BackgroundCo-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen.Patients and methodsThis randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1–4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0–120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at − 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN).ResultsTreatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0–1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (−4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (−4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (−0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN.ConclusionsIn this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Infection by high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is considered to be the central cause of invasive cervical cancer. Previously reported studies have shown that Id genes regulate cell invasion and metastasis in several human carcinomas including cervical cancer. In order to investigate the correlation between high-risk HPVs and Id genes in human cervical cancer, the presence of high-risk HPVs and their association with Id gene expression was examined using PCR methods and tissue microarray analyses in a cohort of 44 cervical cancer patients from Syria. This study showed that high-risk HPVs were present in 42 samples (95%) that represent invasive cervical cancers and that the most frequent high-risk HPV types in Syrian women were 33, 16, 18, 45, 52, 58, 35, 51 and 31. Furthermore, the expression of E6 oncoprotein of high-risk HPVs was found to correlate with overexpression of Id-1, but not of Id-2, Id-3 or Id-4 in the majority of invasive cervical cancer tissue samples. These data suggest that high-risk HPVs can enhance the progression of human cervical cancer through Id-1 regulation.

Conclusions: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was generally well tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with nsq-NSCLC.Clinical trial identification: NCT03663205.

No abstract