Kloth, Dwight D.

AbstractBackgroundThe relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence.Patients and MethodsUsing data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients’ recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF).ResultsAmong 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF.ConclusionsProphylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.

Hematopoietic growth factors, including erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, and thrombopoietin mimetics, can mitigate anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with cancer have been identified as a group at high risk of morbidity and mortality from this infection. Our subcommittee of the NCCN Hematopoietic Growth Factors Panel convened a voluntary group to review the potential value of expanded use of such growth factors in the current high-risk environment. Although recommendations are available on the NCCN website in the COVID-19 Resources Section (https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/), these suggestions are provided without substantial context or reference. Herein we review the rationale and data underlying the suggested alterations to the use of hematopoietic growth factors for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

Abstract Background: CINV remains a challenging chemotherapy toxicity, particularly for anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting or use of rescue medication over 5 days after chemotherapy, has been the standard endpoint for successful antiemetic prophylaxis, yet duration of prophylaxis treatment failure (i.e., breakthrough CINV) is rarely assessed. Previous work demonstrated that initial cycle breakthrough CINV is associated with at least one subsequent cycle with CINV (Schwartzberg 2011), and that longer duration CINV is associated with more lost work time and impaired activity (Schwartzberg ASCO 2020). We sought to evaluate the duration of breakthrough CINV in cycle one and its association with individual patients’ repeat breakthrough CINV in subsequent cycles. Methods: Days of CINV was a prespecified endpoint in a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (Dex) for patients with breast cancer receiving AC; the primary endpoint was CR. Patients without CR were classified as prophylaxis treatment failure (TF) and categorized as short TF (sTF, 1-2 days) or extended TF (xTF, ≥3 days), consistent with work by Ballatori [2006] and Roeland [2019]. We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR, sTF, and xTF for cycles 1-4 and assessed likelihood of CR for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 TF duration, using chi-square statistics. Results: Of 402 patients in cycle 1, 303 had CR and 99 (24.6%) had TF. Duration of TF in cycle 1 was sTF for 48 patients while 51 patients had xTF. Patients with sTF in cycle 1 often experienced CR in cycle 2 (32/46 remaining patients; 69.6%) while patients with xTF in cycle 1 often had TF in cycle 2 (38/49; 77.6%). Patients had >84% likelihood of repeating their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles, those with sTF in cycle 1 had CR in 75/108 later cycles (69.4%) while xTF in cycle 1 led to CR in 32/105 later cycles (29.0%), p<0.001) (see Table). Duration of later-cycle TF was typically consistent with initial cycle TF duration (p=0.046). As a predictor of later cycle TF, xTF had a positive predictive value of 0.695, with sensitivity of 0.689 and specificity of 0.701. Those with xTF in cycle 1 had 2.28 times the relative risk of later TF (CI 1.67-3.11; p<0.001) vs those with sTF. The absolute increase in risk from xTF was 40.4%. Conclusions: Although the majority of patients receiving NEPA + Dex as prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer successfully avoided breakthrough CINV, for patients with prophylaxis treatment failure, CINV duration in cycle 1 strongly predicted their future likelihood of CINV. Patients with extended (≥3 days) breakthrough CINV in cycle 1 had CINV again in over 2/3 of later cycles; conversely those with short breakthrough CINV in cycle 1 avoided CINV entirely in over 2/3 of later cycles. The markedly higher risk faced by patients with initial-cycle extended CINV is both statistically significant and clinically meaningful, due not only to its longer duration and risk-prediction but also to previously demonstrated worsening of work loss and impaired activity. Clinicians should monitor breakthrough CINV duration, seek to avoid extended CINV, and consider changing antiemetic prophylaxis when extended CINV does occur. Further study is needed to confirm this finding in other chemotherapy regimens and with other triple prophylaxis regimens. Impact of Extended CINV in Cycle 1 on CINV in Later CyclesTF1P valueInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)Total TF1 (99/402)Short TF1 (48/99)Extended TF1 (51/99)Short vs Extended TF1Later CR cycles (n, % of total later cycles)107 (50.2%)75 (69.4%)32 (29.0%)<0.0001Later TF (n, % of total later cycles)106 (49.8%)33 (30.6%)73 (71.0%)Duration of Later TF (n, % of all later TF)Later sTFLater xTFLater sTFLater xTF0.04620 (60.6%)13 (39.4%)29 (39.7%)44 (60.3%)Total later cycles (n, %)213 (100%)108 (100%)105 (100%)TF: prophylaxis Treatment Failure; TF1: TF in cycle 1; CR: Complete Response (0 days TF); CR1: CR in cycle 1; sTF: Short (1-2 days) TF; xTF: Extended (≥3 days) TF Citation Format: Rudolph M. Navari, Gary Binder, Eric J. Roeland, Alexander Molassiotis, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Marco Turini, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Duration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) as a predictor of later-cycle CINV [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-27.

