The Oncologist, Vol. 4, No. 3, 191-196,
June 1999
© 1999 AlphaMed Press
Defining the Emetogenicity of Cancer Chemotherapy Regimens: Relevance to Clinical Practice
Paul J. Hesketh
St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence:
Paul J. Hesketh, M.D., Division of Hematology/Oncology, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02135, USA. Telephone: 617-789-2317; Fax: 617-789-2959; e-mail phesketh{at}aol.com
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Significant progress has been made in recent years in developing more effective and better tolerated means to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy. The most significant development has been the introduction of a new class of antiemetic agents, the selective antagonists of the type 3 serotonin receptor. With the new antiemetic therapeutic options and their attendant higher costs has come a need to define evidence-based guidelines to assist in their judicious and cost-effective use. A number of predictive factors for antiemetic risk have been defined. Some of these factors relate to the patient population (age, gender, history of ethanol consumption, and prior experience with chemotherapy), and some relate to the treatments administered. Clearly, the most important of all these factors in predicting risk of emesis is the intrinsic emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. Although an "ideal" emetogenic classification schema for chemotherapy has yet to be realized, recent developments in this area have allowed a more precise estimation of emetogenic risks and have provided antiemetic guideline groups with a useful foundation on which to base their treatment recommendations.
Key Words. Chemotherapy • Emesis • Emetogenicity
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Nausea and vomiting have consistently ranked high on the list of factors most feared by patients receiving chemotherapy [1, 2]. Inadequately controlled emesis significantly impairs quality of life and increases the risk of patient non-compliance with therapy. Substantial progress has been made over the last decade in developing more effective and better tolerated means to prevent chemotherapy-induced emesis [3]. Several factors have contributed to the therapeutic advances in this area, including new insights into the pathophysiology of emesis, recognition of the value of combination antiemetic therapy, tailoring therapy for both acute emesis (
24 h after chemotherapy), and delayed emesis (>24 h after chemotherapy) and the development of new antiemetic agents, particularly the selective antagonists of the type 3 serotonin (5-hydroxytyptamine [5-HT3]) receptor. There are currently three 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (dolasetron, granisetron, and ondansetron) approved for use in the United States. As with other new supportive care agents, however, the availability of new antiemetic agents with their attendant higher acquisition costs compared with older antiemetics has created a need to develop practice guidelines to help ensure their rational and cost-effective use. A reliable method of predicting the risk of emesis following cancer chemotherapy would provide a solid foundation for the development of treatment guidelines for the appropriate use of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and other antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy.
Over the last 15 years, there has been growing recognition of a number of factors that are important in predicting the risk of emesis following antineoplastic chemotherapy [4-6]. Some of these factors are related to the treatment, including the specific agent(s), chemotherapy dose, route and rate of administration, and antiemetic regimen employed. With many chemotherapy agents, emetic risk is directly proportional to chemotherapy dose. In addition, in general, short i.v. infusions induce more emesis than protracted i.v. infusions or administration by the oral route. Other factors relate to the patient population, including patient age, gender, history of ethanol consumption, and history of prior chemotherapy. Factors associated with decreased risk of emesis include older age, male gender, history of heavy ethanol consumption, and no emesis with prior chemotherapy. Of all these predictive factors, the intrinsic emetogenicity of the chemotherapy has consistently emerged as the most important.
|
Emetogenicity Classification Schemas
|
|---|
An "ideal" emetogenic classification schema would take into account a number of key factors, including: A) derivation from objective data rather than opinion; B) ability to account for the different types of emesis with an ability to predict the likelihood of acute and delayed emesis; C) ability to account for important patient- and treatment-related predictive factors; D) ability to account for the emetogenic potential of combinations, and E) simplicity of use. Several efforts have been made in the past to devise classification schemas for chemotherapy emetogenicity [7-11]. None of these systems have achieved widespread acceptance as a "standard" schema. Most have significant limitations, including: failure to account for important treatment-related factors, such as chemotherapy dose and rate and route of administration; failure to account for combinations or different patterns of emesis, and reliance on opinion rather than objective data in stratifying chemotherapy agents. In addition, none attempted to account for important patient-related variables.
|
A New Proposal for Defining Acute Emetogenicity of Cancer Chemotherapy
|
|---|
Recently, a number of individuals with a longstanding interest in the antiemetic field have proposed a new classification schema for acute emesis [12]. This schema builds upon the system proposed by Lindley et al. [10]. It standardizes chemotherapy rate and route of administration (short i.v. infusion) and patient age (adults), attempts to account for the importance of chemotherapy dose where clinically relevant, includes newer chemotherapy agents, and also proposes an algorithm to predict the emetogenicity of combination regimens. A few oral agents were also classified using customary administration schedules. On the basis of a comprehensive literature search and the consensus of the authors, individual chemotherapy agents were assigned to one of five emetogenic levels. The five levels define the risk of acute emesis in the absence of effective antiemetic prophylaxis. Table 1
lists individual chemotherapy agents by emetogenic level.
