Search

Purpose The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS). Methods Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires. Results A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24–72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications. Conclusion The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians’ most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS. Trial registration No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Aim The aim of this official guideline published by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and coordinated with the German Society of Urology (DGU) and the German Society of Reproductive Medicine (DGRM) is to provide consensus-based recommendations, obtained by evaluating the relevant literature, on counseling and fertility preservation for prepubertal girls and boys as well as patients of reproductive age. Statements and recommendations for girls and women are presented below. Statements or recommendations for boys and men are not the focus of this guideline. Methods This S2k guideline was developed at the suggestion of the guideline commission of the DGGG, DGU and DGRM and represents the structured consensus of representative members from various professional associations (n = 40). Recommendations The guideline provides recommendations on counseling and fertility preservation for women and girls which take account of the patient's personal circumstances, the planned oncologic therapy and the individual risk profile as well as the preferred approach for selected tumor entities. Ziel Das Ziel dieser offiziellen Leitlinie, die von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) publiziert und zusammen mit der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie (DGU) sowie Deutschen Gesellschaft für Reproduktionsmedizin (DGRM) koordiniert wurde, ist es, durch die Evaluation der relevanten Literatur konsensbasierte Handlungsempfehlungen für die Beratung und den Einsatz von fertilitätserhaltenden Maßnahmen bei präpubertären Mädchen und Jungen sowie für Patienten/-innen im reproduktiven Alter zu geben. Im Folgendem werden die Statements und Empfehlungen für Mädchen und Frauen dargestellt. Die Statements und Empfehlungen für Jungen und Männer sind nicht Inhalt dieser Publikation. Methoden Diese S2k-Leitlinie wurde durch einen strukturierten Konsens von repräsentativen Mitgliedern verschiedener Fachgesellschaften (n = 40) im Auftrag der Leitlinienkommission der DGGG, DGU und DGRM entwickelt. Empfehlungen Es werden Empfehlungen zur Beratung und dem Einsatz von fertilitätserhaltenden Maßnahmen bei Patientinnen unter Berücksichtigung der Lebensumstände, der geplanten onkologischen Therapie und des individuellen Risikoprofils dargestellt sowie über das Vorgehen bei ausgewählten Tumorentitäten.

e19540 Background: The emesis risk in young breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) receiving adjuvant anthracyclines (A) plus cyclophosphamide (C), taxanes or other cytotoxics is higher than anticipated earlier. Furthermore, antiemetic control seems to decline in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy (CT). The ASCO has classified AC to be highly emetogenic (HEC) in their antiemetic guidelines 2011. Palonosetron (P) is a 5-HT3-receptor-antagonist (5-HT3-RA) with higher receptor affinity and longer biological half-life than older compounds. Data suggest that Palonosetron is clinically more effective in the acute phase and that in contrast to the older 5-HT3-RA it is also effective in the delayed phase. P also showed to maintain its efficacy in subsequent cycles. Current antiemetic guidelines list palonosetron as preferred 5-HT3-RA in moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Methods: To evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron after 4 cycles of A containing chemotherapy in BC patients, we have conducted a survey in 41 practices of the BNGO in Germany. Between Nov 2007 and Jan 2012 1299 patients have been documented. Median age was 55 years. Severity, frequency, duration and onset of N/V were recorded in a patient diary. Efficacy criteria were complete control CC (no V, no rescue, mild N); complete response (CR: no V, no rescue) and rescue medication. Results: At the beginning P was used as single agent (56%). Following the MASCC 2010 guidelines P was used in combination with dexamethasone (PDex, 15%) or plus dex and NK1-RA (PNDex, 23%), 16% of pts received additional medication. Efficacy after 4 cycles of CT: Overall (5 days): Complete control CC: (no V, no rescue, mild N) 63,3% of pts, complete response (CR: no V, no rescue) 73,7%; Rescue Medication was needed in 15,6% of pts. PDex CC 48,7%, CR 69,8 %, PNDex: CC 76,3%, CR % 83,33. N was also very well controlled: Overall (5 days) 56% of pts no nausea, 15% moderate N 3% severe N. Conclusions: Palonosetron in combination with dex and NK1-RA is very effective to control nausea and vomiting in A-based adjuvant chemotherapy in young breast cancer patients after 4 cycles of chemotherapy.