Search

Purpose:To study the dynamic changes in plasma Epstein–Barr virus (pEBV) DNA after radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC).Experimental Design:We conducted a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with NPC who had detectable pEBV DNA at 6 weeks post-radiotherapy. Randomized patients had a second pEBV DNA checked at 6 months post-randomization. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).Results:We prospectively enrolled 789 patients. Baseline post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA was undetectable in 573 (72.6%) patients, and detectable in 216 (27.4%) patients, of whom 104 (13.2%) patients were eligible for randomization to adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 52) versus observation (n = 52). The first post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had a sensitivity of 0.48, specificity of 0.81, area under receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.65, false positive (FP) rate of 13.8%, and false negative (FN) rate of 14.4% for disease progression. The second post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had improved sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.75, AUC of 0.78, FP rate of 14.3%, and FN rate of 8.1%. Patients with complete clearance of post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (51%) had survival superior to that of patients without post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance (5-year PFS, 85.5% vs. 23.3%; HR, 9.6; P < 0.0001), comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (5-year PFS, 77.1%), irrespective of adjuvant chemotherapy or observation.Conclusions:Patients with NPC with detectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA who experienced subsequent pEBV DNA clearance had superior survival comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA. Post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance may serve as an early surrogate endpoint for long-term survival in NPC.

Supplementary Figure S1-S2

Supplementary Table S1-S4

Objective: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), corticosteroid, and dopamine antagonists. This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received (neo)adjuvant AC, in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis. Methods: A total of 304 patients were included: Group 1, ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 2, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 3, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1–3); Group 4, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1–3)/olanzapine; and Group 5, netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone (D1–3). Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3, 4, and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1. In addition, emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5, and those of Groups 2 and 3, were compared. Results: When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet (5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with triplet antiemetic regimens (NK1RA/5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with/without olanzapine, complete response (CR) percentages and quality of life (QOL) in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups: Group 1 vs. 3, 41.9% vs. 38.3% (P = 0.6849); Group 1 vs. 4, 41.9% vs. 65.0% (P = 0.0107); and Group 1 vs. 5, 41.9% vs. 60.0% (P = 0.0460). Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing netupitant-based (Group 3) with aprepitant-based (Group 5) triplet antiemetics, CR percentages were 38.3% vs. 60.0%, respectively (P = 0.0176); Group 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing 1 day (Group 2) vs. 3 day (Group 3) dexamethasone, CR percentages were 46.8% and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.3459); Group 3 had a worse QOL. Conclusions: Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics. Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets. Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.

Purpose: To study the dynamic changes in plasma Epstein–Barr virus (pEBV) DNA after radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Experimental Design: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with NPC who had detectable pEBV DNA at 6 weeks post-radiotherapy. Randomized patients had a second pEBV DNA checked at 6 months post-randomization. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: We prospectively enrolled 789 patients. Baseline post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA was undetectable in 573 (72.6%) patients, and detectable in 216 (27.4%) patients, of whom 104 (13.2%) patients were eligible for randomization to adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 52) versus observation (n = 52). The first post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had a sensitivity of 0.48, specificity of 0.81, area under receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.65, false positive (FP) rate of 13.8%, and false negative (FN) rate of 14.4% for disease progression. The second post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had improved sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.75, AUC of 0.78, FP rate of 14.3%, and FN rate of 8.1%. Patients with complete clearance of post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (51%) had survival superior to that of patients without post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance (5-year PFS, 85.5% vs. 23.3%; HR, 9.6; P < 0.0001), comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (5-year PFS, 77.1%), irrespective of adjuvant chemotherapy or observation. Conclusions: Patients with NPC with detectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA who experienced subsequent pEBV DNA clearance had superior survival comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA. Post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance may serve as an early surrogate endpoint for long-term survival in NPC.

This study aimed to investigate changes of QoL during the first 5 years of survival among disease-free Chinese breast cancer survivors.A prospective cohort study enrolled 1462 Chinese women with early-stage breast cancer, and longitudinally visited those patients at four time-points, namely baseline (T0), 18- (T1), 36- (T2), and 60-month (T3) after diagnosis. This study included 992 patients who were disease-free during the first 5 years of survival and who had completed QoL assessments at all four time-points.The score of global health status/QoL improved gradually (T1, T2, T3 T0; P 0.001 for overall comparisons). Social functioning score significantly improved when compared to that of T0 (T1, T2, T3 T0; P 0.001 for overall comparisons). In contrast, cognitive functioning score decreased (T0 T1, T2, T3; P 0.001 for overall comparisons). Scores of physical functioning, role functioning and emotional functioning showed a fluctuated picture, with the highest score achieved at T1. In symptoms profile, most of them scored lowest at T1 (best QoL). Multivariate analysis showed that several characteristics significantly correlated to changes in QoL from T0 to T3. For instance, patients with higher education had better recovery of physical functioning, role functioning, and social functioning.During the first 5 years of survival, patients' global health status/QoL improved over time, social functioning consistently improved, but cognitive functioning steadily deteriorated. Most of functioning domains and symptoms improved at 18-month follow-up, but such improvements were not maintained and even deteriorated at 36- and 60-month post-diagnosis. This study suggested that some interventions should be investigated during such period.

