OBJECTIVE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential.
RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus on patient characteristics and disease-related factors considered in deciding treatment approaches for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC) based on real-world treatment patterns in 4 territories in Asia-Pacific.
METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi involving a multidisciplinary panel of HN surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists was used. Of 41 panelists recruited, responses of 26 from Australia, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan were analyzed. All panelists had ≥five years\' experience managing LA-HNSCC patients and treated ≥15 patients with LA-HNSCC annually.
RESULTS: All statements on definitions of LA-HNSCC, treatment intolerance and cisplatin dosing reached consensus. 4 of 7 statements on unresectability, 2 of 4 on adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 7 of 13 on induction chemotherapy, 1 of 8 on absolute contraindications and 7 of 11 on relative contraindications to high-dose cisplatin did not reach consensus. In all territories except Taiwan, high-dose cisplatin was preferred in definitive and adjuvant settings for patients with no contraindications to cisplatin; weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) preferred for patients with relative contraindications to high-dose cisplatin. For Taiwan, the main treatment option was weekly cisplatin. For patients with absolute contraindications to cisplatin, carboplatin ± 5-fluorouracil or radiotherapy alone were preferred alternatives in both definitive and adjuvant settings.
CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary consensus provides insights into management of LA-HNSCC in Asia-Pacific based on patient- and disease-related factors that guide selection of treatment modality and systemic treatment. Despite strong consensus on use of cisplatin-based regimens, areas of non-consensus showed that variability in practice exists where there is limited evidence.

To optimally dose childhood cancer patients it is essential that we apply evidence-based dosing approaches. Carboplatin is commonly dosed to achieve a cumulative target exposure (AUC) in children, with target AUC values of 5.2-7.8 mg/ml.min defined. To achieve these exposures patients are dosed at 6.6 mg/kg/day or 4.4 mg/kg for patients <5 kg. The current study uses real world clinical pharmacology data to optimise body weight-based doses to effectively target AUCs of 5.2-7.8 mg/ml.min in infants.
Carboplatin exposures were determined across 165 treatment cycles in 82 patients ≤10 kg. AUC and clearance values were determined by Bayesian modelling from samples collected on day 1. These parameters were utilised to assess current dosing variability, determine doses required to achieve target AUC values and predict change in AUC using the modified dose.
No significant differences in clearance were identified between patients <5 kg and 5-10 kg. Consequently, for patients <5 kg, 4.4 mg/kg dosing was not sufficient to achieve a target AUC of 5.2 mg/ml.min, with <55% of patients within 25% of this target. Optimised daily doses for patients ≤10 kg were 6 mg/kg and 9 mg/kg for cumulative carboplatin target exposures of 5.2 and 7.8 mg/ml.min, respectively.
Adoption of these evidence-based carboplatin doses in neonates and infants will reduce drug exposure variability and positively impact treatment.

Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).
Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.
61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.
Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

After ASCO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations for triple antiemetic prophylaxis for carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4, and the publication of studies documenting avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involving nausea and vomiting (NV) and other toxicities, we studied clinician adherence to the guideline change and assessed avoidable acute-care use.
Using a large electronic health record database, we evaluated antiemetic prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines and post-chemotherapy avoidable acute-care use (defined as involving any of NV or 8 other toxicities) for patients initiating carboplatin or other chemotherapy from October 2012 to August 2018.
We identified 11,554 carboplatin courses. After the guideline change adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (RAs) for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4, its use rose to 20% of courses from the prior average of 16%; virtually all courses also included a 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone. We found avoidable acute care in 23% of courses; one quarter of these events were associated with NV. Acute care rates after carboplatin mirrored those after other highly emetogenic chemotherapy or oxaliplatin and exceeded those after other chemotherapy regimens. The > 80% shortfall in adherence may have been caused by low awareness or acceptance of the guideline change and/or by poor awareness of avoidable acute-care use after carboplatin.
Neurokinin-1 RA prophylaxis for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 remains low and largely unchanged despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network and ASCO 2017 recommendations for inclusion. NV and avoidable acute care involving NV seen after carboplatin were consistent with other highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Clinician action is required to remediate incomplete prophylaxis and to no longer place patient outcomes, resources for cancer treatment, and clinician reimbursement at risk.

Adjuvant chemotherapy by carboplatin and paclitaxel is recommended for all high-grade ovarian and tubal cancers (FIGO stages I-IIA) (grade A). After primary surgery is complete, 6 cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (grade A) are recommended, or a discussion with the patient about intraperitoneal chemotherapy, according to her risk-benefit ratio. After complete interval surgery for FIGO stage III, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be proposed, in accordance with the modalities of the OV-HIPEC trial (grade B). In cases of postoperative tumor residue or in FIGO stage IV tumors, chemotherapy associated with bevacizumab is recommended (grade A).

Medical treatment of ovarian cancer is based on chemotherapy. Most patients, regardless of the initial stage of their disease, will need to be treated (grade A). Standard treatment relies on a carboplatin and paclitaxel combination (grade A). For advanced diseases (stage I-IIA1 or IIIB à IV), the addition of an antiangiogenic treatment with bevacizumab to the chemotherapy, followed by a maintenance for 15 months should be proposed as it allows better disease control (grade A). For patients with somatic or germline BRCA mutations and disease stage III or IV, olaparib is recommended as maintenance treatment for 24 months (grade B, but olaparib had not the French approval as first-line treatment at the time of the present recommendation editing). No other targeted therapy or immunotherapy has yet been proven effective at the initial phase of ovarian cancer treatment. The treatment of rare tumors with a special histology must be discussed in a specialized multidisciplinary meeting of the network of rare malignant tumors of the ovary (TMRO) labeled by the INCa.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Platinum-etoposide (PE) chemotherapy (CH) is a globally established combination for extra-pulmonary high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-G3-NEC); the optimal schedule has not been established.
METHODS: An international survey was designed, and completed by clinicians with an expertise in the field to assess consistency in clinical practice.
RESULTS: Seventy-five replies were received (June-Nov\'17). A minority of physicians (13; 17.6%) did not take Ki-67 or morphology (9; 12.0%) into consideration for selection of CH. Most (72; 96.0%) selected PE-CH as first-line treatment for EP-G3-NEC. CH schedules varied: cisplatin-based (37/71; 52.1%), carboplatin-based (34/71; 47.9%); intravenous etoposide (64/71; 90.1%), oral etoposide (7/71; 9.9%). Choice of second-line CH depended on time to progression on PE-based first-line: if > 6 months, re-challenge with PE was the preferred choice (34; 45.9%); if < 6 months, alternative combinations such as fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan (21; 29.2%) or temozolomide/capecitabine (22; 30.6%) were used.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in PE regimen employed exists. Standardising clinical practice would facilitate clinical trial development.

This manuscript provides a practical and easy to use consensus recommendation to community oncologists on how to use neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer patients.