Volume 13, Issue 10, Supplement 10 October 2015
Discussants
Eric Roeland, MD
Director of Clinical Research in Symptom Intervention
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine
University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center
La Jolla, California
Matti S. Aapro, MD
Dean of the Multidisciplinary Oncology Institute
Clinique de Genolier
Genolier, Switzerland
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD
Professor of Medicine
Chief, Division of Hematology & Oncology
The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Memphis, Tennessee
A CME Activity
Approved for
1.25 AMA PRA
Category 1 Credit(s)-TM
Release Date: October 2015
Expiration Date: October 31, 2016
Estimated time to complete activity: 1.25 hours
Project ID: 11026
Abstract: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared and debilitating adverse events experienced by cancer patients. Left unaddressed, CINV symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but may also affect patients’ willingness to continue chemotherapy treatment. Detailed guidelines are available that outline best practices for prophylaxis of acute and delayed CINV. However, adherence to guideline recommendations continues to be suboptimal, and many patients still suffer unnecessarily from CINV. In addition, breakthrough/refractory CINV continues to present particular challenges. The development of effective CINV treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has expanded the options available for preventing symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several new therapies for the management of CINV. NEPA is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant (300 mg) plus palonosetron (0.5 mg). In combination with dexamethasone, NEPA has demonstrated superior efficacy to palonosetron alone in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant is a next-generation neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. Both palonosetron and rolapitant have proven particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Regimens that combine a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine–3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and a corticosteroid now represent the standard of care for managing both acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
This activity is supported by an independent
educational grant from Eisai Inc.
Jointly provided by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Millennium Medical Publishing
Disclaimer
Funding for this clinical roundtable monograph has been provided through an educational grant from Eisai Inc. Support of this monograph does not imply the supporter’s agreement with the views expressed herein. Every effort has been made to ensure that drug usage and other information are presented accurately; however, the ultimate responsibility rests with the prescribing physician. Millennium Medical Publishing, Inc., the supporter, and the participants shall not be held responsible for errors or for any consequences arising from the use of information contained herein. Readers are strongly urged to consult any relevant primary literature. No claims or endorsements are made for any drug or compound at present under clinical investigation.
©2015 Millennium Medical Publishing, Inc., 611 Broadway, Suite 310, New York, NY 10012. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction, in whole or in part, in any form.
Guiding Principles in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
Eric Roeland, MD
C
hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a major concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the past 2 decades, significant progress has been made in developing effective drugs that can prevent or mitigate CINV. It is important for oncologists to proactively anticipate CINV and to educate patients regarding the availability and efficacy of these agents.
Depending on the timing of onset and the cause of occurrence, CINV is categorized as acute, delayed, anticipatory, or breakthrough/refractory. Acute CINV occurs within 24 hours of administration of chemotherapy, and delayed CINV occurs during days 2 to 5 after treatment. Anticipatory CINV is nausea and/or vomiting triggered by the expectation of receiving chemotherapy.1 It can arise from various stimuli associated with treatment, including driving past the cancer center or even thinking about a chemotherapy session. Low-dose benzodiazepines are effective in treating this type of CINV.
Chemotherapy-induced emetogenesis occurs primarily through the peripheral or central pathways that stimulate the vomiting center.2 The peripheral pathway includes the gut and the vagal afferent pathway. Its activity is mediated primarily by serotonin receptors on the vagus nerve. The peripheral pathway is mostly involved in mediating acute CINV. The central pathway is located primarily in the brain and includes the chemoreceptor trigger zone and vestibular centers. It is associated with delayed-onset CINV. The central pathway contains receptors for several neurotransmitters, including substance P, which is closely related to neurokinin 1 (NK1); histamine; and serotonin. Many therapies for CINV modulate the activity of these receptors.
Consensus guidelines that describe best practices for the prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are available from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care and Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO).3-5 Chemotherapeutic drugs are categorized by emetogenic risk (Table 1). Highly emetogenic therapies induce nausea and/or emesis in more than 90% of patients, moderately emetogenic therapies induce nausea and/or emesis in 30% to 90% of patients, and chemotherapies with a low risk induce nausea and/or emesis in 10% to 30% of patients.
Patient factors also affect the incidence of CINV. CINV is more likely to occur in patients younger than 50 years and in women.6,7 Patients with a history of motion sickness, low alcohol intake, or severe nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy also have a higher incidence of CINV. These patients can be challenging to treat, but they often benefit from the addition of a third antiemetic agent to the prophylactic regimen.
Risk-Based Treatment
Prophylactic treatment is recommended for patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetogenic risk. Patients receiving highly emetogenic therapies are treated with triple therapy, which includes a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine–3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist in combination with an NK1 antagonist and a corticosteroid, usually dexamethasone. For example, among women receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapies or combinations of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, the 3-drug antiemetic combinations are essential. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, patients should receive a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid. For chemotherapies associated with a low risk, prophylactic treatment is usually not advised; instead, patients are treated based on symptoms.
Dolasetron mesylate, granisetron, ondansetron, and palonosetron are 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and have been a mainstay of CINV therapy, starting with approval of ondansetron by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991 (Figure 1). They are particularly effective in controlling acute emesis. A recently developed intranasal formulation of granisetron showed drug release for up to 3 hours in vitro, and it may provide a more convenient delivery method.8 Palonosetron is a second-generation antagonist of the 5-HT3 receptor.9,10 It has a half-life of approximately 40 hours and binds to the 5-HT3 receptor with a much greater affinity than its predecessors. It is thought that palonosetron prevents emesis by inhibiting the binding of serotonin to 5-HT3 receptors peripherally, in the vagus in the gastrointestinal tract, and centrally, in the chemoreceptor trigger zone. After palonosetron binds to the 5-HT3 receptor, the complex is internalized, further contributing to the prolonged inhibition of serotonin signaling.
