Search

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h) and overall (0–120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. Results Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. Conclusions Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. Implications for Practice After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

PURPOSE To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy. RESULTS The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non–small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor–containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [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 P5-14-07.

Background NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron] offers 5‐day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion‐site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. Materials and Methods This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double‐blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30‐minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. Results A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment‐related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment‐related injection‐site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0–120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. Conclusion IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection‐site reactions in patients receiving AC. Implications for Practice As a combination of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5‐HT3RA, NEPA offers 5‐day chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection‐site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA., Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a combination antiemetic that offers five‐day prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting with a single dose. This article evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous NEPA in the setting of anthracycline/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

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.

Most patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting without antiemetic prophylaxis. While neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonists (NK‐1RAs) effectively prevent emesis, their ability to prevent nausea has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of the long‐acting NK‐1RA rolapitant in preventing chemotherapy‐induced nausea using post hoc analyses of data from 3 phase 3 trials. Patients were randomized to receive 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo approximately 1‐2 hours before chemotherapy in combination with a 5‐hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Nausea was assessed by visual analog scale during the acute (≤24 hours), delayed (>24‐120 hours), and overall (0‐120 hours) phases. Post hoc analyses by treatment group (rolapitant vs control) were performed on pooled data within patient subgroups receiving cisplatin‐based, carboplatin‐based, or anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. In the cisplatin‐based chemotherapy group, significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no nausea (NN) in the overall (52.3% vs 41.7% [P

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

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history ofprostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localized prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n ¼ 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outliningreview showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of theprostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints inProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials. 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

Despite the considerable progress achieved in the last 30 years, vomiting and, especially, nausea, continue to be two of the most distressing side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. In the late 1990s, several professional organisations published recommendations on the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis in patients submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) published the results of the third Consensus Conference on antiemetics held in Perugia in June 2009 in Annals of Oncology in 2010 [1]. An update of these recommendations, including studies published from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2015, was discussed in Copenhagen in June 2015 and is presented in this paper. The methodology for the guideline process is described in detail in the 2010 publication [1]. To change a 2010 recommendation or for a new guideline recommendation to be accepted, a consensus of at least 67% of the expert panellists was needed. As a general rule, the panel considered changes of 10% or greater to be sufficient to warrant the changing of a recommendation. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Purpose To update a key recommendation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology antiemetic guideline. This update addresses the use of the oral combination of netupitant (a neurokinin 1 [NK1] receptor antagonist) and palonosetron (a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3] receptor antagonist) for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy. Methods An update committee conducted a targeted systematic literature review and identified two phase III clinical trials and a randomized phase II dose-ranging study. Results In one phase III trial, the oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron was associated with higher complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medications) compared with palonosetron alone in patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy (74% v 67% overall; P = .001). In another phase III trial, the oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron was safe and effective across multiple cycles of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapies. In the phase II dose-ranging study, each dose of netupitant (coadministered with palonosetron 0.50 mg) produced higher complete response rates than palonosetron alone among patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The highest dose of netupitant (ie, 300 mg) was most effective. Recommendations All patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens (including anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) should be offered a three-drug combination of an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. The oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron plus dexamethasone is an additional treatment option in this setting. The remaining recommendations from the 2011 ASCO guideline are unchanged pending a full update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

