Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for "prevention of blood glucose level elevation" and "prevention of osteoporosis.", Conclusions: No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis., Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP)., Results: The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs., Conclusion: Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy., Competing Interests: DW reports honoraria from Chugai. HI reports receiving consulting fees from Eisai and Taiho; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, Sawai, Taiho, and Yakult. RK reports honoraria from Janssen. HF reports honoraria from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Kirin, Ono, Sanofi and Taiho. KK reports grants from Kyowa Kirin; honoraria from Tsumura Pharmaceuticals. MF reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Chugai, Eisai, Lilly, and Nihon-Kayaku. AS reports institutional grants from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai Pharm, Taiho Pharm, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida Pharm, Sun Pharma; honoraria from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Kyowa Kirin, Tsumura, Towa Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Mochida Pharmaceutical, EA Pharma, Yakult Honsha, Chugai Pharmaceutical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Watanabe, Iihara, Kobayashi, Fujii, Mori, Kumada, Shimizu, Futamura and Suzuki.)

Background: Anamorelin is expected to improve cancer cachexia by increasing lean body mass (LBM) due to increased appetite and protein synthesis. However, the effect of anamorelin on cancer cachexia in real-world practice is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anamorelin and to identify predictors of efficacy on treatment with anamorelin., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with cancer cachexia treated with chemotherapy between May 2021 and August 2022. Efficacy of anamorelin was evaluated using LBM, with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment defined as maintenance or an increase in LBM for 12 weeks. We examined factors associated with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment using a multivariable logistic model that included controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, an objective assessment of nutritional disorders, and the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), which scores the cachexia status of cancer patients. To assess patient subjective quality of life (QOL) changes related to eating after starting anamorelin treatment, we used a questionnaire (QOL-ACD appetite-related items: Q8, 9, 11). Adverse events were evaluated in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0., Results: On analysis of data from 40 patients, 23 patients showed a 12-week sustained effective response to anamorelin (57.5%). At 12 weeks, LBM significantly increased by 1.63 ± 3.73 kg (mean ± SD). Multivariable logistic analysis revealed that a low CONUT score was significantly associated with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment (adjusted odds ratio: 13.5, 95% confidence intervals: 2.2-84.2, P = 0.004). QOL assessment showed a trend toward increased appetite and enjoyment of meals after anamorelin initiation. Five patients (12.5%) had an increase in HbA1c of more than 1.0% during the 12 weeks after the start of anamorelin. No patient had QT interval prolongation or grade 3 or higher hepatic transaminase elevation., Conclusion: Anamorelin may maintain or increase LBM with tolerable safety in patients with cancer cachexia undergoing chemotherapy. A low CONUT score, despite meeting criteria for cancer cachexia, is suggested as a predictor for the efficacy of anamorelin, indicating that patients with a low CONUT score may benefit from early introduction of anamorelin., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Anticipatory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a conditioned response influenced by the severity and duration of previous emetic responses to chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-pharmacologic interventions for anticipatory CINV among patients with cancer., Methods: We conducted a systematic search in databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web, from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized designs, observational studies, or case-control studies that utilized non-pharmacological therapies were included. The primary outcomes were anticipatory CINV, with an additional investigation into adverse events and the costs of therapies. The risk-of-bias for each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software., Results: Of the 107 studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. Three types of non-pharmacological treatments were identified: systematic desensitization (n = 2), hypnotherapy (n = 2), and yoga therapy (n = 2). Among them, systematic desensitization significantly improved anticipatory CINV as compared to that in the control group (nausea: risk ratio [RR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49-0.72, p < 0.00001; vomiting: RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.91, p = 0.02). However, heterogeneity in outcome measures precluded meta-analysis for hypnotherapy and yoga. Additionally, most selected studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and adverse events were not consistently reported., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that systematic desensitization may effectively reduce anticipatory CINV. However, further research is warranted before implementation in clinical settings., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 was extensively revised to reflect the latest advances in antineoplastic agents, antiemetics, and antineoplastic regimens. This update provides new evidence on the efficacy of antiemetic regimens., Methods: Guided by the Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual of 2017, a rigorous approach was used to update the guidelines; a thorough literature search was conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020., Results: Comprehensive process resulted in the creation of 13 background questions (BQs), 12 clinical questions (CQs), and three future research questions (FQs). Moreover, the emetic risk classification was also updated., Conclusions: The primary goal of the present guidelines is to provide comprehensive information and facilitate informed decision-making, regarding antiemetic therapy, for both patients and healthcare providers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce the bioavailability of several anticancer drugs. The impact of PPIs co-administered with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors is controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the concomitant use of PPIs impacts palbociclib and abemaciclib effectiveness in breast cancer treatment., Patients and Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study, conducted across 4 medical institutions in Japan, consecutively included patients with endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer, receiving palbociclib or abemaciclib between December 2017 and August 2022. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed. Treatment efficacy and safety with and without PPIs were compared. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using a log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio., Results: The study included 240 patients. After 1:1 matching, 112 patients were treated with and without PPIs. The median progression-free survival period was 1.2 years in the PPI group and 1.3 years in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.70-2.02). The median overall survival period was 3.6 years in the PPI group, whereas it was not reached in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.61-2.47). Consistent results were obtained for subgroups receiving palbociclib (n = 177) and abemaciclib (n = 63) without propensity score matching. Adverse event incidence and severity were similar in both groups., Conclusion: The effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors is unlikely to be affected by concomitant PPI use. Future prospective pharmacokinetic studies are warranted., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Mirtazapine blocks 5-hydroxytryptamine type (5-HT) 2A , 5-HT 2C , 5-HT 3 and histamine H 1 receptors, similarly to olanzapine. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers., Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four institutions in Japan. Registered patients were moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy-naïve, and were scheduled to receive CBDCA at area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute. Patients received mirtazapine 15 mg/day orally at bedtime for four consecutive days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the delayed period (24-120 h)., Results: Between July 2022 and July 2023, 52 patients were enrolled, and 48 patients were evaluated. CR rates in the delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and acute periods (0-24 h) were 83.3%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were observed except for one patient who had grade 3 dry mouth as evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0., Conclusions: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone shows promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic cancers receiving a CBDCA-based regimen at AUC ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Iihara has received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees for their institution from Taiho and Eisai outside the submitted work. Dr. Morita has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Taiho, Thermo Fisher, Nihon Kayaku, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer outside the submitted work. Ms. Hirose has received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Eisai, Merck, Chugai, and Nippon Kayaku outside the submitted work. Dr. Kawazoe has received grants for their institution from Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. Dr. Fukunaga has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Kyorin outside the submitted work and grants for their institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chugai outside the submitted work. Dr. Fukunaga has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Kyorin outside the submitted work and grants for their institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chugai outside the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki has received personal fees from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Celltrion Healthcare Japan, Otsuka, Sandoz, Tsumura, Nipro, Taiho, Kyowa-Kirin, Nippon Chemiphar, Japan Blood Products Organization, Takeda, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and grants for their institution from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. Other authors do not have conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medication errors related to the pre-admission medication history obtained on admission are a major cause of medication error during hospitalization. Medication reconciliation (MR) improves patient safety through the detection of inadvertent medication discrepancies at transitions of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of MR by pharmacists for patients prior to hospital admission on the incidence of medication errors in the early post-admission period., Patients and Methods: Patients admitted to the orthopedic ward for surgery between April 2012 and March 2020 were included. Pharmacist-led MR for pre-admission patients was started on April 1, 2017. The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications that occurred during hospitalization were compared between the pre- and post-initiation of pharmacist-led MR (pre-initiation: April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, post-initiation: April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020)., Result: In the post-initiation group, 94.2% (1245/1321) of patients who were taking medications on admission had a pharmacist-led MR before admission. The proportion of patients whose physicians ordered the prescription of their pre-admission medications at the time before hospitalization to continue from admission was significantly higher in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (47.4% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization was significantly lower in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (1.83% vs. 0.85%, p = 0.025). Pharmacist-led MR prior to admission was a significant protective factor against incidents related to pre-admission medication (odds ratio (OR), 0.3810; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.156-0.9320, p = 0.035)., Conclusion: Pharmacist-led MR for patients prior to hospital admission led to a reduction in medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization. Patient safety during hospitalization can be improved by accurate medication histories provided early by pharmacists., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0., Results: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D 2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%., Conclusions: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%., Results: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life., Conclusion: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation., Clinical Trials Registry Number: UMIN000032269., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Olaparib and niraparib (poly adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase [PARP] inhibitors) have significant antitumor action in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting among patients on these drugs in clinical trials is rather high. There are no guidelines on antiemetic treatment for nausea caused by oral anticancer agents. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of nausea and vomiting caused by PARP inhibitors and the actual situation of antiemetic therapy in patients with gynecologic cancer. Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancer who were scheduled to receive PARP inhibitors were enrolled. Data on PARP inhibitor-induced nausea and vomiting were collected from patient diaries for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the 21 days after starting olaparib and niraparib. Results: Overall, between January 2020 and March 2023, 134 patients were enrolled. Of the 129 patients who were evaluated, 28 (21.7%) received prophylactic antiemetics for 21 days, and 101 (78.3%) did not. The overall incidence of PARP inhibitor-induced vomiting was 16.3%. The incidence of vomiting in the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis was 13.9%. On dividing the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis into the olaparib and niraparib subgroups, the incidence of vomiting was found to be 18.6% for the olaparib group and 10.3% for the niraparib group. Conclusion: The incidence of emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis among patients on olaparib and niraparib ranged from 10% to 30%. Therefore, olaparib and niraparib can be classified in the low emetogenic risk and prophylactic antiemetic therapy at the time of treatment initiation may be unnecessary., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Ms. Yamamoto received personal fees from Chugai outside of the submitted work. Dr. Tsuchiya received personal fees from Chugai, Taiho, Ono, Sun Pharma, Kyowa-Kirin, Pfizer, Eizai, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr. Iihara received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees for their institution from Taiho and Eisai outside the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki received personal fees from Takeda and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. Mr. Watanabe received personal fees from Chugai outside of the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki A received personal fees from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Celltrion Healthcare Japan, Otsuka, Sandoz, Tsumura, Nipro, Taiho, Kyowa-Kirin, Nippon Chemiphar, Japan Blood Products Organization, Takeda, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and grants for their institution from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr. Abe received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, AstraZeneca, and Takeda outside the submitted work., (© The author(s).)

