Search

Background: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis. Results: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL. Conclusion: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Purpose This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016–2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. Methods A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Results Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. Conclusion There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations., Purpose: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016–2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. Methods: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Results: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. Conclusion: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Cholangiocarcinoma is the first most common cancer of the biliary tract. To date, surgical resection is the only potentially curative option, but it is possible only for a limited percentage of patients, and in any case survival rate is quite low. Moreover, cholangiocarcinoma is often chemotherapy-resistant, and the only drug with a significant benefit for patient’s survival is Gemcitabine. It is necessary to find new drugs or combination therapies to treat nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma and improve the overall survival rate of patients. In this work, we evaluate in vitro the antitumoral effects of Rigosertib, a multi-kinase inhibitor in clinical development, against cholangiocarcinoma EGI-1 cell lines. Rigosertib impairs EGI-1 cell viability in a dose-and timedependent manner, reversibility is dose-dependent, and significant morphological and nuclear alterations occur. Moreover, Rigosertib induces the arrest of the cell cycle in the G2/M phase, increases autophagy, and inhibits proteasome, cell migration, and invasion. Lastly, Rigosertib shows to be a stronger radiosensitizer than Gemcitabine and 5-Fluorouracil. In conclusion, Rigosertib could be a potential therapeutic option, alone or in combination with radiations, for nonresectable patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX. Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicenter study, chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5-day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea). Results: Two-hundred twenty-eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX-sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic-risk setting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Implications for Practice: Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short-term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapi

In cancer patients, hypercoagulability is a common finding and it has been associated to an increased risk of venous thromboembolisms, but also to tumor proliferation and progression. In this prospective study, in a large cohort of patients with breast cancer, we aimed to evaluate whether pre-chemotherapy abnormalities in hemostatic biomarkers levels: 1. are associated with breast cancer-specific clinicopathological features; and 2. can predict for disease recurrence. D-dimer, fibrinogen, prothrombin fragment 1+2, and FVIIa/antithrombin levels were measured in 701 early-stage resected breast cancer patients, candidate to adjuvant chemotherapy and prospectively enrolled in the HYPERCAN study. Significant prognostic parameters for disease recurrence were identified by Cox-regression multivariate analysis and used for generating a risk assessment model. Pre-chemotherapy D-dimer, fibrinogen, and prothrombin fragment 1+2 levels were significantly associated with tumor size and lymph node metastasis. After 3.4 years follow-up, 71 patients experienced a recurrence. Cox-multivariate analysis identified prothrombin fragment 1+2, tumor size, and Luminal B HER2-neg or triple negative molecular subtypes as independent risk factors for disease recurrence. Based on these variables, we generated a risk assessment model that significantly differentiated patients at low- and high-risk of recurrence (cumulative incidence: 6.2 vs 20.7%; HR=3.5; p<0.001). Our prospective clinical and laboratory data from the HYPERCAN study were crucial for generating a scoring model for disease recurrence risk assessment in resected breast cancer patients, candidate to systemic chemotherapy. This finding stimulates future investigations addressing the role of plasma prothrombin fragment 1+2 in breast cancer patients' management, and in providing the rationale for new therapeutic strategies.

Background: NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle. Methods: In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined. Results: Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65-0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4). Conclusion: The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was m

Background: Cancer patients present with a hypercoagulable state often associated with poor disease prognosis. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate whether thrombin generation (TG), a global coagulation test, may be a useful tool to improve the identification of patients at high risk of early disease recurrence (i.e. E-DR within 2 years) after breast cancer surgery. Patients/methods: A cohort of 522 newly diagnosed patients with surgically resected high-risk breast cancer were enrolled in the ongoing prospective HYPERCAN study. TG potential was measured in plasma samples collected before starting systemic chemotherapy. Significant predictive hemostatic and clinic-pathological parameters were identified in the derivation cohort by Cox-regression analysis. A risk prognostic score for E-DR was generated in the derivation and tested in the validation cohort. Results: After a median observation period of 3.4 years, DR occurred in 51 patients, 28 of whom were E-DR. E-DR subjects presented with the highest TG values as compared to both late-DR (from 2 to 5 years) and no relapse subjects (p<0.01). Multivariate analysis in the derivation cohort identified TG, mastectomy, triple negative and Luminal B HER2-neg molecular subtypes as significant independent predictors for E-DR, which were utilized to generate a risk assessment score. In the derivation and validation cohorts, E-DR rates were 2.3% and 0% in the low-risk, 10.1% and 6.3% in the intermediate-risk, and 18.2% and 16.7%, in the high-risk categories, respectively. Conclusions: Inclusion of TG in a risk-assessment model for E-DR significantly helps the identification of operated breast cancer patients at high risk of very early relapse.