Since the publication of this schema, a number of additional chemotherapeutic agents have received regulatory approval in the United States and are now incorporated into clinical practice. These include the camptothecin analogs irinotecan and topotecan, and the oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate capecitabine. Review of the clinical experience with these agents to date in phase I and II trials would suggest that capecitabine [13] and topotecan [14, 15] are level 2 agents and that irinotecan is a level 3 agent [16-18].
|
Emetogenicity of Chemotherapy Combinations
|
|---|
None of the older emetogenic classification schemas adequately accounted for the impact on emetogenicity of administering chemotherapy agents in combination. Recognizing that most chemotherapy agents are administered as part of various combinations and not as single agents, it would be useful in predicting antiemetic risk to have an appropriate means of predicting the effect of combination regimens. Table 2 illustrates an algorithm to help predict the emetogenicity of chemotherapy combinations. The algorithm begins with the identification of the most emetogenic agent in the combination. The relative contribution of other chemotherapy agents to the overall emetogenicity of the combination is then assessed. When considering other agents, the following rules were suggested: A) Level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenicity of a given regimen; B) adding one or more level 2 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination, and C) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent.
The algorithm was validated in part using a database of 197 patients assigned to receive a placebo antiemetic as part of four clinical trials comparing the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist ondansetron with placebo [19-22]. The predicted incidence of emesis with a variety of chemotherapy regimens based upon the algorithm was compared with the actual observed frequency of emesis. For example, 44 patients received a combination of cyclophosphamide (<750 mg/m2) and doxorubicin (20-60 mg/m2) ± vincristine. The predicted emetogenic potential of this combination by the algorithm is level 4 (60%-90% frequency of emesis). Eighty-two percent (36/44) of patients receiving these regimens developed acute emesis when they received a placebo as antiemetic prophylaxis. Similar close correlations were noted between the predicted and observed frequency of emesis with a number of other chemotherapy regimens.
A number of potential limitations of this algorithm should be kept in mind, however, The majority of patients from the latter database were women (88%) with breast cancer (79%) receiving primarily cyclophosphamide- and/or anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Few had a history of significant ethanol consumption. Therefore, based upon our knowledge of important patient-related factors, this group has to be considered somewhat high risk for the development of emesis. In addition, the algorithm attempts to predict only acute emesis risk. There is no accounting for the potential for delayed emesis. Clinicians are therefore advised to be cautious in attempting to generalize this algorithm to more diverse populations receiving other chemotherapy regimens. Further studies will be needed to determine the relevance of this algorithm to other patient populations.
|
Defining Risk of Delayed Emesis
|
|---|
All efforts to date to define emetogenic schemas for chemotherapy agents have concentrated on the potential for emesis within the first 24 h (acute emesis). This is appropriate given the potential severity of uncontrolled acute emesis and the observation that emesis induced by many chemotherapy agents will resolve within 24 h. For a classification schema to be most relevant and serve as a basis for treatment recommendations, however, it must also account for the ability of certain chemotherapy agents to produce emesis beyond the 24-h period following chemotherapy, so-called "delayed emesis." Cisplatin is the classic agent by which delayed emesis has been defined. In the absence of appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis, there is an approximate 65%-90% likelihood of delayed emesis following administration of cisplatin [23-25]. A number of other agents, including cyclophosphamide, carboplatin, and doxorubicin, also have the potential to induce delayed emesis. Although the risk of delayed emesis is less than with cisplatin, up to one-third of patients receiving these agents will experience delayed emesis in the absence of delayed antiemetic prophylaxis [26].
|
Relevance of Chemotherapy Emetogenicity to Current Antiemetic Use and Clinical Research
|
|---|
At present, no comprehensive emetogenic classification schema that fulfills all the criteria of the "ideal" schema has been devised. However, given the pressing need to define rational evidence-based guidelines to help guide antiemetic use, the recently proposed schema [12] has been used as a framework for such recommendations. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has used this classification schema as the basis for their recently released antiemetic guidelines [27]. For acute antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy with level 3-5 emetogenic potential, they recommended the use of an oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonist combined with oral dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy ( Fig. 1). For patients receiving level 2 chemotherapy, they recommended an oral dose of a dopaminergic antagonist or oral dexamethasone alone. For level 1 chemotherapy, no routine antiemetic prophylaxis was recommended ( Fig. 2). Recognizing the potential of certain agents to induce delayed emesis, they also offered specific recommendations in this setting as well ( Fig. 3).
View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for patients receiving chemotherapy with level 3-5 acute emetogenic potential.
*Order of listed antiemetics does not reflect preference. Reproduced with permission from [27].
The NCCN guidelines are a statement of consensus of its authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult any NCCN guideline is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
|
|
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for patients receiving chemotherapy with level 1-2 acute emetogenic potential.
*Order of listed antiemetics does not reflect preference. Reproduced with permission from [27].
The NCCN guidelines are a statement of consensus of its authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult any NCCN guideline is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
|
|
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for patients receiving chemotherapy with delayed emetogenic potential.
*Order of listed antiemetics does not reflect preference. Reproduced with permission from [27].