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-HT 3 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-HT 3 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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Several studies have reported an association between severe neutropenia and long-term survival in patients treated with trifluridine-tipiracil (TAS-102). Because some of these studies failed to address immortality time bias, however, their findings should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, the association between severe neutropenia and survival in patients receiving TAS-102 in combination with bevacizumab (Bmab) remains unclear., Patients and Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study in patients with colorectal cancer who received Bmab + TAS-102. We compared overall survival (OS) between patients who developed grade ≥ 3 neutropenia during the treatment period and those who did not. To account for immortal time bias, we used two approaches, time-varying Cox regression and landmark analysis., Results: Median OS was 15.3 months [95% CI: 14.1-NA] in patients with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 10.0 months [95% CI: 8.1-NA] in those without. In time-varying Cox regression, onset grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly related to longer survival after adjustment for age and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score. Additionally, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day landmark analysis showed that grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was associated with longer survival after adjustment for age and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, with respective HRs of 0.30 [0.10-0.90], 0.65 [0.30-1.42], 0.39 [0.17-0.90], and 0.41 [0.18-0.95]., Conclusion: We identified an association between long-term survival and the development of severe neutropenia during the early cycle of Bmab + TAS-102 using an approach that addressed immortality time bias., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background/aim: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is mainly a disease of the elderly. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with mCRC., Patients and Methods: We recruited mCRC patients aged ≥75 years who were treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy from October 2011 to November 2020. Primary outcome was median progression-free survival (PFS) and incidence of adverse events, while secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), relative dose intensity (RDI) and tumor response rate., Results: The study enrolled 41 patients with mCRC aged ≥75 years. Median PFS and OS were 9.3 months and 38.9 months, respectively. Median rate of starting dose per standard dose and median RDI of L-OHP were 94.6% [interquartile range (IQR)=80.0-100] and 52.4% (IQR=30.2-71.1), respectively. The most common adverse events of grade ≥3 were neutropenia (21.4%), high blood pressure (16.7%), and anorexia (14.3%)., Conclusion: Although the RDI of L-OHP drug was low, the PFS, OS, and incidence of adverse events were similar to previous reports of oxaliplatin-based regimens not limited to the elderly. Oxaliplatin-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy may be safely and effectively adapted to patients aged ≥75 years with mCRC by continuing chemotherapy with implementation of a reduction and discontinuation of anticancer drugs depending on adverse events., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX), a standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), is expected to be associated with a higher risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Herein, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a three-drug combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA), dexamethasone (DEX), and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK1RA) for the prevention of CINV during mFFX therapy., Methods: This study enrolled patients with APC who received mFFX as initial therapy with a combination of 5HT3RA, DEX, and NK1RA as antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate during cycle 1, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use during the overall period (0-120 h). Safety was also evaluated with a focus on hyperglycemia, which is a concern in patients with APC., Results: Seventy patients were eligible for this retrospective analysis. The CR rate during the overall period was 51.4%. Significant nausea, defined as grade 2 or higher, peaked to 77.1% on days 4-5, but remained above 65% until day 7. Hyperglycemia occurred in 37.1% of patients, and 34.3% were grade 3 hyperglycemia., Conclusions: CINV induced by mFFX was poorly controlled even with prophylactic antiemetic therapy using 5HT3RA, DEX, and NK1RA, and was found to persist beyond 5 days. Enhanced antiemetic measures for mFFX are desirable. However, in patients with diabetes mellitus complications, sparing of steroids and glycemic control should be considered., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aims/introduction: Polypharmacy in diabetes patients is related to worse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of our countermeasure for polypharmacy, which combines a pharmacist check followed by a multidisciplinary team review in diabetic patients with polypharmacy., Methods: A single-center, retrospective observational study was conducted at Gifu University Hospital. Study participants included diabetic patients taking six or more drugs on admission to the diabetes ward between July 2021 and June 2022. Drugs which were discontinued by the present countermeasure were examined, and the number of drugs being taken by each patient was compared between admission and discharge., Results: 102 of 308 patients were taking six or more drugs on admission. The drugs being taken by these patients were evaluated by pharmacists using a checklist for polypharmacy. Eighty-four drugs which were evaluated as inappropriate or potentially inappropriate medications by pharmacists were discontinued following the multidisciplinary team review. The median and mean number of drugs taken by the 102 patients significantly decreased from 9.0 (IQR: 8-12) and 9.26 ± 2.64 on admission to 9.0 (IQR: 6-10) and 8.42 ± 2.95 on discharge (P = 0.0002). We followed up with these patients after discontinuation of the drugs and confirmed that their clinical status had not deteriorated., Conclusion: The present countermeasure for polypharmacy, which combines a pharmacist check based on a checklist for evaluating polypharmacy followed by a multidisciplinary team review, was useful for reducing the number of inappropriate or potentially inappropriate medications taken by diabetes patients with polypharmacy., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Trastuzumab deruxtecan is classified as an anticancer agent that poses a moderate emetic risk in the international guidelines for antiemetic therapy. The guidelines recommend emesis prophylaxis using a two-drug combination therapy comprising a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone (DEX). However, the high incidence of nausea and vomiting associated with trastuzumab deruxtecan is problematic. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline version 1.2023 classified trastuzumab deruxtecan as having a high risk of emesis and changed its recommendation to a triplet regimen including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA). However, the emetogenic potential of trastuzumab-deruxtecan and the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis are controversial. Hence, this exploratory phase 2 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment comprising 5-HT3RA and DEX with or without a NK1RA in preventing trastuzumab deruxtecan-induced nausea and vomiting. Methods: We conducted an open-label and randomized exploratory phase 2 study at 14 centers in Japan. Patients with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive granisetron and DEX (arm GD) or granisetron, DEX, and aprepitant (fosaprepitant; arm GDA). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis or no rescue therapy) during the overall phase (120 h after the start of trastuzumab deruxtecan). Results: Between September 2020 and March 2023, 40 patients were randomly assigned to the GD (n = 19) or GDA (n = 21) arm. In the GDA arm, one patient who did not complete the use of the rescue medication listed in the diary was excluded from the efficacy analysis, which included the use of rescue medication. The CR rates during the overall phase were 36.8% and 70.0% in the GD and GDA arms, respectively (odds ratio 0.1334; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0232-0.7672; P = 0.0190), with a difference of 33.2%. No grade 3 or 4 toxicity related to antiemetic therapy was observed. Conclusions: Patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan require triple therapy, including mandatory NK1RA administration., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Dr. Iihara received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim as well as consulting fees for their institution from Taiho and Eisai outside the submitted work. Dr. Bando received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr. Mizuno received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Eisai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kawaguchi received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kawai received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Kyowa-Kirin, Novartis, Chugai, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Ishihara received personal fees from Nippon Kayaku, Kyowa-Kirin, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, and Chugai outside the submitted work. Dr. Nakada received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Chugai, and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. Dr. Kojima received personal fees from Chugai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kyowa-Kirin Eisai, Taiho, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and MSD outside the submitted work. Dr. Higuchi and Ms. Furuta received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki received personal fees from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Celltrion Healthcare Japan, Otsuka, Sandoz, Tsumura, Nipro, Taiho, Kyowa-Kirin, Nippon Chemiphar, Japan Blood Products Organization, Takeda, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as grants for their institution from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr. Futamura received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Nihon-Kayaku outside the submitted work., (© The author(s).)