Despite its longer plasma half-life and tighter binding affinity, palonosetron has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. A phase 3 trial of 570 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy compared single doses of palonosetron (0.25 mg or 0.75 mg) with ondansetron.11 The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) associated with palonosetron were headache (5%), constipation (2%-3%), and dizziness (0%-1%). Dose adjustments are generally not required for elderly patients or those with renal or hepatic impairment. The NCCN guidelines list palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy with a moderate emetic risk.3
Breakthrough and Refractory CINV
Despite the progress seen with the use of new antiemetic agents, approximately one-third of patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy develop breakthrough CINV, which occurs despite antiemetic prophylaxis.12 One approach to the management of breakthrough CINV involves the use of a drug from a different class than the ones in the patient’s previous treatment regimen. Refractory CINV occurs when patients develop symptoms despite medication, but the term is used inconsistently in the literature.3,13 It can be defined as CINV that occurs after the first cycle of chemotherapy despite guideline-based prophylaxis and after first-line rescue medication (eg, a dopamine receptor antagonist, a corticosteroid, and/or benzodiazepine) has failed to control symptoms. Refractory CINV is a particularly vexing problem because these patients experience persistent symptoms despite receiving guideline-based prophylaxis.
A double-blind, randomized phase 3 study compared olanzapine vs metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.14 Prophylactic CINV treatment consisted of dexamethasone (12 mg), palonosetron (0.25 mg), and fosaprepitant (150 mg) administered before chemotherapy on day 1 of the treatment cycle, followed by dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily) administered on days 2 through 4. Patients who developed breakthrough CINV were randomized to receive olanzapine (10 mg daily) for 3 days or metoclopramide (10 mg 3 times daily) for 3 days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 72 hours after taking breakthrough medication. During the 72-hour observation period, 39 of 56 patients (70%) who received olanzapine were free of emesis compared with 16 of 52 patients (31%) who received metoclopramide (P<.01). The proportion of patients without nausea was also superior for patients taking olanzapine vs metoclopramide (68% vs 23%; P<.01).
Nausea: A Continuing Concern
Between the CINV symptoms, vomiting has received more attention owing to the violent nature of the experience and because it is easier to observe and measure. However, nausea is a greater concern for many patients because it can be incapacitating and long-lasting. The subjectivity of nausea has led to the use of validated questionnaires to capture patient-reported outcomes. These tools can be used to identify the occurrence of nausea and to measure the efficacy of interventions. The Functional Living Index for Emesis (FLIE) is a patient-reported questionnaire that measures the impact of CINV on patients’ daily quality of life. It was originally developed to assess the impact of CINV during the 3 days after administration of chemotherapy and has subsequently been validated for 5-day recall.15,16 The FLIE can thus capture the impact of acute and delayed CINV. Alternatively, the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) is an 8-item scale for the assessment of acute and delayed CINV that is completed once during each cycle of chemotherapy. It is slightly shorter than the FLIE, is more convenient for patients, and includes the 24-hour recall period.
Despite the availability of extensive consensus treatment guidelines, compliance rates among oncologists are suboptimal. In a study of patients with malignant glioma who were receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy, provider adherence to treatment guidelines at baseline was only 58%.17 Therefore, despite the availability of detailed treatment guidelines, many patients continue to experience CINV. Asking patients specific questions and listening attentively to their answers can elicit important details, thereby enabling providers to recommend appropriate treatment.
Disclosure
Dr Roeland is a member of the speakers bureaus of Teva and Eisai; the Data Safety Monitoring Board of Cellceutix; and the advisory boards of Eisai, Inform Genomics, and Helsinn. He has performed consulting for Eisai.
References
1. Kamen C, Tejani MA, Chandwani K, et al. Anticipatory nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:172-179.
2. Janelsins MC, Tejani MA, Kamen C, Peoples AR, Mustian KM, Morrow GR. Current pharmacotherapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(6):757-766.
3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Antiemesis. Version 1.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/antiemesis.pdf. Updated April 1, 2015. Accessed September 16, 2015.
4. Basch E, Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Prestrud AA, Temin S, Lyman GH. Antiemetics: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(6):395-398.
5. Roila F, Herrstedt J, Aapro M, et al; ESMO/MASCC Guidelines Working Group. Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 5):v232-v243.
6. Tonato M, Roila F, Del Favero A. Methodology of antiemetic trials: a review. Ann Oncol. 1991;2(2):107-114.
7. Roila F, Tonato M, Basurto C, et al. Antiemetic activity of high doses of metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in cisplatin-treated cancer patients: a randomized double-blind trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5(1):141-149.
8. Ibrahim HK, Abdel Malak NS, Abdel Halim SA. Formulation of convenient, easily scalable, and efficient granisetron HCl intranasal droppable gels. Mol Pharm. 2015;12(6):2019-2025.
9. Grunberg SM, Koeller JM. Palonosetron: a unique 5-HT3-receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2003;4(12):2297-2303.
10. Celio L, Niger M, Ricchini F, Agustoni F. Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy. Core Evid. 2015;10:75-87.