e24133 Background: The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on work loss and activity impairment is important to patients yet not well described in literature. We sought to evaluate CINV-related work loss and activity impairment and their associations with CINV duration. Methods: In a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous netupitant/palonestron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) (12mg day 1 only) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after AC. Pre-specified endpoints included CINV duration (0-5 days), patient reported CINV-associated work loss (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment survey), and CINV-related impaired activity [0 (none) - (worst) Likert scale] for chemotherapy cycles 1 and 2. CINV-related work loss and activity impairment could involve nausea with or without vomiting or rescue medication use. We categorized CINV duration as 1-2 days (d) or ≥3 d, and compared results using the chi-squared test. We report here on the first 2 cycles. Results: Survey data was captured for 792 cycles in 402 female patients including 132 (32.8%) employed patients. Mean age was 55.4. CINV was observed in 173 (21.8%) of total cycles. CINV-related work loss was reported in 26 (3.3% of all cycles, 15.0% of cycles with CINV, 38.2% of employed patient cycles with CINV) while 142 had related activity impairment. When we categorized cycles by CINV duration, CINV-related work loss was seen in 25.9% of 81 cycles with ≥3 d CINV duration vs. 5.4% for 92 cycles of 1-2 d of CINV (p < 0.001); mean scores of CINV-related impaired activity were 5.0 for ≥3 d CINV vs 3.0 for 1-2 d CINV (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite guideline recommended prophylaxis, CINV occurred in > 20% of AC cycles. In cycles with CINV, CINV-related work loss occurred in 38.2% for employed patients while activity impairment occurred in 82.1% for all patient cycles. The majority of CINV lasted 1-2 d. Notably, ≥3 d of CINV was associated with considerably higher levels of work loss and activity impairment suggesting that duration may be a meaningful measure of CINV impact. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712 . [Table: see text]

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients with use of guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, studies have suggested that adherence to antiemetic guidelines is suboptimal. Oncology nurses, as part of a multidisciplinary team, can help promote appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis. Therefore, nurses were surveyed to assess antiemetic guideline awareness and practice patterns of antiemetic use, determine adherence to guideline recommendations, and query barriers to adherence. Methods In September 2015, 531 US-based oncology nurses participated in an online survey administered and analyzed by ONS:Edge. Results Nurses were most familiar with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (73%) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (48%) antiemetic guidelines. While most (77%) felt that antiemetics prescribed were consistent with guideline recommendations, practice patterns of antiemetic use revealed low adherence to those guidelines, particularly during the delayed (25–120 h) phase following highly emetogenic chemotherapy, where only 25% of nurses reported administration of guideline-recommended agents. Overutilization of phenothiazines and benzodiazepines was common. Only 17% of respondents reported that most (> 75%) of their patients have CINV optimally controlled; 39% reported between 6 and 20% of patients have an alteration in their chemotherapy due to CINV, and reports of emergency department/hospital visits due to poorly controlled CINV were high. The predominant barrier interfering guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis was reported as physician preference (71%). Conclusions This survey revealed an opportunity to increase awareness of antiemetic guidelines and a critical need to address barriers interfering with utilization of guideline-recommended antiemetic agents in order to optimize CINV control for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-017-3866-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to update the MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) guidelines for controlling nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential. Methods: The antiemetic study group of MASCC met in Copenhagen in 2015 to review the MASCC antiemetic guidelines. A subgroup performed a systematic literature review on antiemetics for low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) and chemotherapy of minimal emetic potential and the chair presented the update recommendation to the whole group for discussion. They then voted with an aim of achieving 67 % or greater consensus. Results: For patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy, a single antiemetic such as dexamethasone, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, or a dopamine receptor antagonist may be considered for prophylaxis of acute emesis. For patients receiving chemotherapy of minimal emetogenicity, no antiemetic should be routinely administered. If patients vomit, they should be treated as for chemotherapy of low emetic potential. No antiemetic should be administered for prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by low or minimally emetogenic chemotherapy. Conclusions: More research is needed to determine the incidence of emesis, particularly delayed emesis, in the LEC group. Prospective studies are required to evaluate antiemetic strategies. The risk of emesis within LEC may be more accurately determined by adding the patient risk factors for emesis to those of the chemotherapy drugs. Improved strategies for promoting adherence to guidelines are required. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