Cancer cachexia is a complex syndrome, and multidisciplinary management has the potential to improve patient outcomes and efficiency of care. Multidisciplinary management consists primarily of exercise, nutrition, and pharmacotherapy. The pharmacist's role in cancer cachexia is to contribute to appropriate pharmacotherapy practices. For example, anamorelin is an oral drug with ghrelin-like effects that may improve the pathogenesis of cancer cachexia by stimulating appetite and increasing food intake and body weight. Many patients with cancer cachexia are under treatment with anticancer agents, and pharmacists need to determine whether symptoms such as anorexia and nausea are due to cancer cachexia or anticancer agents. Based on that determination, they are then expected to suggest supportive care to the physician. Provision of multidisciplinary care for cancer cachexia requires communication with not only physicians but also with nurses, dietitians, and other professionals so that nutritional therapy can be provided at the time cachexia is detected. However, the role of pharmacists in the management of cancer cachexia is not well established, and there is no evidence that pharmacist interventions are of benefit to patients. In this article, to contribute to the treatment of cancer cachexia by multidisciplinary care, we describe the role of pharmacists in cancer cachexia as currently practiced at our hospital. We also consider future challenges to this type of multidisciplinary care. Evidence concerning multidisciplinary treatment of cancer cachexia is scarce, including therapeutic agents, and there is a current lack of collaboration among medical professionals and education in cancer cachexia. Solving these problems will require efforts in the practice and evaluation of treatment for cancer cachexia., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background/aim: Although combination chemotherapy with trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and bevacizumab (BEV) is highly effective for metastatic unresectable colorectal cancer (mCRC), this combination chemotherapy often induces nausea and vomiting. To identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting, we investigated the occurrence of nausea and vomiting in mCRC patients treated with TAS-102 and BEV., Patients and Methods: Study patients with mCRC received TAS-102 and BEV between March 2016 and December 2021. The status of nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic measures in each course were investigated, and factors involved in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting were analysed by logistic regression analysis., Results: Data from 57 patients were analysed. The incidence rates of nausea and vomiting during the overall period were 57.9% and 17.5%, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were frequent not only in the early courses but also after the sixth course. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the experience of nausea and vomiting in previous treatment with other agents was significantly associated with nausea and vomiting with TAS-102 and BEV., Conclusion: The experience of nausea and vomiting in previous treatment was associated with increased risk for nausea and vomiting in mCRC patients treated with TAS-102 and BEV., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is often ranked by patients as one of the most distressing and feared consequences of chemotherapy. The novel neurokinin-1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist fosnetupitant, a phosphorylated prodrug formulation of netupitant, was approved in Japan in 2022. Fosnetupitant is one of the standard treatments for the prevention of CINV in patients who are receiving highly (any treatment where CINV occurs in more than 90% of patients) or moderately (where CINV occurs in 30-90% of patients) emetogenic chemotherapies. The aim of this commentary is to describe the mechanism of action, tolerability, and antiemetic efficacy of single-agent fosnetupitant in the prevention of CINV, and to discuss its clinical application, in order to aid optimal use., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: It is unknown whether olanzapine combined with triplet antemetic therapy is effective for all patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials using olanzapine may provide insight into the effectiveness of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including cisplatin., Objective: To examine the add-on effect of olanzapine according to risk factors for CINV., Design, Setting, and Participants: This preplanned secondary analysis evaluated results of the J-FORCE trial, a large double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan from February 9, 2017, to July 18, 2018. Participants were enrolled from 26 participating hospitals across Japan and included patients aged 20 to 75 years who had a malignant tumor and were cisplatin-naive. The efficacy analysis population of the J-FORCE trial was analyzed according to allocation adjustment factors (sex [male or female], age [≥55 years or <55 years], and cisplatin dose [≥70 mg/m2 or <70 mg/m2]) and patient-related risk factors (history of motion sickness, drinking habit [defined as alcoholic drinks consumption in excess of occasional drinking], and history of morning sickness during pregnancy). Statistical analysis was performed from February 18 to April 18, 2020., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 5 mg of olanzapine or placebo combined with standard triplet antiemetic therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was complete response (CR, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after cisplatin-based chemotherapy administration). Secondary end points were CR, complete control, and total control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases for 6 CINV risk factors as well as time to treatment failure. The CR point estimates and 95% CIs of the differences between groups were calculated, and a Mantel-Haenszel test was performed., Results: Of the 705 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [9.2] years; 471 males [66.8%]) included in the efficacy analysis population; 581 patients (82.4%) were 55 years or older, and 526 (74.6%) were treated with a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more. Risk difference (RD) for a CR in the delayed phase was significantly greater in the olanzapine group than the placebo group in males (RD, 12.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-20.1%]; P = .001); in females (RD, 14.5% [95% CI, 2.2%-26.3%]; P = .02); in those 55 years or older (RD, 11.1% [95% CI, 3.9%-18.2%]; P = .003) or younger than 55 years (RD, 23.6% [95% CI, 7.3%-38.3%]; P = .005); for a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more (RD, 13.5% [95% CI, 5.9%-21.0%]; P < .001); for those without a history of motion sickness (RD, 13.9% [95% CI, 6.9%-20.6%]; P < .001); for those with a drinking habit (RD, 14.9% [95% CI, 6.1%-23.4%]; P = .001) or without a drinking habit (RD, 12.0% [95% CI, 2.5%-21.3%]; P = .01); and for those with a history of morning sickness during pregnancy (RD, 27.2% [9.7%-42.6%]; P = .002). In other subgroups, a delayed CR was higher in the olanzapine group than the placebo group, although not significantly higher., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest a benefit of using 5 mg of olanzapine plus triplet antiemetic therapy to counter CINV regardless of the presence or absence of risk factors., Trial Registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000024676.