11. Gralla R, Lichinitser M, Van Der Vegt S, et al. Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double-blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(10):1570-1577.
12. Lohr L. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer J. 2008;14(2):85-93.
13. Navari RM. Treatment of breakthrough and refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting [published online]. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:595894. doi:10.1155/2015/595894.
14. Navari RM, Nagy CK, Gray SE. The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):1655-1663.
15. Decker GM, DeMeyer ES, Kisko DL. Measuring the maintenance of daily life activities using the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. J Support Oncol. 2006;4(1):35-41, 52.
16. Martin AR, Pearson JD, Cai B, Elmer M, Horgan K, Lindley C. Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients’ daily lives: a modified version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) with 5-day recall. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11(8):522-527.
17. Affronti ML, Schneider SM, Herndon JE II, Schlundt S, Friedman HS. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in patients with malignant glioma: a quality improvement project to translate evidence into practice. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(7):1897-1905.
Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Review of Current Data
Matti S. Aapro, MD
N
ausea is a common AE associated with chemotherapy and a major concern of cancer patients. The armamentarium of antiemetic drugs has expanded considerably during the previous 2 decades, with the addition of numerous new agents that target a variety of physiologic pathways. Prophylactic regimens to prevent CINV have included a corticosteroid plus a 5-HT3 antagonist since the development of the latter class of drugs in the 1990s. The last decade has seen the emergence of a new class of antiemetics designed to inhibit activity of the NK1 receptor. These drug classes each employ a different mechanism of action to control CINV.
Aprepitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant attenuate the activity of the NK1 receptor.1 Aprepitant is an oral agent that selectively blocks binding of substance P to the NK1 receptor. In patients receiving highly emetogenic, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to the dual therapy consisting of a corticosteroid and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist improved outcome compared with the dual therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.2 This 3-drug combination is recommended in the current consensus treatment guidelines for controlling CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.3-5
Fosaprepitant is a parenteral, water-soluble prodrug of aprepitant. After intravenous administration, fosaprepitant is rapidly converted to aprepitant. A 1-day dosing schedule for fosaprepitant (150 mg) was approved by the FDA in 2010, based on the demonstration of its equivalence with 3-day dosing of aprepitant in preventing CINV in the 120 hours after administration of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.6
Netupitant is a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist that has demonstrated efficacy in controlling delayed CINV symptoms. It has a dose-dependent ability to inhibit the substance P response by NK1 receptors in vitro.7 The combination of netupitant and palonosetron has demonstrated a synergistic ability to inhibit the substance P response. Netupitant (300 mg) has been combined with palonosetron (0.5 mg) into a single capsule, known as NEPA.8-10 The single-capsule coformulation of these 2 drugs provides a more convenient option for patients and has demonstrated sustained activity throughout several treatment cycles.10
A randomized phase 3 trial investigated the efficacy of NEPA vs palonosetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing cyclophosphamide plus either doxorubicin or epirubicin.8 This multinational, double-blind, parallel group trial included 1455 chemotherapy-naive patients. All patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the palonosetron arm). Patients were randomized to receive a single oral dose of NEPA (300 mg netupitant/0.5 mg palonosetron) or a single oral dose of palonosetron (0.5 mg). The primary efficacy endpoint was the first treatment cycle rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medication during the delayed phase, occurring from hours 25 through 120. The rate of CR was significantly improved in patients who received NEPA during the delayed CINV phase (76.9% vs 69.5%; P=.001), the overall phase (74.3% vs 66.6%; P=.001), and the acute phase (88.4% vs 85.0%; P=.047; Figure 2).
A separate phase 3 study investigated the safety and efficacy of NEPA throughout multiple cycles of highly (24%) or moderately (76%) emetogenic chemotherapy.10 The multinational, double-blind phase 3 study randomized 413 chemotherapy-naive patients in a 3:1 ratio to receive either a single oral dose of NEPA (300 mg netupitant/0.5 mg palonosetron) given on day 1 with dexamethasone or oral, 3-day aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. In the NEPA group, constipation and headache were observed in 3.6% and 1.0% of patients, respectively, with no apparent increase in AEs throughout multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were of mild or moderate severity, with 2 patients experiencing serious events related to treatment. The overall CR rates, evaluated through 120 hours after treatment administration, were 81% for NEPA and 76% for aprepitant plus palonosetron. Efficacy was maintained throughout repeated cycles.
Rolapitant also inhibits the NK1 receptor. It has long-lasting activity and does not interact with the CYP3A4 pathway, which allows a reduction in the dose of corticosteroids in some settings. A study of 454 patients evaluated rolapitant doses ranging from 9 mg to 180 mg, in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone, in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens containing cisplatin.11 The highest dose of 180 mg was well tolerated and yielded greater CR rates vs the active control arm overall (P=.032) and during the acute (P=.001) and delayed (P=.045) phases. A randomized, double-blind, active-control phase 3 trial evaluated rolapitant (200 mg) in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy.12 This combination was also well tolerated and yielded a higher CR rate compared with placebo for control of delayed CINV (71.3% vs 61.6%; P<.001).
