PurposeA phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens.MethodsThis multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1–5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint.ResultsOf 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference −3.6% (95% confidence interval, −13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2–5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116).ConclusionsPalonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

BackgroundChemotherapy administration is a high-risk process. Aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency, type, preventability, as well as potential and actual severity of outpatient chemotherapy prescribing errors in an Oncology Department where electronic prescribing is used.MethodsUp to three electronic prescriptions per patient record were selected from the clinical records of consecutive patients who received cytotoxic chemotherapy between January 2007 and December 2008. Wrong prescriptions were classified as incomplete, incorrect or inappropriate. Error preventability was classified using a four-point scale. Severity was defined according to the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Severity Scale.ResultsEight hundred and thirty-five prescriptions were eligible. The overall error rate was 20%. Excluding systematic errors (i.e. errors due to an initially faulty implementation of chemotherapy protocols into computerized dictionaries) from the analysis, the error rate decreased to 8%. Incomplete prescriptions were the majority. Most errors were deemed definitely preventable. According to error presumptive potential for damage, 72% were classified as minor; only 3% had the potential to produce major or catastrophic injury. Sixty-eight percent were classified as near misses; adverse drug events had no or little effect on clinical outcome.ConclusionsChemotherapy prescribing errors may arise even using electronic prescribing. Although periodic audits may be useful to detect common errors and guide corrective actions, it is crucial to get the computerized physician order entry system and set-ups correct before implementation.

Biweekly COI is feasible and active. Tolerability and ease of administration make the regimen well suited for downsizing hepatic colorectal metastases before curative surgery.

The need to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is continuously stimulating research to find better options for the optimal antiemetic care. Palonosetron is different from conventional serotonin receptor antagonists not only by the fact of having a longer half-life but also by higher binding affinity for serotonin receptors. It is the first agent in the class which is approved for preventing both delayed and acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Recent studies using palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone given as a pre-treatment infusion was effective for preventing acute and delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant was highly effective in preventing emesis in the days following administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. Multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone was safe and effective for prevention of emesis induced by 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There was no evidence of cumulative toxicity when palonosetron was given three times over 5 days. Further evidence from ongoing clinical trials with palonosetron with or without dexamethasone will be available soon. Palonosetron represents an useful addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone compared with that of older serotonin receptor antagonists combined with dexamethasone. However, palonosetron may offer advantages of convenience over the short-acting older antagonists due to its ability to be given as a single intravenous dose prior to chemotherapy.

No abstract