Background After curative radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT), there is no validated tool to accurately identify patients for adjuvant therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Post-RT circulating plasma Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA can detect minimal residual disease and is associated with recurrence and survival independent of TNM (tumor–lymph node–metastasis) stage. We aimed to develop and validate a risk model for stratification of NPC patients after completion of RT/CRT to observation or adjuvant therapy. Patients and methods The prospective multicenter 0502 EBV DNA screening cohort (Hong Kong NPC Study Group 0502 trial) enrolled from 2006 to 2015 (n = 745) was used for model development. For internal validation, we pooled independent patient cohorts from prospective clinical studies enrolled from 1997 to 2006 (n = 340). For external validation, we used retrospective cohort of NPC patients treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2009 to 2012 (n = 837). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed NPC of Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) 7th Edition stage II–IVB who completed curative RT/CRT with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had post-RT EBV DNA tested within 120 days after RT and received no adjuvant therapy. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). We used recursive-partitioning analysis (RPA) to classify patients into groups of low, intermediate, and high risk of death. Results Combining post-RT EBV DNA level (0, 1–49, 50–499, and ≥500 copies/ml) and TNM stage (II, III, IVAB), RPA model classified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with 5-year OS of 89.4%, 78.5% and 37.2%, respectively. The RPA low-risk group had comparable OS to TNM stage II (5-year OS 88.5%) but identified more patients (64.8% versus stage II 28.1%) that could potentially be spared adjuvant therapy toxicity. The RPA model (c-index 0.712) showed better risk discrimination than either the TNM stage (0.604) or post-RT EBV DNA alone (0.675) with improved calibration and consistence. These results were validated in both internal and external cohorts. Conclusion Combining post-RT EBV DNA and TNM stage improved risk stratification in NPC.

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 There is limited work on the impact of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on quality of life (QoL) in adriamycin‐cyclophosphamide (AC)–treated patients with breast cancer. The objectives of the study were the following: (a) to confirm if symptoms of CINV led to lower QoL during AC; (b) to evaluate the pattern of changes in patients’ QoL during multiple cycles of AC; and (c) to assess if the QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent cycles of AC. Materials and Methods This is a secondary pooled data analysis that included 303 Chinese patients with breast cancer who received 1,177 cycles of adjuvant AC in three prospective antiemetic studies. QoL data were based on Functional Living Index–emesis (FLIE) scored over three to four AC cycles. CINV symptoms assessed included “no significant nausea” (NSN), “significant nausea” (SN), “no vomiting” (NoV), “vomiting” (V), and complete response (CR). Results Across all AC cycles, the mean scores for the FLIE nausea domain for patients who experienced NSN versus SN were 10.92 versus 53.92, respectively (p, This article focuses on chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting and quality of life of breast cancer patients through multiple cycles of treatment.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are highly distressing symptoms for cancer patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. This dataset was obtained from a homogenous group of Chinese breast cancer patients who were uniformly planned to receive a highly emetogenic (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, consisting of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (commonly known as AC). Patients were being randomized to one of the two antiemetic regimens: aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone with (the Olanzapine arm) or without olanzapine (the Standard arm). Patients underwent self-reported diaries and questionnaires to record their nausea and vomiting symptoms, use of rescue medication as well as their quality of life (QOL). The primary and secondary endpoints have focused on efficacy analysis during the first cycle of AC chemotherapy; the results have been reported in The Breast [1]. In this Data in Brief article, we provide outcome of the analysis of data collected during multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The data reported here include the proportion of patients with “Complete Response”, “Complete Protection” and “Total Control” of emesis in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (24–120 h) and overall periods (0–120 h), as well as QOL data during all the 4 cycles of AC.

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.