Two phase 3 trials conducted at 155 cancer centers evaluated rolapitant in patients receiving highly emetogenic, cisplatin-based chemotherapy.13 Patients were randomized to receive rolapitant (180 mg) or placebo, plus granisetron (10 µg/kg) and dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1, followed by dexamethasone (8 mg twice daily) on days 2 through 4. In both studies, the rate of CR in the delayed phase was significantly improved for patients who received rolapitant compared with patients in the control arm (P=.0006 and P=.0001; Figure 3). No treatment-emergent AEs were considered related to treatment, and no treatment-related, treatment-emergent AEs were fatal.
Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is a broad category of drugs that induce CINV in as few as 30% and as many as 90% of patients. Although NK1 antagonists are recommended for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the guidelines are inconsistent regarding their use in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. MASCC does not recommend them, ASCO recommends consideration of their use, and the NCCN guidelines recommend them in certain patient populations.
For patients receiving carboplatin-based regimens, triple combinations are of great interest. A retrospective analysis of results from prospective phase 3 trials suggested that the addition of aprepitant to antiemetic regimens containing ondansetron and dexamethasone significantly improved the odds ratio of experiencing 5 days without emesis among patients receiving platinum-containing chemotherapy.14 Recently, a post-hoc analysis of 196 patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy for a variety of tumor types demonstrated high rates of emesis control in patients who had received antiemetic regimens that included an NK1 receptor antagonist.15 Overall CR rates ranged from 80% to 93% and were similar for patients receiving aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone or NEPA and dexamethasone during chemotherapy cycles 1 through 4. For the NEPA patients, the CR rates in cycles 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 83%, 91%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The forthcoming update to the MASCC/ESMO treatment guidelines may incorporate the addition of NK1 receptor antagonists for patients receiving carboplatin.
Olanzapine is a psychotropic agent that blocks activity of many types of receptors and reduces nausea in the delayed phase.16 In a phase 2 trial of 30 chemotherapy-naive patients treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and/or cisplatin, olanzapine demonstrated efficacy in preventing both acute and delayed emesis.17 A phase 3 trial of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy also demonstrated that olanzapine (10 mg), combined with palonosetron (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1, followed by olanzapine (10 mg) on days 2 through 4, was effective in controlling nausea during the acute and delayed periods.18
A recent phase 2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine added to aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic, cisplatin-based chemotherapy.19 The prospective, multicenter study enrolled 40 chemotherapy-naive patients with gynecologic cancer. Patients received oral olanzapine (5 mg) along with triple therapy 1 day before cisplatin therapy and on treatment days 1 to 5. The CR rates for the acute, delayed, and overall phases were 97.5%, 95.0%, and 92.5%, respectively (Table 2). No grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred.
The ability of olanzapine to bind to multiple receptor types provides a mechanistic rationale for its efficacy. However, the drug also appears to cause sedation in many patients, and therefore may not be advisable for the outpatient setting. The NCCN guidelines include olanzapine-containing regimens as an option for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis.3 Phase 3 data evaluating olanzapine in this setting are needed to expand the recommendations of olanzapine to other guidelines. Preliminary results from the Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (HEC): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial will be presented by Dr Rudolph Navari at the ASCO Palliative Care Symposium in mid-October 2015.20 This phase 3 trial will compare triple combination antiemetic treatment with or without olanzapine in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Enrolled patients will receive treatment with cisplatin at a dose of 70 mg/m2 or greater or the combination of cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and an anthracycline (600 mg/m2). The primary objective is to compare the number of patients in each arm with no nausea during the acute phase (0-24 hours postchemotherapy), the delayed phase (24-120 hours postchemotherapy), and overall (0-120 hours postchemotherapy).
Disclosure
Dr Aapro has received study grants and has been a consultant or speaker for Helsinn, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and Janssen.
References
1. Aapro M, Carides A, Rapoport BL, Schmoll HJ, Zhang L, Warr D. Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety. Oncologist. 2015;20(4):450-458.
2. Hesketh PJ, Grunberg SM, Gralla RJ, et al; Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group. The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin-the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(22):4112-4119.
3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Antiemesis. Version 1.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/antiemesis.pdf. Updated April 1, 2015. Accessed September 16, 2015.
4. Basch E, Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Prestrud AA, Temin S, Lyman GH. Antiemetics: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(6):395-398.
5. Roila F, Herrstedt J, Aapro M, et al; ESMO/MASCC Guidelines Working Group. Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 5):v232-v243.
6. Grunberg S, Chua D, Maru A, et al. Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin therapy: randomized, double-blind study protocol-EASE. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11):1495-1501.
7. Stathis M, Pietra C, Rojas C, Slusher BS. Inhibition of substance P-mediated responses in NG108-15 cells by netupitant and palonosetron exhibit synergistic effects. Eur J Pharmacol. 2012;689(1-3):25-30.
8. Aapro M, Rugo H, Rossi G, et al. A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(7):1328-1333.
9. Hesketh PJ, Rossi G, Rizzi G, et al. Efficacy and safety of NEPA, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized dose-ranging pivotal study. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(7):1340-1346.
10. Gralla RJ, Bosnjak SM, Hontsa A, et al. A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(7):1333-1339.
11. Rapoport B, Chua D, Poma A, Arora S, Wang Y, Fein LE. Study of rolapitant, a novel, long-acting, NK-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Support Care Cancer. 2015;16(9):1079-1089.
12. Schnadig ID, Modiano M, Poma A, Hedley MI, Martell R, Schwartzberg L. Phase 3 trial results for rolapitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in subjects receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Presented at: MASCC/ISOO International Symposium on Supportive Care in Cancer; June 26-28, 2015; Miami, Florida. Abstract MASCC-0384.