112 Background: In the US, the CMS OP-35 oncology outcome measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care involving nausea and emesis (NV) or 8 other toxicities as avoidable, with studies showing 15% of > 2500 patients receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy had avoidable acute care, of which 32% involved NV. Our aim was to evaluate resource use (emergency department [ED] visits, inpatient admissions [IP], or hydration) in a prospective trial of women with breast cancer who received combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) for CINV prophylaxis for AC-based chemotherapy. Methods: Women initiating AC received oral or IV NEPA + DEX. Pre-specified endpoints included safety, complete response, acute care (ED/IP), unplanned IV hydrations (as determined by investigator), days of CINV, and ≥3 days of CINV. We defined CINV as emesis or rescue drug use up to 5 days after AC, and defined concomitant ED/IP or hydrations in the same period as CINV-related. We limited our analysis to the first 2 cycles, the median duration in the NEPA study. Results: 402 patients received ≥1 cycle of AC and 391 completed 2 cycles. Nine patients had IP (none CINV-related), and 5 patients had a total of 6 ED visits (1 CINV-related). Three patients had a CINV-related unplanned hydration. Patients had ≥1 day of CINV in 172 of 793 cycles (21.7%); of these, the majority had symptom duration for 1-2 days, while 78 (9.8%) had ≥3 days of CINV in a cycle. Conclusions: In this prospective CINV prophylaxis study in women receiving AC chemotherapy, < 1% of women receiving NEPA + DEX required acute care for CINV and < 1% required unplanned hydrations for CINV. These rates are below previously reported CINV-related acute care rates for AC suggesting NEPA may help avoid CINV-related acute care. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712.

e23108 Background: ASCO antiemetic guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Physicians exhibit high variation in HEC guideline adherence, principally involving inclusion of NK1 RA. Whether adherence is associated with selection of the specific 5HT3 RA agent remains inadequately studied. Methods: In the IBM Explorys electronic health record database, we used procedure and diagnosis codes to identify HEC courses and related nausea/vomiting (NV) from 2012 to 2018. We defined HEC guideline adherence as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. We assigned HEC courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) to prescribing oncologists based on encounter frequency. We categorized 5HT3 RA use of each physician treating ≥ 5 HEC courses based on their most commonly used 5HT3 and performed descriptive statistics. Results: Of 12,262 HEC courses, 57% involved physicians having greater use of ondansetron (OND) (mean OND to palonosetron (PALO) ratio of 3.9:1). These courses had lower guideline adherence (due to NK1 RA omission) and higher rates of NV for combined HEC, AC, and carboplatin. NV rates for cisplatin did not vary by 5HT3 agent used. Courses involving physicians with greater PALO use (mean OND:PALO ratio of 0.2:1) had superior adherence and NV rates, despite involving a slightly higher risk population (younger and/or female). Conclusions: According to HEC antiemetic guidelines, NK1 RA use should occur independent of 5HT3 RA agent selection. However, we observed less NK1 RA use where OND was preferred, which may have caused the observed higher rates of NV with OND. Further evaluation should assess whether pharmacy cost minimization is a driver of both OND preference and NK1 omission in HEC. [Table: see text]

11595 Background: In 2017, NCCN (2/2017) and ASCO (8/2017) each amended antiemetic guidelines to classify carboplatin AUC ≥4 as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), recommending upfront triple prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone. Physician concordance with the new recommendations, and the consequences for avoidable post-chemotherapy acute care, merit study. Methods: In a large electronic health record database (IBM Explorys), we identified carboplatin courses of therapy (≥14-day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥4) and courses with ≥7-day cycles of other HEC and non-HEC therapy from 4Q 2012 through August 2018. Guideline concordance, defined as triple prophylaxis at HEC initiation, was evaluated. We also assessed 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care (inpatient or emergency department) associated with nausea or vomiting (NV) or eight other toxicities deemed avoidable in the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid’s new oncology outcome measure OP-35. Results: 11,554 carboplatin courses were identified. Before the guideline change, rates of upfront triple prophylaxis grew from 14% in 2013 to 16% in mid-2017. Rates then rose to 26% by 1Q 2018 before dropping to 21% by 3Q 2018; quarterly rates averaged 20% (range 15%-26%) following the guideline change. In 31% of carboplatin courses we noted 30-day acute care use, of which 75% involved ≥1 of the ten OP-35 toxicities. NV (with or without acute care use) was reported in 24% of courses, and 27% of total OP-35 acute care events involved NV. Rates for NV, and for OP-35-related and NV-related acute care after carboplatin, were similar to rates after other HEC chemotherapy, and higher than rates after other non-HEC IV chemotherapy or oral HEC/MEC agents. Conclusions: Use of upfront triple antiemetic prophylaxis has increased only marginally for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 since its 2017 re-classification as HEC in national guidelines, perhaps due to low awareness of the change. Patients receiving carboplatin had similar rates of NV and related 30-day acute care events as seen for other HEC, confirming that the new HEC definition fits clinical experience. More triple prophylaxis use is needed to reduce NV and NV-related avoidable acute care seen with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4.