Abstract Background: Although many studies have demonstrated consistent levels of effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis for the entire study population across multiple chemotherapy cycles, rarely have studies reported how each patient’s risk of subsequent CINV differs based on prior cycle breakthrough CINV with the same prophylaxis. We lack data on whether prophylaxis continues to fail in the same group of patients each cycle, or whether failure is random with each subsequent cycle. We sought to evaluate individual patients’ risk of repeat CINV in each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Methods: In a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (day 1) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after chemotherapy. Patients without CINV were classified as complete response (CR); the rest as treatment failure (TF). We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR and TF, and compared CR or TF for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 outcomes, using chi-square statistics. To provide context, we performed a post-hoc similar analysis of results reported by Herrstedt et al [2005] from a clinical trial of ondansetron + aprepitant (APR) for patients with breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of AC. Results: The 402 female patients in the NEPA trial received a total of 1,299 cycles. In cycle 1, 99 (24.6%) patients experienced TF (TF1); over all 4 cycles, TF occurred 253 times (19.5%). Patients with CR in cycle 1 (CR1) had a ≥92% rate of CR in cycle 2; their rates of repeat CR were similar in each subsequent cycle. Patients with TF1 had nearly equal risk of CR or TF in cycle 2 (45:55); thereafter 85% of this TF1 subgroup repeated their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles of NEPA, patients with CR1 subsequently had CR in >90% of cycles 2-4; those with TF1 subsequently had TF in 49.8% of cycles 2-4 (p<0.0001) (see Table). We separately examined Herrstedt’s evaluation of 433 patients across 1537 cycles with APR. In cycle 1, TF was seen 213 times (49.2%), with TF reported in 46.7% of cycles 1-4. We found that patients with CR1 had an 80.5% rate of CR in cycle 2 and repeat CR rates were higher in subsequent cycles. Patients with TF1 had TF in cycle 2 (TF2) at a rate of 78.4%, with 76.6% TF3 and 72.7% TF4. For APR, CR1 resulted in subsequent CR in 78.6% of cycles 2-4 while patients with TF1 again had TF in 74.8% of cycles 2-4 (p<0.0001). Patients with TF1 were more likely to later drop from the study (see Table). Notably, among those with CR1 after APR, the few patients who later had TF in any cycle, had a subsequent repeat failure rate similar to those with TF1. Conclusions: When patients receiving guideline-recommended triple antiemetic prophylaxis successfully avoided CINV in their first cycle of HEC, they had 80-95% likelihood of repeating that success in later cycles. After NEPA, those whose prophylaxis failed in cycle 1 did not face a similar high risk of repeat failure in cycle 2. The pattern of repeat failure after aprepitant was different, with a high repeat failure risk starting in cycle 2. These findings strongly suggest that consistent population average CR rates reported across cycles may mask a higher repeat failure rate for individual patients that experience cycle 1 CINV, particularly for aprepitant. Further study of this phenomenon is needed for other HEC regimens, and to confirm the lack of high repeat failure seen in cycle 2 for NEPA. Repeat CINV in Later Cycles, Based on Cycle 1 ResultsNEPAAprepitant + OndansetronInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)CR1 (303/402)TF1 (99/402)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)CR1 (220/433)TF1 (213/433)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)Subsequent CR cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)636 (93.0%)107 (50.2%)<0.0001464 (78.6%)124 (25.2%)<0.0001Subsequent TF cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)48 (7.0%)106 (49.8%)126 (21.4%)370 (74.8%)Total subsequent cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)684 (100%)213 (100%)590 (100%)494 (100%)Dropped vs ITT* (n, % ITT cycles)225 (24.8%)84 (28.3%)0.226370 (10.6%)145 (22.7%)<0.0001* The NEPA trial was closed when the last patient completed the first cycle, resulting in an artificially high proportion of patients that did not complete 4 cycles. Citation Format: Rudolph M Navari, Gary Binder, Alexander Molassiotis, Eric Roeland, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Lina Y. Dimberg, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-09.

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.