13. Rapoport BL, Chasen MR, Gridelli C, et al. Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1079-1089.
14. Gralla RJ, Rapoport BL, Jordan K, et al. Assessing the magnitude of antiemetic benefit with the addition of the NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1) aprepitant for all platinum agents: analysis of 1,872 patients (pts) in prospective randomized clinical phase III trials (RCTs) [ASCO abstract 9057]. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15)(suppl).
15. Jordan K, Gralla RJ, Rizzi G. Should all antiemetic guidelines recommend adding a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) in patients (pts) receiving carboplatin (carbo)? Efficacy evaluation of NEPA, a fixed combination of the NK1RA, netupitant, and palonosetron [ASCO abstract 9597]. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(15)(suppl).
16. Navari RM. Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of chronic nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:180-186.
17. Navari RM, Einhorn LH, Passik SD, et al. A phase II trial of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Hoosier Oncology Group study. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13(7):529-534.
18. Navari RM, Gray SE, Kerr AC. Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized phase III trial. J Support Oncol. 2011;9(5):188-195.
19. Abe M, Hirashima Y, Kasamatsu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of olanzapine combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecological cancer: KCOG-G1301 phase II trial [published online July 1, 2105]. Support Care Cancer.
20. ClinicalTrials.gov. Antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02116530. Identifier NCT02116530. Accessed September 13, 2015.
Best Use of Guidelines for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD
T
hree sets of CINV treatment guidelines are used around the world. In general, the guidelines are largely consistent with one another, owing to the large amount of evidence that is now available. Many of the recommendations are based on data from well-designed, randomized controlled phase 3 clinical trials. The MASCC/ESMO guidelines have incorporated input from the European Society for Molecular Oncology.1 The ASCO and the MASCC/ESMO guidelines are specifically evidence-based, using the highest quality evidence available.2 The NCCN guidelines rely on high-quality evidence but also incorporate expert opinion to provide currently accepted approaches to treatment.3
The guidelines are updated on different schedules. The ASCO guidelines were last updated in 2011. The MASCC Anti-Emetic Guideline Committee met in June 2015, and updated guidelines are expected shortly. NCCN guidelines are updated at least once per year, and some of the disease guidelines are updated several times per year.
Recommendations and Recent Updates
Guidelines are currently organized according to the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and the type of CINV. In 2015, the NCCN guidelines were updated to include the addition of NEPA for patients receiving highly or moderately emetic chemotherapy.3 The guidelines include the option of using NEPA plus dexamethasone for acute CINV and dexamethasone alone for delayed CINV. For highly emetogenic chemotherapy, all 3 guidelines recommend a 5-HT3 receptor inhibitor, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone for acute CINV, and they generally recommend dexamethasone for delayed CINV. The NCCN guidelines are the only set of guidelines to include the recommendation of olanzapine as an alternative to an NK1 receptor antagonist. Specifically, as 1 of 3 options for patients receiving highly emetogenic intravenous chemotherapy, the NCCN guidelines recommend olanzapine (10 mg orally), palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously), and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by olanzapine (10 mg orally) on days 2, 3, and 4.
For acute CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, the MASCC/ESMO guidelines recommend palonosetron and dexamethasone. Both the NCCN and ASCO guidelines list palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with a corticosteroid for these patients.
Adherence to Guidelines
These guidelines are a crucial source of information and recommendations for oncologists trying to optimize management of their patients’ CINV. Unfortunately, a large proportion of oncologists do not adhere to the guidelines in their daily practice, as demonstrated by several studies in different countries. A 2012 study examined adherence to the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV at a single institution in Switzerland.4 The charts of 299 patients who began a new chemotherapy regimen between November 2008 and April 2009 were reviewed. Seventy-one percent of patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy received CINV prophylaxis that adhered to the MASCC/ESMO guidelines. Prophylaxis of delayed CINV was not adherent to guidelines in 101 of 125 patients (89%) receiving highly or moderately emetogenic, single-day chemotherapy. The study reported frequent overuse of serotonin antagonists for prophylaxis of delayed CINV, in contrast to older studies in which nonadherence was often associated with the omission of corticosteroids. This study and others showed that adherence to recommendations for treatment of delayed nausea and vomiting was better on day 1 compared with days 2 and 3.
A population-based study of data for patients in the Texas Cancer Registry–Medicare-linked database also found inconsistent adherence to the NCCN guidelines (Figure 4).5 A search of the database identified 4566 patients older than 65 years who received platinum-based chemotherapy within 12 months after a first diagnosis of lung cancer between 2001 and 2007. Adherence rates for each year of the analysis ranged from 55.3% to 90.1% for recommendation of a 5-HT3 antagonist for patients receiving chemotherapy that was moderately emetogenic (carboplatin) or highly emetogenic (cisplatin). Substance P antagonists were recommended for 10% or fewer patients each year.
The 2 largest studies addressing adherence to treatment guidelines are the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER) trial and the INSPIRE trial. PEER was a prospective, observational, multicenter, European registry trial that examined whether patients received CINV prophylaxis that was compliant or noncompliant with consensus guidelines.6 Among 991 patients included in cycle 1, compliant prophylactic CINV treatment was prescribed for 55% during the acute phase and 46% during the delayed phase. Overall compliance was disturbingly low at 29%. Underscoring the value of the guideline recommendations, the CR rates were 59.9% in patients who received compliant treatment vs 50.7% in those who received noncompliant treatment (P=.008). The compliance rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV were 43%, 12%, and 11% for highly emetic chemotherapy and 91%, 42%, and 39% for moderately emetic chemotherapy.