Background: Avoiding acute care services can improve cancer care and reduce cost. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) defines 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and/or emergency department (ED) events (IP/ED) as “potentially avoidable” if involving any of 10 toxicities, including nausea or vomiting (NV). Evidence demonstrates meaningful gaps in oncologists’ adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and that NV-related IP use costs >$10,000; yet the incidence of avoidable acute care events involving NV is not well studied. Methods: We assessed chemotherapy courses using IBM Explorys electronic health records (4Q 2012–1Q 2018). We identified rates of IP/ED ≤30 days post-chemotherapy, and OP-35 toxicities (NV, anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by ICD-9, ICD-10, procedure codes, and CMS criteria. We evaluated cisplatin, anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), oxaliplatin (OX), and other non-HEC chemotherapy. We assessed guideline adherence, defined as triple prophylaxis (NK1 RA + 5HT3 RA +dexamethasone) rates at HEC initiation. Results: In 17,609 HEC and 56,624 non-HEC courses, we observed 30-day IP/ED utilization in 29% and 19% of courses, respectively (Table 1). For HEC, 76% of IP/ED use involved ≥1 of the 10 CMS toxicities, most often anemia (42%), pain (41%), dehydration (24%), and NV (24%). Rates of all-cause IP/ED, IP/ED with OP-35 toxicity, and NV-related IP/ED were consistent for HEC and OX. Gaps in triple prophylaxis were common in HEC. Conclusion: Roughly one-third of patients receiving HEC or OX experienced IP/ED events ≤30 days after chemotherapy. Three-quarters of IP/ED events involved ≥1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities linked by CMS to potentially avoidable acute care; of these, one-third involved NV. NV-associated acute care use is considerable, costly, and potentially avoidable with better adherence to antiemesis guidelines.

651 Background: Oxaliplatin (OX), used primarily in gastrointestinal cancers, is considered moderately emetogenic while multiple guidelines classify carboplatin and cisplatin as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deems 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) events “potentially avoidable” if involving nausea or emesis (NV) or any of eight other toxicities. We lack data comparing avoidable IP/ED and NV events for OX relative to platinums classified as HEC. Methods: We assessed OX, cisplatin, and carboplatin courses of therapy from 4Q 2012 to 1Q 2018 using the IBM Watson Explorys database. We identified IP/ED and OP-35 toxicities (anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, NV, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by diagnosis and procedure codes, and stratified results by sex and age < 70 (median age at diagnosis for colorectal cancer). An IP/ED event could involve ≥ 1 OP-35 toxicity. We also evaluated a FOLFIRINOX subgroup (receiving irinotecan ≤ 3 days after OX). Results: In sum, we identified 4,231 OX courses (382 FOLFIRINOX) (Table). OP-35 toxicities occurred in 75% of IP/ED events; of these, 34% OX and 42% FOLFIRINOX involved NV. Rates of IP/ED, IP/ED OP-35-defined toxicity, and NV after OX were consistent with cisplatin and carboplatin. Among patients receiving OX, women age < 70 (n = 1388) had higher NV rates vs. others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Roughly one-third of patients receiving OX experienced IP/ED events ≤ 30 days post chemotherapy. Most involved ≥ 1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities, meeting CMS’ criteria as potentially avoidable acute care. OX IP/ED rates and NV rates were similar to other platinums and were worse among women age < 70, suggesting more aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be evaluated. [Table: see text]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remains a significant problem for cancer patients. Patient factors such as polypharmacy, medication costs, mucositis, and depression may hinder good antiemetic control, while high workloads, poor communication, and underestimation of the problem on the part of healthcare professionals also play a role. Improving outcomes requires accurate assessment of risk factors, use of guidelines, and better adherence to antiemetic regimens. Extended-release formulations and new delivery systems such as transdermal patches, nasal sprays, and pumps provide a new strategy that may improve patient outcomes.