Background: Association between baseline medications plus neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) plus platinum doublet remains unknown, despite several reported prognostic models. We used real-world data to investigate whether baseline medications plus NLR predict survival outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving ICI plus platinum doublet. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in Japan between December 2018 and March 2021 used real-world data of consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC who received ICI (pembrolizumab or atezolizumab) plus platinum doublet as first-line treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The prognostic score for baseline medications plus NLR was weighted by regression β coefficients and used to categorize patients into good, intermediate, and poor prognoses groups. In addition, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed. Results: Overall, 241 patients were included. Poor prognosis was significantly associated with worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-2.94; P = 0.025) and OS (HR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.05-6.28; P < 0.001) than good prognosis. Harrell's C-index for this prognostic model was 0.648. Conclusions: Baseline medication plus NLR could predict progressively worse survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving ICI plus platinum doublet and could be used as a prognostic index for poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Ryuji Uozumi received consulting fees from Eisai, Sawai Pharmaceutical, and EPS. Tadanori Sasaki received research grants from Nippon Kayaku, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Mochida Pharmaceutical. Ken Maeno received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and payment for lectures from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Satoshi Oizumi received payment for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Nippon Kayaku. Sojiro Kusumoto received payment for lectures from AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Kracie Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Novartis Pharma KK. Daiya Takai received payment for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Hitoshi Kawazoe received research funding from Eli Lilly. Tomonori Nakamura received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Kirin, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Sato Pharmaceutical, and Shionogi. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© The author(s).)

Background/aim: Mirtazapine, which exerts an antagonistic effect on 5-hydroxytryptamine type 5-HT 2A , 5-HT 2C , 5-HT 3 and H 1 receptors, is considered useful for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study investigated the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine for the prevention of CINV in patients with thoracic cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with thoracic cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy with 15 mg mirtazapine once daily as a prophylactic antiemetic drug between January 2014 and December 2021. The effects of mirtazapine added to the standard antiemetic regimen for the prevention of CINV were evaluated in patients who had poor control of CINV in a preceding cycle and in patients who received the standard antiemetic therapy plus mirtazapine from their first cycle., Results: A total of 35 patients were evaluated. Of these, 14 had poor control of CINV in a preceding cycle and received the standard antiemetic therapy plus mirtazapine in the next cycle. The rate of complete response in the delayed period in these patients was significantly improved from the preceding cycle to the next cycle (35.7% vs. 85.7%, p=0.018). In contrast, the other 21 patients had received the standard antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine from the first cycle. The rate of complete response in the delayed period in these patients receiving the triplet antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine as part of a cisplatin-based or carboplatin-based regimen and in patients receiving a doublet antiemetic regimen plus mirtazapine in a carboplatin-based regimen was 100%, 85.7% and 100%, respectively. No severe adverse events, including somnolence, were observed with the addition of mirtazapine., Conclusion: The addition of mirtazapine to the standard antiemetic regimen for CINV may be beneficial with acceptable safety when administered in association with platinum-based regimens to patients with thoracic cancer., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Osimertinib is the first-line treatment for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study aimed to determine the previously unclarified association of osimertinib plasma trough concentrations with efficacy, adverse events, and genetic polymorphisms in Japanese patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations., Patients and Methods: In this prospective study, blood samples of 25 patients who received osimertinib were collected to measure plasma osimertinib concentrations and to genotypically characterize ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 and ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 polymorphisms. Plasma osimertinib concentrations were analyzed using validated multiple reaction monitoring mode-based liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Osimertinib concentration necessary to achieve optimal median progression-free survival (PFS) was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. PFS and overall survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and between-group differences were compared using the log-rank test. Plasma osimertinib concentrations between different patient groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test., Results: Patients were divided into high and low concentration groups