INSPIRE was a prospective, observational study based on reviews of electronic medical records at 4 oncology practice centers in the United States.7 The cancer centers were large and well-organized, and the findings likely represent the best care in the community setting. A total of 1295 patients received chemotherapy that was either highly or moderately emetogenic. Guideline-compliant CINV prophylaxis was prescribed in 57% of cases overall. The compliance rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV were 91%, 29%, and 29% for highly emetic chemotherapy and 73%, 99%, and 73% for moderately emetic chemotherapy (Figure 5).
Different reasons were reported to account for the failure to adhere to guidelines according to whether the chemotherapy was highly or moderately emetic. For patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy, the low rate of overall adherence to guidelines was caused by the omission of corticosteroid use in the delayed phase. As observed in many other studies, adherence was superior on chemotherapy treatment day 1 compared with subsequent days. For patients receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy, adherence failure was mainly based on the omission of NK1 receptor antagonists.
In an effort to improve the rate of adherence to consensus treatment guidelines, a single-center study measured outcomes in malignant glioma patients receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy before and after implementation of a quality improvement program.8 The improvement program included a provider education session, monthly audit-feedback sessions, and implementation of a risk assessment tool with computerized, standardized order sets for antiemetic therapy. After implementation of this program, overall adherence to guidelines, as assessed by orders for recommended emetic therapy, increased to 90% from 58% at baseline (95% CI, 80%-96%; P<.05; Figure 6). Among the 32 surveyed patients who received guideline-recommended antiemetic treatment, the acute and delayed CINV CR rates were 75% and 84%, respectively.
Management of CINV can be improved by instituting a continuous quality improvement program. Such a program can provide critical feedback on an ongoing basis, highlighting areas of effective management as well as those that might benefit from a different approach. Numerous studies have shown that treatment based on the guidelines improves patient outcomes; therefore, the consensus guidelines provide an excellent template for optimizing treatment.
Including antiemetics and supportive care in order sets increases the likelihood that treatment will be compliant with guidelines. It is important that the computerized order set includes the supportive care that is appropriate for the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. One study found that CINV adherence improved with use of a computerized physician order entry system in both the acute and delayed CINV settings (Figure 7).9 Compliance for the treatment of delayed CINV was 97%, a rate that is considerably higher than results from other studies.
Disclosure
Dr Schwartzberg is a consultant for Eisai, Helsinn, Merck, and Tesaro.
References
1. Roila F, Herrstedt J, Aapro M, et al; ESMO/MASCC Guidelines Working Group. Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 5):v232-v243.
2. Basch E, Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Prestrud AA, Temin S, Lyman GH. Antiemetics: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(6):395-398.
3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Antiemesis. Version 1.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/antiemesis.pdf. Updated April 1, 2015. Accessed September 16, 2015.
4. Burmeister H, Aebi S, Studer C, Fey MF, Gautschi O. Adherence to ESMO clinical recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(1):141-147.
5. Gomez DR, Liao KP, Giordano S, Nguyen H, Smith BD, Elting LS. Adherence to national guidelines for antiemesis prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer: a population-based study. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1428-1436.
6. Aapro M, Molassiotis A, Dicato M, et al; PEER investigators. The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER). Ann Oncol. 2012;23(8):1986-1992.
7. Gilmore JW, Peacock NW, Gu A, et al. Antiemetic guideline consistency and incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in US community oncology practice: INSPIRE Study. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(1):68-74.
8. Affronti ML, Schneider SM, Herndon JE II, Schlundt S, Friedman HS. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in patients with malignant glioma: a quality improvement project to translate evidence into practice. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(7):1897-1905.
9. Kadakia KC, Leal AD, Seisler DK, et al. Antiemetic prescribing practices using a computerized physician order entry system. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(1):217-223.
Q&A
Eric Roeland, MD What are your experiences with continuous improvement programs?
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD I recently participated in an online survey of patients who had received highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In general, the communication by providers was good. Most of the patients reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they received educational material and that they would receive medications. However, only approximately half of the patients underwent follow-up with their provider or with someone in the office between office visits to check on nausea and vomiting. This survey showed that a practice may be doing most things right, while still having areas that could be improved.
Eric Roeland, MD Many cancer patients still believe that nausea and vomiting are symptoms that will occur and must be tolerated. Did your survey address this issue?
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD Yes. More than half of the patients in this small survey thought that nausea and vomiting were to be expected for all patients with cancer. This finding is a cause for concern, because for many patients, CINV is the most feared side effect of chemotherapy.
Matti S. Aapro, MD I agree that patients have this perception, and we need to change it. A patient who expects CINV may fail to report symptoms. Often, when we ask patients about their experience receiving treatment, they will say it was OK. If we then ask, “Did you have nausea and vomiting?” the patient will often say, “Oh yes, but it’s OK.” This scenario underscores the importance of asking the patient specific questions about CINV.
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD I strongly agree. It is extremely important for oncologists to be proactive in querying their patients with regard to CINV symptoms. Risk assessment tools such as the MAT are very helpful for evaluating patients and revealing any problems. The MAT is relatively short and quick to administer. The feedback it provides is particularly important during the acute phase, right after the patient leaves the clinic or hospital, when the majority of CINV events occur.