In the late 1990s, several professional organizations convened antiemetic guideline groups and published the findings of these expert panels. Each of these documents was based on analyses of the available published trials and provided nearly similar recommendations. Nonetheless, small differences in emetic risk categories and treatment recommendations led to confusion in antiemetics selection. With the emergence of new findings and agents since the guidelines were initially published, many of the oncology professional societies have updated the antiemetic guidelines.A literature review up to March 2004 was carried out using MEDLINE with evaluation of the evidence by an expert panel composed of 23 oncology professionals in clinical medicine, medical oncology, radiation oncology, oncology nursing, statistics, pharmacy, medical policy and decision making, and pharmacology. The experts represented nine oncology professional societies and came from 11 different countries on four continents.Recommendations on antiemetic regimens to prevent emesis induced by high, moderate, low and minimal risk chemotherapy were suggested as well as management of anticipatory emesis. Furthermore, recommendations for refractory emesis, emesis induced by high-dose chemotherapy and radiotherapy and for antiemetics in children receiving chemotherapy were elaborated.Recommendations about antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving treatment with chemo- and radiotherapy have been updated by representatives of nine oncological organizations.

As many as 40-80% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience nausea and/or vomiting, depending on the site of irradiation. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8 weeks period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting could affect quality of life. Furthermore, uncontrolled nausea and vomiting may result in patients delaying or refusing further radiotherapy. Nausea and vomiting are often underestimated by radiation oncologists. Incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting depend on RT-related factors (single and total dose, fractionation, irradiated volume, radiotherapy techniques) and patient-related factors (gender, general health of the patient, age, concurrent or recent chemotherapy, psychological state, tumor stage). Current antiemetic guidelines prescribe the emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommend the use of 5-HT(3) antagonists with or without a steroid for prophylaxis in moderately and highly emetogenic treatment (MASCC, ASCO, ASHP, NCCN). The new proposed guidelines summarise the updated data from the literature and take into consideration the existing guidelines. According to the irradiated area (the most frequently studied risk factor), the proposed guidelines are divided into four levels of emetogenic risk: high, moderate, low and minimal. They offer guidance to prescribing physicians for effective antiemetic therapies in RINV.

224 Background: Nausea control remains an unmet need for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC, HEC). The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist rolapitant (VARUBI) on the prevention of nausea in patients receiving either MEC or HEC. Methods: Post hoc analyses of nausea from three randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials were performed for carboplatin-based MEC (n = 401), non-carboplatin-based MEC (n = 228), total MEC (n = 629), anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy (n = 703), and cisplatin-based HEC (n = 1070). Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo ~1–2 h before chemotherapy. All patients received active control: granisetron 2 mg oral or 10 mcg/kg IV and oral dexamethasone 20 mg. Granisetron was continued on days 2 and 3 for patients receiving MEC or AC-based therapy and dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on days 2–4 for patients receiving HEC. Patients self-assessed nausea on days 1–6 using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Percentage of patients with no nausea (NN; maximum VAS < 5 mm) or no significant nausea (NSN; maximum VAS < 25 mm) was determined for overall, delayed, and acute phases of CINV in cycle 1. Results: Rates of NN in the carboplatin-based MEC and total MEC subgroups were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with rolapitant than active control in the delayed and overall phases. In the cisplatin-based HEC subgroup, rates of NN and NSN were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with rolapitant than active control in the delayed, acute, and overall phases. Conclusions: Rolapitant prevents nausea during all CINV phases in patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC, and during the delayed and overall phases in patients receiving carboplatin-based MEC. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226, NCT01499849, NCT01500213.

e21647Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients with use of evidence-based guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, studies suggest th...

Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology. Methods A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea. Results Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists. Recommendations Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.

The purpose of this study is to update the guidelines for antiemetic therapy to be used with anticancer agents of low to minimal emetic potential.Experts from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) met in Perugia in 2009 to revise the MASCC antiemetic consensus guidelines. There is an increasing number of anticancer agents which are classified as being associated with a low or minimal risk of nausea and vomiting. However, the emetic potential of such agents and particularly those given as prolonged oral therapy is not well documented, and neither is the optimal antiemetic therapy.The consensus is that patients receiving anticancer therapy of low emetic potential should receive single-agent antiemetic prophylaxis such as dexamethasone, 5 hydroxytryptamine3 (5HT3) receptor antagonists, or dopamine receptor antagonists. Those receiving anticancer therapy of minimal emetic potential and who have no prior history of nausea and vomiting should not receive antiemetic prophylaxis. Those who experience nausea and vomiting subsequently can receive single-agent dexamethasone, 5HT3 receptor antagonists, or dopamine receptor antagonists.More data are needed on the emetic potential and the outcome of antiemetic treatment with agents likely to fall into the low or minimal emetic potential category.

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are still often underestimated by radiation oncologists. However, as many as 50-80% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience nausea and/or vomiting, depending on the site of irradiation. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8-week period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting affect quality of life. Furthermore, uncontrolled nausea and vomiting may result in patients delaying or refusing further radiotherapy. Incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting depend on RT-related factors (irradiated site, single and total dose, fractionation, irradiated volume, radiotherapy techniques) and patient-related factors (gender, general health of the patient, age, concurrent or recent chemotherapy, psychological state, tumor stage). The new proposed guideline from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and European Society of Clinical Oncology summarises the updated data from the literature and takes into consideration the existing guidelines. According to the irradiated area (the most frequently studied risk factor), the proposed guideline divided these areas into four levels of emetogenic risk: high, moderate, low and minimal. In fact, the emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and steroids are given in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen. This updated guideline offers guidance to the treating physicians for effective antiemetic therapies in RINV.

An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy discussed during the third Perugia Consensus Conference (June 2009) sponsored by MASCC-ESMO was presented. The review considered new studies published since the second consensus conference (April 2004).An online search was used conducting PubMed and the search terms moderately, chemotherapy, and emesis with a restriction to papers in English.Overall, nine randomized controlled studies were included: four evaluating NK1 receptor antagonists, one palonosetron, and four dopamine receptor antagonists.In patients receiving a combination of anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide treated with a combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute nausea and vomiting, aprepitant is suggested to prevent delayed emesis. In patients who do not receive aprepitant for the prophylaxis for acute emesis and in which palonosetron is recommended, a multiday oral dexamethasone is the preferred treatment for the prevention of delayed emesis. Levels of evidence and of consensus for both recommendations are moderate.

Only a few studies have been carried out in children on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists have been shown to be more efficacious and less toxic than metoclopramide, phenothiazines and cannabinoids. Most dose studies are available for the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists ondansetron and granisetron. The new 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron was evaluated in one comparative study so far showing promising activity. Combinations of a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone showed increased efficacy with respect to a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist alone. All paediatric patients receiving chemotherapy of high or moderate emetogenic potential should receive a combination of a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute emesis. No studies have specifically evaluated antiemetic drugs in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed and anticipatory emesis in children. The role of the NK1 receptor antagonists in children has to be further investigated, although one small study is published so far, showing promising activity in the prevention of CINV with aprepitant. The new proposed guideline from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the European Society of Clinical Oncology summarises the updated data from the literature and takes into consideration the existing guidelines.