based on a plasma osimertinib cut-off concentration of 211 ng/ml. Median PFS was longer in the high trough concentration group than that in the low trough concentration group (46.3 vs. 16.8 months, p=0.029). Plasma osimertinib concentrations adjusted for dose and body weight did not differ between the patients with and without variant polymorphisms., Conclusion: Monitoring plasma trough concentrations during maintenance might improve osimertinib treatment efficacy in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: We previously reported that a standardized pharmacist check of medical orders related to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs prior to preparation of injectable anticancer drugs was useful for reducing drug wastage after mixing. To further reduce anticancer drug wastage after preparation, we added a pharmacist check of patients' infection-related condition to the previous protocol and assessed the effectiveness of the modified protocol for reducing injectable anticancer drug wastage., Methods: In addition to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs, patients' infection-related condition, which was based on a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or white blood cell (WBC) count from baseline, was added to pharmacists' checklist of items used previously to prepare injectable anticancer drugs. We retrospectively compared the number, type and cost of anticancer drugs discarded after preparation and the reasons for discarding these drugs between pre- and post-protocol modification., Results: The rate at which anticancer drugs were discarded after preparation was significantly reduced after introducing the modified protocol compared to the original protocol (0.288% [18/6253] vs. 0.095% [6/6331], P = 0.013). Furthermore, the number of cases for which mixed anticancer agents were discarded because of infection decreased from 11 (fever: n = 8; elevated CRP or WBC: n = 3) to one (elevated CRP: n = 1) a year., Conclusions: In addition to the standard administration criteria of anticancer drugs, checking patients' infection-related condition, defined by a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC from baseline, before mixing by the pharmacist is useful for reducing anticancer drug wastage after preparation., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background/aim: Although peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a common adverse event in patients treated with oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy (1st-OX) for advanced gastric cancer, the effect of PN on the efficacy of paclitaxel at second-line chemotherapy (2nd-PTX) remains unclear. We investigated the association between PN induced by 1st-OX and efficacy of 2nd-PTX in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC)., Patients and Methods: The study subjects were patients with AGC who received 1st-OX followed by 2nd-PTX at Gifu University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2019. Primary outcome was time to treatment failure (TTF) of 2nd-PTX. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), response rate and adverse events during the period of 2nd-PTX. The association between incidence of grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (G2PN) and TTF or OS was also evaluated using Cox proportional hazards analysis., Results: A total of 54 patients with AGC who received 1st-OX followed by 2nd-PTX were eligible. Incidence rates of G2PN at the start of 2nd-PTX was 20.3% (11/54). Median duration of TTF and OS were not significantly longer in patients with G2PN than in those without it (TTF: 4.7 months vs. 3.7 months, p=0.264, OS: 10.6 months vs. 8.5 months, p=0.706). Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between the incidence of G2PN and TTF, or between the incidence of G2PN and OS. However, development of grade ≥3 PN was significantly higher in patients with G2PN than in those without it (45.5% vs. 2.3%, p<0.001)., Conclusion: G2PN induced by 1st-OX may not affect efficacy of 2nd-PTX in patients with AGC but could be a risk for grade ≥3 PN of 2nd-PTX., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: The association between the effectiveness of capecitabine and the concomitant administration of gastric acid suppressants remains controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the effectiveness of capecitabine is affected by the co-administration of histamine H 2 receptor antagonists (H 2 RAs) in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients using real-world data. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III CRC who received either capecitabine monotherapy or the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as adjuvant therapy between January 2009 and December 2014 in Japan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in this study, of which 30 were co-administered H 2 RAs. RFS at five years was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2-88.1%) and 79.8% (95% CI: 76.0-83.0%) in the H 2 RA and non-H 2 RA groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score-adjusted analyses showed that the co-administration of H 2 RAs was associated with a poor RFS among those receiving capecitabine monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI: 0.86-4.70 and HR, 1.81; 95% CI: 0.77-4.22, respectively). In contrast, these results were inconsistent with the group receiving the CapeOX regimen. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that the co-administration of H 2 RAs may not reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine therapy in patients with early-stage CRC. To confirm this relationship, a prospective study with a pharmacokinetic approach is needed., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Ryuji Uozumi: Eisai, Sawai Pharmaceutical, EP Croit (H). Hitoshi Kawazoe: Eli Lilly (RF). The other authors have declared that no competing interest exists., (© The author(s).)

