Explore the vast range of titles available.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with a variety of early- and end-stage malignancies. In light of recent changes in the optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the latest guidelines published by ASCO (2017), NCCN (2018), and MASCC/ESMO (2016). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, and MASCC/ESMO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Data regarding the use of complementary alternative medicine for CINV is particularly scarce and in need of further investigation.

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24–120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0–120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.ResultsThree studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.ConclusionFurther RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1–4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0–10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0–10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

PurposeOlanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.MethodsA decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.ResultsOlanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.ConclusionOlanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Background Systemic therapy-induced diarrhea (STID) is a common side effect experienced by more than half of cancer patients. Despite STID-associated complications and poorer quality of life (QoL), no validated assessment tools exist to accurately assess STID occurrence and severity to guide clinical management. Therefore, we developed and validated a patient-reported questionnaire (STIDAT). Methods The STIDAT was developed using the FDA iterative process for patient-reported outcomes. A literature search uncovered potential items and questions for questionnaire construction used by oncology clinicians to develop questions for the preliminary instrument. The instrument was evaluated on its face validity and content validity by patient interviews. Repetitive, similar and different themes uncovered from patient interviews were implemented to revise the instrument to the version used for validation. Patients starting high-risk STID treatments were monitored using the STIDAT, bowel diaries and EORTC QLQ-C30. The STIDAT was evaluated for construct validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using minimal residual method with Promax rotation, reliability and consistency. A weighted scoring system was developed and a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve evaluated the tool’s ability to detect STID occurrence. Median scores and variability were analysed to determine how well it differentiates between diarrhea severities. A post-hoc analysis determined how diarrhea severity impacted QoL of cancer patients. Results Patients defined diarrhea based on presence of watery stool. The STIDAT assessed patient’s perception of having diarrhea, daily number of bowel movements, daily number of diarrhea episodes, antidiarrheal medication use, the presence of urgency, abdominal pain, abdominal spasms or fecal incontinence, patient’s perception of diarrhea severity, and QoL. These dimensions were sorted into four clusters using EFA – patient’s perception of diarrhea, frequency of diarrhea, fecal incontinence and abdominal symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78; kappa ranged from 0.934–0.952, except for abdominal spasms (κ = 0.0455). The positive predictive value was 96.4%, with the minimum score of 1.35 predicting a positive STID occurrence. Patients with moderate or severe diarrhea experience significant decreases in QoL compared to those with no diarrhea. Conclusions This is the first patient-reported questionnaire that accurately predicts the occurrence and severity of diarrhea in oncology patients via assessing several bowel habit dimensions.

Purpose Dyspnea is frequently experienced in advanced cancer patients and is associated with poor prognosis and functional decline. This study used the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to characterize the relationship between dyspnea and concurrent symptoms experienced by advanced cancer patients. Methods A prospective database was collected and analyzed to extract patient demographics and ESAS scores. Logistic regression analysis and generalized estimating equations (GEE) identified correlations of other ESAS symptoms in three categories: severity of dyspnea (none, mild, moderate, severe), moderate/severe dyspnea (ESAS ≥ 4), and presence of dyspnea (ESAS ≥ 1), at patients’ first visit and over time, respectively. Results Multivariable analysis revealed drowsiness ( p  = 0.001), and anxiety ( p  = 0.01) and appetite loss ( p  = 0.02) were associated with increased severity of dyspnea at first visit. Over time, tiredness ( p  = 0.02), drowsiness ( p  = 0.04), nausea ( p  = 0.02), and anxiety ( p  = 0.0006) were more likely to experience increased dyspnea severity. Tiredness ( p  = 0.0003), depression ( p  = 0.03), and appetite loss ( p  = 0.003) were significant for moderate/severe dyspnea at first visit. Over multiple visits, tiredness ( p  < 0.0001), anxiety ( p  = 0.0008), and appetite loss ( p  = 0.0008) had higher probabilities of moderate/severe dyspnea. For the presence of dyspnea at the first visit, anxiety ( p  = 0.03) and drowsiness ( p  = 0.002) were significantly correlated with an increased frequency of dyspnea. Over time, anxiety ( p  < 0.0001) and drowsiness ( p  < 0.0001) remained significant with the addition of nausea ( p  = 0.0007). Conclusions The highly interactive relationship between dyspnea and other common cancer symptoms necessitates the development of comprehensive symptom assessments and utilization of multimodal management approaches that consider concurrent symptoms for improved identification and treatment of dyspnea.

Purpose Olanzapine is a potent antipsychotic medication that inhibits a wide variety of receptors. It has been used in trials for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study systematically investigates the efficacy of olanzapine in relation to other antiemetics in the prophylaxis and rescue of CINV. Methods A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing olanzapine to other standard antiemetics for either prevention or rescue. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no emesis or no nausea, in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. Results Ten RCTs in the preventative setting and three RCTs in the breakthrough setting were identified. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a similar degree of benefit from a 5- and 10-mg dose of olanzapine for the no emesis endpoint in the overall phase. In the prophylaxis setting, olanzapine was statistically superior in five of six endpoints and clinically superior in four of six endpoints. In the breakthrough setting, olanzapine was statistically and clinically superior in the only endpoint analyzed: no emesis. Conclusion Olanzapine is more efficacious than other standard antiemetics for the rescue of CINV and its inclusion improves control in the prevention setting. Given the possible reduction in side effects, the use of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine should be considered. Future RCTs should compare the 5-mg versus the 10-mg dosages further and report on the efficacy and percentage of patients developing side effects. Further analyses should be done without the influence of corticosteroids.

Introduction Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time. Methods A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality. Results An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots. Conclusions The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Introduction Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug that inhibits serotonergic, dopaminergic, alpha-1 adrenergic, histaminic, and muscarinic receptors. Several phase I and II trials have been published documenting the use of olanzapine in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This review aims to summarize all phase I and II trials that reported on olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV. Methods A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE from 1946 to July week 1 2015, Embase Classic and Embase from 1947 to 2015 week 28, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until June 2015. Phase I and II trials reporting on olanzapine for the prophylaxis for CINV were included if they reported on at least one of four primary endpoints: complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, and no emesis. Other endpoints of interest included the safety of olanzapine as measured by the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Results Across the seven included studies, there were a total of 201 patients. The CR across four studies was 97.2, 83.1, and 82.8 % for the acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. The CC for acute, delayed, and overall phases was 92.5, 87.5, and 82.5 %, respectively. The overall no nausea rate was 92.7, 71.8, and 70.6 % for the acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. The overall no emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall phases were 100, 94.5, and 90.4 %, respectively. Fatigue, drowsiness, and disturbed sleep were common side effects. Conclusion Olanzapine is efficacious and safe when used as a prophylaxis for CINV.