Search

Importance 131I‐metaiodobenzylguanidine (131I‐mIBG) has a significant targeted antitumor effect for neuroblastoma. However, currently there is a paucity of data for the use of 131I‐mIBG as a “front‐line” therapeutic agent in those patients with newly diagnosed high‐risk neuroblastoma as part of the conditioning regimen for myeloablative chemotherapy (MAC). Objective To evaluate the feasibility of upfront consolidation treatment with 131I‐mIBG plus MAC and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in high‐risk neuroblastoma patients. Methods A retrospective, single‐center study was conducted from 2003–2019 on newly diagnosed high‐risk neuroblastoma patients without progressive disease (PD) after the completion of induction therapy. They received 131I‐mIBG infusion and MAC followed by HSCT. Results A total of 24 high‐risk neuroblastoma patients were enrolled with a median age of 3.0 years at diagnosis. After receiving this sequential consolidation treatment, 3 of 13 patients who were in partial response (PR) before 131I‐mIBG treatment achieved either complete response (CR) (n = 1) or very good partial response (VGPR) (n = 2) after HSCT. With a median follow‐up duration of 13.0 months after 131I‐mIBG therapy, the 5‐year event‐free survival and overall survival rates estimated were 29% and 38% for the entire cohort, and 53% and 67% for the patients who were in CR/VGPR at the time of 131I‐mIBG treatment. Interpretation Upfront consolidation treatment with 131I‐mIBG plus MAC and HSCT is feasible and tolerable in high‐risk neuroblastoma patients, however the survival benefit of this 131I‐mIBG regimen is only observed in the patients who were in CR/VGPR at the time of 131I‐mIBG treatment., Upfront consolidation treatment with 131I‐mIBG plus myeloablative chemotherapy (MAC) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is feasible in high‐risk neuroblastoma patients, and the better survival benefit of this 131I‐mIBG regimen is observed in the patients who were in complete response (CR)/very good partial response (VGPR) at the time of 131I‐mIBG treatment.

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes of pts with early breast cancer, but CINV have been regarded as two of the most disturbing side effects, affecting their quality of life (QoL). In this study, the primary objective was to compare the efficacy of olanzapine in addition to the standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen for CINV in pts receiving the 1st cycle of adjuvant AC chemotherapy (adriamycin 60mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2). The secondary objective was to compare the tolerability and efficacy of such regimen in the 4 cycles of AC. Methods: This is a prospective single center, randomized study. Eligible pts had early stage breast cancer of Chinese ethnicity; they were chemotherapy- naive and treated with adjuvant AC chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomly allocated to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard (without olanzapine) arms. Individual patient filled in self-reported diary and visual analogue scale for nausea from which information on nausea, vomiting and use of rescue medication were collected; outcomes were compared during acute phase (0-24 hrs), delay (24-120 hrs) and overall time-frame (0-120 hrs) from initiation of AC. QoL was assessed by Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Results: 120 pts were randomized. For CINV in Cycle 1 AC, outcomes of Olanzapine vs Standard arms were: complete response (acute phase 70.0 vs 51.7%, p=0.0397; delay phase 75.0 vs 45.0%, p=0.0008; overall time-frame 65.0 vs 38.3%, p=0.0035), complete protection (acute phase 70.0 vs 50.0%, p=0.0253; delay phase 71.7 vs 40.0%, p=0.0005; overall 61.7 vs 36.7%, p=0.0062), total control (acute phase 65.0 vs 41.7%, p=0.0104; delay phase 60.0 vs 31.7%, p=0.0018; overall 51.7 vs 26.7%, p=0.0050), ‘no vomiting’ (acute phase 73.3 vs 51.7%, p=0.0142; delay phase 76.7 vs 48.3%, p=0.0013; overall 68.3 vs 40.0%, p=0.0018), ‘no significant nausea’ (acute phase 95.0 vs 75.0%, p=0.0017; delay phase 91.7 vs 65.0%, p=0.0004; overall 91.7 vs 63.3%, p=0.0002),‘no nausea’ (acute phase 76.7 vs 53.3%, p=0.0074; delay phase 65.0 vs 35.0%, p=0.0010; overall 58.3 vs 33.3%, p=0.0060), and need of rescue medication (acute phase 3.3 vs 11.7%, p=0.0654; delay phase 6.7 vs 21.7%, p=0.0133; overall 8.3 vs 23.3%, p=0.0244). Assessment of FLIE on Day 6 after Cycle 1 AC between the Olanzapine vs Standard arms revealed better QOL mean scores for nausea domain (p Conclusions: In this prospective study of Chinese women with breast cancer, the addition of olanzapine to standard antiemetic regimen increases the control of CINV and improves the QoL of pts during AC chemotherapy. Funding: Madam Diana Hon Fun Kong Donation for Cancer Research. Citation Format: Winnie Yeo, Thomas KH Lau, Vicky TC Chan, Li Leung, Dong Lai, Elizabeth Pang, Maggie Cheung, Ashley Wong, Winnie MT Soo, Vanessa TY Yeung, Teresa Tse, Eva WM Yeung, Daisy CM Lam, Kenneth CW Wong, David R Johnson, Kim PK Ng, Herbert Loong, Joyce TY Ng, Florence Mok, Mimi KM Lee, Darren MC Poon, Yvonne SH Yau, Macy Tong, Joyce JS Suen, Frankie KF Mo. Randomized study to determine the efficacy of Olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Chinese breast cancer patients (PTS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-09.