Background: The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified., Patients and Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP)., Results: Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7)., Conclusions: Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background/aim: Nausea and vomiting are two of the most distressing adverse events of cancer radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine the control rate and risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: This retrospective study examined patients with cervical cancer who received radiotherapy alone or with concomitant cisplatin. Patients who received radiotherapy alone were not administered antiemetic premedication, while patients who received radiotherapy with concomitant weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ) were administered antiemetic therapy comprising granisetron and dexamethasone. Risk factors for non-complete response (CR) were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis., Results: Multivariate analysis indicated that younger age and concomitant weekly cisplatin were significant factors associated with non-CR across 5 weeks of treatment in patients who received radiotherapy. The proportion achieving CR among younger patients (<65 years) who received radiotherapy alone or with concomitant cisplatin was significantly lower than that among older patients (≥65 years) (Concomitant cisplatin: 27% vs. 67%, p=0.049; Radiotherapy alone: 62% vs. 91%, p=0.166). However, the proportion of patients achieving CR across 5 weeks of treatment was insufficient in all groups except for those aged ≥ 65 years who received radiotherapy alone., Conclusion: Antiemetic prophylaxis should be considered for younger patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy alone. Further, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist should be added to 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylactic therapy for patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy with concomitant weekly doses of 40 mg/m 2 cisplatin., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

The association between capecitabine efficacy and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is controversial. Here, we determined whether co-administration of PPIs affects the real-world effectiveness of capecitabine. This retrospective observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who received adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy or CapeOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) between January 2009 and December 2014 at nine participating institutions. The primary endpoint was the difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between patients who received PPIs and those who did not and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint. Multivariable analysis of RFS and OS was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. Data from 606 patients were evaluated, 54 of whom had received a PPI. PPI-treated patients tended to have poorer RFS and OS than patients treated without PPIs. The hazard ratio for RFS with capecitabine monotherapy was 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.22-5.07). These results were consistent with sensitivity analyses performed using propensity score adjustment and IPTW methods. Co-administration of PPIs may reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine and negatively impact patients with stage II-III CRC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Pembrolizumab, either as a type of monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic anticancer agents, is effective in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the development of cancer cachexia may adversely affect anticancer drug therapy. The present study investigated the effect of cancer cachexia on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab. The data of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line monotherapy or combination therapy with pembrolizumab were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Clinical outcome was compared between patients with and without cancer cachexia. A total of 53 patients were analyzed. Among all patients, median TTF and OS were significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without [TTF: 5.8 vs. 10 months; hazard ratio (HR): 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-4.24; P=0.016; OS: 12.1 months vs. not reached; HR: 5.85; 95% CI: 2.0-17.1; P=0.001]. In addition, TTF in the pembrolizumab monotherapy group was significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without, but no significant difference was detected in patients receiving pembrolizumab combination therapy. The incidence of AEs did not significantly differ between patients with and without cancer cachexia, except with regard to hypothyroidism. In conclusion, although cancer cachexia is prognostic of a poor outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who receive first-line pembrolizumab, cancer cachexia might not affect therapeutic efficacy in combination therapy with pembrolizumab and cytotoxic anticancer agents., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright: © Fujii et al.)

Although co-administration of cisplatin (CDDP) and vinorelbine (VNR) has been established as a standard of care adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is a lack of clinical data on its safety and efficacy in Japanese patients receiving split-dose administration of CDDP. The present study analyzed patients who received CDDP + VNR with split-dose administration of CDDP after undergoing complete resection of NSCLC. Patients received four courses of CDDP (40 mg/m 2 ) and VNR (25 mg/m 2 ) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. There were 27 male and 13 female patients; the mean age was 65 years (range 38-78 years), the postoperative disease staging distribution was IIA/IIB/IIIA: 14/8/18 patients, and histological distribution was adenocarcinoma/squamous cell carcinoma/others: 24/12/4 patients, respectively. Of the 40 patients, 28 (70%) completed the four courses of treatment. The mean total dose administered was 279 mg/m 2 CDDP (87.2%) and 172 mg/m 2 VNR (86%). The major adverse events included Grade (G) 3 or higher neutropenia (80%), G3 phlebitis (5%) and vomiting (2.5%). There was no G2 or higher serum creatinine level elevation, G3 or higher anorexia and nausea, or any treatment-related deaths. The overall completion rate of four courses was 70 and 62.5% for patients aged 70 years and older, whereas the overall percentage of patients that could complete three or more courses was 85 and 87.5% for patients aged 70 years and older. The relapse-free survival rate was 60% at 3 years and 57.5% at 5 years. Overall survival rate was 80% at 3 years and 60% at 5 years. The present study demonstrated the sufficient tolerability, safety and efficacy of combined CDDP + VNR adjuvant chemotherapy with split-dose administration of CDDP, with a low risk of gastrointestinal toxicities or nephrotoxicity., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020, Spandidos Publications.)