PurposeTo update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.Update MethodologyThe Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.RecommendationsThe three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk.ConclusionThe Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients' emetic risk categories and other characteristics.

Background and purpose To report recommendations given in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) International Consensus Conference regarding the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy. Patients and methods A steering committee under MASCC auspice chose panel participants for the guidelines development process on prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis (RIE). Pertinent information from published literature as of March 2004 was reviewed for the guideline process. Both the MASCC level of scientific confidence and level of consensus, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) type of evidence and grade for recommendation were adopted. Results Total body irradiation is classified at high risk, upper abdomen at moderate, lower thorax, pelvis, cranium (radiosurgery) and craniospinal at low, head and neck, extremities, cranium and breast at minimal risk. The recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy are as follows: prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist in patients at high and moderate risk levels of RIE (±dexamethasone in the former group), prophylaxis or rescue with a 5-HT3 antagonist in the low risk group, and rescue with dopamine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in minimal risk level. Conclusions These recommendations represent a valid tool for prophylaxis and treatment of RIE in clinical practice.

For patients treated with low or minimally emetogenic chemotherapy there is little evidence from clinical trials supporting the choice of a given antiemetic therapy or of any treatment at all. The panel recognized the necessity of considering the introduction into clinical practice of new agents in these categories, particularly oral cytotoxic agents and targeted biological agents and also the possibility of over-treatment with antiemetics. There was consensus among panel members regarding the recommended treatment for patients receiving chemotherapy agents with low and minimal emetic risk. Patients without a history of nausea and vomiting for whom minimally emetic risk chemotherapy is prescribed should not routinely receive antiemetic prophylaxis. A single agent such as a low-dose corticosteroid is suggested for patients receiving agents of low emetic risk. If nausea and vomiting occurs during subsequent cycles of chemotherapy, prophylaxis with a single agent such as a substituted benzamide, a corticosteroid, or a phenothiazine should be administered. Only patients with persistent nausea and vomiting despite treatment with these recommended agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in the following cycles.

Data on the incidence and efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis against delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy are scanty. An overview of the literature has been done that showed the efficacy of dexamethasone in two of three randomized trials. Its optimal dose and duration of administration has not been defined. Only one of four randomized studies showed a statistically significant efficacy of 5-HT(3) antagonists. Finally, only weak evidence has been published on the efficacy of dopamine receptor antagonists.

Antiemetic guidelines from a variety of professional organizations have been available for several years. It is unclear just how often these guidelines have been used, however; data indicate that some practitioners still do not treat their patients according to the recommendations. Some of those involved in the creation of the original guidelines convened to try to create a simpler, more practical approach to the use of antiemetics in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The group's intention was to clarify available guidelines and produce a practical document, based on evidence, that could be used in everyday practice. The group created four consensus statements that would serve as a basis for their recommendations. One primary strategy used was to have chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting viewed as a single process that can occur throughout a treatment cycle, and not so much as an acute and a delayed process, as is usual in clinical trials. Patients' management should be considered over a 4- to 5-day period, rather than primarily dealing with the day of treatment only. The group created three tables: emetic risk of chemotherapy; treatment options based on emetic category; and antiemetic dosing recommendations. Use of these tables should make appropriate antiemetic selection more straightforward and easier for the practitioner in an everyday setting. Although this document alone may not solve all the challenges with appropriate antiemetic management, it will hopefully prove to be a step in the right direction.

Only a few studies have been carried out in children on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute emesis. 5-HT3 antagonists have been shown to be more efficacious and less toxic than metoclopramide, phenothiazines and cannabinoids. The optimal dose and scheduling of the 5-HT3 antagonists has not been identified. Combinations of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone show increased efficacy with respect to 5-HT3 antagonists alone. All pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy of high or moderate emetogenic potential should receive a combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute emesis. No studies have specifically evaluated antiemetic drugs in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed and anticipatory emesis in children.