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is a complex side effect with few available treatment options. The aim of the study was to test the effectiveness of an 8-week course of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients who were receiving or had received neurotoxic chemotherapy. Methods: Randomized assessor-blinded controlled trial with 2 arms; one arm received acupuncture twice weekly for 8 weeks, while the other arm was a wait-list control group receiving only standard care. Primary outcome was pain intensity and interference over the past week using the Brief Pain Inventory at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included clinical assessment (CTCAE [Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events] grading and Total Neuropathy Score–Clinical Version) and nerve conduction studies; and patient-reported outcome measures (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group–Neurotoxicity Quality of Life scale and Symptom Distress Scale) assessed at baseline, end of treatment (8 weeks), week 14, and week 20 from the beginning of treatment. Results: Eighty-seven patients were randomized to the experimental arm (n = 44) and to the standard care wait-list control arm (n = 43). Significant changes at 8 weeks were detected in relation to primary outcome (pain), the clinical neurological assessment, quality of life domains, and symptom distress (all P < .05). Improvements in pain interference, neurotoxicity-related symptoms, and functional aspects of quality of life were sustained in the 14-week assessment ( P < .05), as were physical and functional well-being at the 20-week assessment ( P < .05). Conclusions: Acupuncture is an effective intervention for treating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and improving patients’ quality of life and experience with neurotoxicity-related symptoms with longer term effects evident.

Background Clinical guidelines for treatment decision in NPC are mainly based on the anatomical classification by UICC TNM staging. The concentration of plasma EBV DNA measured after radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) is highly prognostic and independent of UICC stage, which may be useful in risk stratification of NPC patients to adjuvant therapy. Methods For model development, we used the prospective multi-center 0502 EBV DNA screening cohort (recruitment period 2006 - 2015; n = 745). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed NPC of stage II-IVB (UICC 7th Edition) and post-RT EBV DNA measured in plasma, no loco-regional disease or distant metastasis after RT/CRT and received no adjuvant therapy. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We used recursive-partitioning analysis (RPA) to classify patients into groups of low-, intermediate- and high-risk of death. For internal validation, we pooled independent patient cohorts from previous published biomarker studies (1997-2006; n = 340). For external validation, we used external cohort of NPC patients treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (2009 - 2012; n = 837) using SYSU EBV DNA test. Results RPA classified NPC patients based on the post-RT plasma EBV DNA level and UICC stage into three distinct prognostic groups (Table). RPA low risk group shared similar 5-yr OS (89.4%; 95% CI = 86.4-92.5%) as UICC stage II (88.5%; 84.0-93.1%) but included 2.3x number of patients that could be potentially spared of adjuvant therapy toxicity. The overall C-index of OS was 0.7118 for RPA risk group, compared to 0.6042 for TNM stage and 0.6747 for EBV DNA (both p Table . 287O Patient No. (%) 5-yr OS HR (95% C.I.) P UICC TNM stage (7th Ed) 1) Stage II 209 (28.1) 88.5 - 2) Stage III 368 (49.4) 81.0 1.50 (0.99-2.25) 0.054 3) Stage IVAB 168 (22.6) 69.4 3.01 (1.97-4.59) Post-RT plasma EBV DNA (copies/ml) 1) 0 573 (76.9) 87.3 - 2) 1-49 74 (9.9) 83.2 1.32 (0.76-2.27) 0.3259 3) 50-499 59 (7.9) 50.5 3.85 (2.55-5.81) 4) > =500 39 (5.2) 28.3 11.59 (7.60-17.67) RPA risk group 1) Low risk EBV DNA 0 and stage II/III 1-49 and stage II 483 (64.8) 89.4 - 2) Intermediate risk EBV DNA 0 and stage IVAB 1-49 and stage III/IVAB 50-499 and stage II 176 (23.6) 78.5 2.40 (1.65-3.50) 3) High risk EBV DNA 50-499 and stage III/IVAB >500 and any stage 86 (11.5) 37.2 8.54 (5.93-12.29) Conclusions Incorporation of post-RT plasma EBV DNA level into UICC TNM stage improved risk stratification of NPC patients to adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial identification Identifier: NCT00370890. Legal entity responsible for the study Comprehensive Cancer Trials Unit, Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure E.P. Hui: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer. W.K.J. Lam: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail. K.C.A. Chan: Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Take2; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: DRA. Y.M.D. Lo: Advisory / Consultancy, Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Grail; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Take2 Health; Leadership role, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: DRA. A.T.C. Chan: Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

EDITOR—Moon and Bogle discuss how switching to generic simvastatin could save money for the NHS in England.1 The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) was established in 2002 to advise the minister of health of the Wales Assembly on promoting safe and cost effective prescribing. The group considers that the promotion of generic simvastatin as the most cost effective statin of choice will …