Eric Roeland, MD Some patients fear that if they report their CINV, their oncologist will change their chemotherapy to a less aggressive regimen. It might be helpful to empower our nursing colleagues and pharmacists to also become more engaged on this issue because they may be more likely to hear the patient’s real experience.
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD Another interesting point raised by the survey was that approximately 20% of the patients were concerned about side effects from the CINV medicines. Perhaps we need to inform patients that these drugs are safe and add minimal toxicity.
Matti S. Aapro, MD We should warn patients about constipation.
Eric Roeland, MD In my experience, constipation is the most common adverse event. Unfortunately, it is not widely known that the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists can cause constipation. Clinicians may be expecting the patient to experience diarrhea, and might be surprised by reports of nausea and constipation. In this setting, we add a more aggressive bowel regimen 3 to 5 days after chemotherapy.
Other areas that need to be defined and further evaluated are breakthrough and refractory CINV. Much energy and money have been spent on prophylaxis, but not on treating persistent symptoms. These types of nausea appear to be more common than is generally believed, and the lack of studies in these areas is frustrating. Additionally, we need to further evaluate the impact of receiving multiday chemotherapy. For example, little is known regarding the best ways to prevent and treat CINV in hematologic malignancy patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.
Matti S. Aapro, MD Nausea is a major concern of patients, and it can mean different things to different patients.
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD We do not understand the physiology of nausea very well. Although it can occur as a symptom that arises before emesis, there are other causes. Because it is subjective, patients may have different experiences, as Dr Aapro mentioned. The sensation of anorexia may merge into nausea. I would like to see more research elucidating the pathophysiology of nausea, as well as the clinical impact. I agree with Dr Roeland on the importance of finding improved treatments for patients with breakthrough or refractory CINV. It is debilitating and can interfere with the delivery of effective chemotherapy over multiple cycles.
Eric Roeland, MD I would like to stress the need for oncologists to ask patients about their experience with CINV and to listen carefully to the responses. There is still a widely held belief that the presence of nausea indicates that the chemotherapy is working. It is important to educate patients and their families that CINV is not inevitable and that symptoms do not reflect the effectiveness of chemotherapy. I spend time with my patients to encourage them to describe their symptoms. I also assure them that I will not decrease the intensity of their chemotherapy based on the presence of nausea, but rather I will be more aggressive with the available antiemetic agents.
Matti S. Aapro, MD The NCCN guidelines include olanzapine as an option for patients receiving highly emetogenic therapy. Older agents, including metopimazine and chlorpromazine, were also very useful. The fact that olanzapine is a psychotropic agent suggests that other psychotropic agents may be effective as well. Very small amounts of haloperidol are effective to combat that type of nausea.
Eric Roeland, MD With olanzapine, it is important for oncologists to recognize that one of the reasons why it works so well is that it binds to multiple serotonin and dopamine receptors. In your discussion, you raised another key point, which is the widespread concern about the sedation seen with this agent. The studies by Dr Rudolph Navari have embraced the 10 mg dose of olanzapine, which he says is well-tolerated. However, oncologists frequently prescribe smaller doses, such as 2.5 mg or 5 mg. Dr Navari encourages patients to take olanzapine at night, when it can alleviate nausea as well as promote sleep. His phase 3 trial compared oral olanzapine vs aprepitant, each used in combination with infused palonosetron and dexamethasone. Both combinations showed good results.1 Dr Navari and colleagues also published a study comparing olanzapine vs metoclopramide in breakthrough CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.2 Olanzapine was associated with an impressive improvement for both emesis and nausea that was more than 2 times better than that seen with metoclopramide. These breakthrough studies do not receive enough attention, and they highlight the need to evaluate other psychotropic agents. I am curious if other agents that hit multiple dopamine and serotonin receptors will be more effective.
Matti S. Aapro, MD I would think so. Chlorpromazine is no longer available, but in my modest experience with it, very small doses showed an impressive improvement in breakthrough CINV. However, sedation was always a concern.
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD It is a complex interaction. Some practitioners still use the more sedating phenothiazines, such as promethazine. This sedation can certainly have a negative impact, but it may also reduce the subjective perception of nausea and can be helpful for patients who develop symptoms in the evening hours.
Do you think there will be a role for cannabinoids in CINV? In the United States, we have seen a remarkable societal change in the past few years with more acceptance of marijuana. It has become legal for medical or even recreational use in some states.
Matti S. Aapro, MD In Europe, there was interest in cannabinoids several years ago, but it has faded away. In some European countries, the drug dronabinol is available.
Eric Roeland, MD I have found the use of dronabinol to be ineffective for most patients. In elderly patients or patients with brain metastases, it can cause delirium that outweighs any improvement in nausea.
Initially, I was reluctant to engage patients in discussions surrounding medical cannabis. An experience I had with a patient in the infusion center shifted my practice. An 80-year-old woman with breast cancer offered me a taste of her “edibles” while she was receiving chemotherapy in the infusion center. That experience taught me that my patients may already be using it, or may be considering it. I began to engage my patients about the use of medical cannabis. I inform them that medical cannabis has been used by other patients, some of whom have found it effective not only for nausea, but also for pain and insomnia. Although I personally do not prescribe medical cannabis, I provide information regarding reputable resources in the community.
Given the risk profile of medical cannabis, I am open to patients using it. The problem is that until it is a regulated product—and we know precisely what is in both the edible and inhaled forms—it is difficult to titrate or understand drug-drug interactions. Medical cannabis can interact with many medications, such as benzodiazepines and opioids.