The NCCN guidelines are a statement of consensus of its authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult any NCCN guideline is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
|
|
A simple-to-use, comprehensive emetogenic classification schema would also have potential relevance to antiemetic research. Efforts to develop additional useful antiemetic agents to address unmet needs (delayed emesis, high-dose chemotherapy, and multi-day chemotherapy) are continuing. Cisplatin has traditionally served as the gold standard emetogenic challenge in new agent development. As cisplatin use declines, however, the ability to evaluate new agents in a timely manner has become an increasing challenge. An emetogenic classification schema that allows more precision in defining emetic risk, particularly in "high-risk" patient categories, could potentially facilitate new antiemetic agent development.
|
Summary
|
|---|
Substantial progress has been realized over the last 15 years in predicting the risk of emesis following cancer chemotherapy. Of the known predictive factors, the intrinsic emetogenicity and pattern of emesis have emerged as the most clinically relevant. A better understanding of the latter factors has allowed the development of rational guidelines to help assist the clinician in using antiemetic agents in the most rational and cost effective manner possible. Efforts should continue to develop more comprehensive emetogenic schemas that attempt to take into account all of the known patient- and treatment-related factors.
|
References
|
|---|
-
Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB et al. On the receiving end: patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983;19:203-208.[Medline]
-
Griffin AM, Butow PN, Coates AS et al. On the receiving end V: patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 1996;7:189-195.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Grunberg SM, Hesketh PJ. Control of chemotherapy-induced emesis. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1790-1796.[Free Full Text]
-
D'Acquisto R, Tyson LB, Gralla RJ et al. The influence of a chronic high alcohol intake on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1986;5:257.
-
Hesketh PJ, Plagge P, Bryson JC. Single-dose ondansetron for prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis: analysis of efficacy and prognostic factors. In: Bianchi AL, Grelot L, Miller AD et al., eds. Mechanisms and Control of Emesis. London: Libbey, 1992:25-26.
-
Tonato M, Roila F, Del Favero A. Methodology of antiemetic trials: a review. Ann Oncol 1991;2:107-114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Laszlo J. Treatment of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev 1982;9:3-9.
-
Strum SB, McDermed JE, Pileggi J et al. Intravenous metoclopramide: prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer 1984;53:1432-1439.[Medline]
-
Craig JB, Powell BL. Review: the management of nausea and vomiting in clinical oncology. Am J Med Sci 1987;293:34-44.[Medline]
-
Lindley CM, Bernard S, Fields SM. Incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the outpatient oncology population. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1142-1149.[Abstract]
-
Aapro MS. Methodological issues in antiemetic studies. Invest New Drugs 1993;11:243-253.[Medline]
-
Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM et al. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:103-109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU et al. Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:485-493.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Lynch TJ, Kalish L, Strauss G et al. Phase II study of topotecan in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:347-352.[Abstract]
-
Schiller JH, Kim K, Hutson P et al. Phase II study of topotecan in patients with extensive-stage small-cell carcinoma of the lung: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2345-2352.[Abstract]
-
Armand JP, Extra YM, Catimel G et al. Rationale for the dosage and schedule of CPT-11 (irinotecan) selected for phase II studies, as determined by European phase I studies. Ann Oncol 1996;7:837-842.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Merrouche Y, Extra JM, Abigerges D et al. High dose-intensity of irinotecan administered every 3 weeks in advanced cancer patients: a feasibility study. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1080-1086.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Rothenberg ML, Cox JV, DeVore RF et al. A multicenter, phase II trial of weekly irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with previously treated colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:786-795.[Medline]
-
Cubeddu LX, Hoffman IS, Fuenmayor NT et al. Antagonism of serotonin S3 receptors with ondansetron prevents nausea and emesis induced by cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy regimens. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1721-1727.[Abstract]
-
Beck TM, Ciociola AA, Jones SE et al. Efficacy of oral ondansetron in the prevention of emesis in outpatients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:407-413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Cubeddu LX, Pendergrass K, Ryan T et al. Efficacy of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapies. Am J Clin Oncol 1994;17:137-146.[Medline]
-
DiBenedetto J Jr, Cubeddu LX, Ryan T et al. Ondansetron for nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Clin Ther 1995;17:1091-1098.[Medline]
-
Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Clark RA et al. Incidence, course, and severity of delayed nausea and vomiting following the administration of high-dose cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:1379-1384.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Gandara DR, Harvey WH, Monaghan GG et al. The delayed-emesis syndrome from cisplatin: phase III evaluation of ondansetron versus placebo. Semin Oncol 1992;19:67-71.
-
Navari RM, Madajewicz S, Anderson N et al. Oral ondansetron for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparative trial of ondansetron versus placebo. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2408-2416.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Tavorath R, Hesketh PJ. Drug treatment of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis. Drugs 1996;52:639-648.[Medline]
-
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Antiemesis Practice Guidelines, Vol. 2. NCCN proceedings. Oncology 1997;11:57-89.[Medline]
accepted for publication March 31, 1999.
Top
Abstract
Introduction