Background Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary malignant brain tumour with a dismal prognosis, despite the improvement from the new establishment of post-operative treatment protocol of concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) plus adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in post-operative GBM patients treated with CCRT plus adjuvant chemotherapy with subjective standardised questionnaires at various time points. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed GBM who were treated at our centre with post-operative CCRT plus adjuvant chemotherapy were included. Their HRQoL scales were measured with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) CLC30 and BN20 questionnaires. Assessments were made before the beginning of post-operative CCRT, and at 0 (within 2 weeks), 3 and 6 months after the end of CCRT. A mixed-level linear model was used to analyse the change in each HRQoL scale over time. Results 21 patients were recruited with a median overall survival of 27 months (range:4–55 months). There was no significant change in the global health status over time. An improvement in insomnia and an aggravation in communication deficit were found with statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness. Greater improvement in insomnia was associated with methylated MGMT gene promoter in the tumour while worse aggravation in communication deficit was associated with older age (≥65). Conclusions The global health status did not worsen during post-operative CCRT plus adjuvant chemotherapy, while the severity of insomnia lessened and communication deficit worsened. This may provide insight for clinicians to formulate treatment plan for patients with GBM.

Objectives Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine. Patients and methods Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored. Results 120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of “Complete Response” than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of “No significant nausea” and “No nausea” during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment. Conclusion The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted., Highlights • Olanzapine is reported to reduce nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy. • Reported studies are limited by heterogeneous populations receiving diverse cytotoxic regimes. • This study enrolled Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. • Adding olanzapine to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone is superior in controlling nausea and vomiting. • Baseline investigations shows a surprisingly high rate of glucose and lipids abnormalities.

ObjectivesThis is a prospective study evaluating NEPA in patients with breast cancer (the NEPA group), who received (neo)adjuvant AC chemotherapy (consisting of doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2). The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of NEPA in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The secondary objectives were to compare CINV between the NEPA group and historical controls (the APR group) who received aprepitant in an earlier prospective randomised study.Patients and methods60 patients participated in the NEPA group; 62 were in the APR group. Eligibility criteria of both groups were similar, that is, Chinese patients with breast cancer who were treated with (neo)adjuvant AC. NEPA group received NEPA and dexamethasone; APR group received aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone. Individuals filled in self-reported diary, visual analogue scale for nausea and Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.ResultsWithin the NEPA group, 70.0%, 85.7% and 60.0%, respectively reported complete response in the acute, delayed and overall phases in cycle 1 AC. When compared with the historical APR group during cycle 1 AC, NEPA group achieved significantly higher rates of complete response, complete protection, total control, ‘no significant nausea’ and ‘no nausea’ in the delayed phase; similar findings were noted in the overall phase with significantly better quality of life. Superior efficacy of NEPA was maintained over multiple cycles. Both antiemetic regimens were well tolerated.ConclusionIn this study on Chinese patients with breast cancer who were uniformly receiving AC, NEPA was effective in controlling CINV.Trial registration numberNCT03386617.