It should also be mentioned that the marijuana of today is not the marijuana of the 1970s. It is now from 10 to 20 times stronger. The marijuana of today often causes more side effects, so I encourage patients to use low doses. The effects of inhaled marijuana are usually apparent about 10 minutes afterwards, which makes it a little easier to titrate. I usually recommend edible forms to decrease the risk of pulmonary infections. The effects of the edible forms are usually apparent after approximately an hour.
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD In the United States, it seems likely that the use of medical cannabis will increase. Several years ago, I reviewed the available clinical trial data on the use of cannabinoids, and I was surprised by the low quality of the research. By the current standards of CINV research, virtually none of the studies performed during the 1970s and 1980s would pass muster today. Perhaps the development of a more selective cannabinoid receptor–targeting agent, with fewer toxicities, could be a potential avenue for treatment of CINV in the future.
References
1. Navari RM, Gray SE, Kerr AC. Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized phase III trial. J Support Oncol. 2011;9(5):188-195.
2. Navari RM, Nagy CK, Gray SE. The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):1655-1663.
Target Audience
This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of oncologists, hematologists, and oncology nurses involved in the management of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Statement of Need/Program Overview
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared and debilitating adverse events experienced by cancer patients. Symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but may also lead patients to delay or postpone chemotherapy. Patients must be educated regarding CINV management before they begin chemotherapy and then asked about specific symptoms after treatment. Options for prevention and treatment of CINV are based on the emetogenic risk of the chemotherapy and the type of CINV (acute, delayed, anticipatory, or breakthrough/refractory). The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved new therapies for the management of CINV. NEPA is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant plus palonosetron. In combination with dexamethasone, NEPA has demonstrated superior efficacy over palonosetron alone in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant is a next-generation neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist. Both palonosetron and rolapitant have proven particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Detailed management guidelines, with recommendations based on data from phase 3 clinical trials, provide effective approaches for prevention and treatment. Adherence to guidelines is suboptimal but can be improved with the use of programs incorporating provider education sessions, monthly audit-feedback sessions, and risk assessment tools.
Educational Objectives
After completing this activity, the participant should be better able to:
•
Describe the impact, incidence, and risk factors of CINV
•
Distinguish chemotherapy regimens with high, moderate, and low emetogenic risk
•
Implement strategies for CINV prevention and management based on recommendations from guidelines
•
Evaluate the efficacy and safety data supporting the use of approved antiemetic agents in the prevention of CINV
•
Assess results from recent and ongoing clinical trials in CINV management
Accreditation Statement
This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Millennium Medical Publishing, Inc. The Postgraduate Institute for Medicine is accredited by the
ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
Credit Designation
The Postgraduate Institute for Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 1.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)TM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Postgraduate Institute for Medicine (PIM) requires instructors, planners, managers, and other individuals who are in a position to control the content of this activity to disclose any real or apparent conflict of interest (COI) they may have as related to the content of this activity. All identified COI are thoroughly vetted and resolved according to PIM policy. PIM is committed to providing its learners with high-quality CME activities and related materials that promote improvements or quality in healthcare and not a specific proprietary business interest of a commercial interest.
The faculty reported the following financial relationships or relationships to products or devices they or their spouse/life partner have with commercial interests related to the content of this CME activity:
Eric Roeland, MD—Speakers bureau: Teva and Eisai; Data Safety Monitoring Board: Cellceutix; Advisory board: Eisai, Inform Genomics, and Helsinn. Consulting: Eisai
Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD—Consultant: Eisai, Helsinn, Merck, and Tesaro
Matti S. Aapro, MD—Study grants: Helsinn, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and
Janssen; Consultant or speaker: Helsinn, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and Janssen
The planners and managers reported the following financial relationships or relationships to products or devices they or their spouse/life partner have with commercial interests related to the content of this CME activity:
The following PIM planners and managers, Trace Hutchison, PharmD; Samantha Mattiucci, PharmD, CHCP, Judi Smelker-Mitchek, RN, BSN, and Jan Schultz, RN, MSN, CHCP hereby state that they or their spouse/life partner do not have any financial relationships or relationships to products or devices with any commercial interest related to the content of this activity of any amount during the past 12 months. Jacquelyn Matos: No real or apparent conflicts of interest to report. Maggie Merchant, PhD: No real or apparent conflicts of interest to report.
Method of Participation
There are no fees for participating in and receiving CME credit for this activity. During the period October 2015 through October 31, 2016, participants must 1) read the learning objectives and faculty disclosures; 2) study the educational activity; 3) complete the post-test by recording the best answer to each question in the answer key on the evaluation form; 4) complete the evaluation form; and 5) mail or fax the evaluation form with answer key to Postgraduate Institute for Medicine. You may also complete the post-test online at www.cmeuniversity.com. On the navigation menu, click on “Find Post-test/Evaluation by Course” and search by course ID 11026. Upon registering and successfully completing the post-test with a score of 75% or better and submitting the activity evaluation, your certificate will be made available immediately. Processing credit requests online will reduce the amount of paper used by nearly 100,000 sheets per year.
A statement of credit will be issued only upon receipt of a completed activity evaluation form and a completed post-test with a score of 75% or better. Your statement will be emailed to you within three weeks.
Media
Monograph
Disclosure of Unlabeled Use
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. PIM, Millennium Medical Publishing, Inc., and Eisai Inc. do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Disclaimer
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.