METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.
RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).
CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of CINV (i.e., acute and delayed) on breast cancer patients QOL and to discern opinions related with antiemetic guidelines used dependent on the three main races in Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, Indian).
METHODS: In this longitudinal prospective observational study, 158 breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were interviewed and valid questionnaires (MANE and ONEM) were used to report the impact of CINV on their QOL within the first 24 hours and after 3 to 5 days of chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: The main result was that delayed CINV has an impact on QOL greater than acute CINV. The impact of nausea was reportedly higher than that of vomiting. Also differences in race i.e., genetic polymorphisms (pharmacogenomics) influenced the utility of antiemetic treatments and patients opinions.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study a new guideline for antiemetic treatment should be used to reduce the impact of CINV on QOL, taking into account variation in genetic polymorphisms among the three races in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were 303 consecutive adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in an academic medical center. The short form Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS-SF), which covers three domains of symptoms (global distress, physical- and psychological symptoms) was used to cross-sectionally measure symptom frequency and associated distress via self-reporting. One-way ANOVA and t-tests were used to test mean differences among MSAS-SF subscale scores.
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 303 patients. The mean number of symptoms was 14.5. The five most prevalent were fatigue, dry mouth, hair loss, drowsiness and lack of appetite. Overall, symptom burden and frequency were higher than in other published MSAS-SF studies. Higher symptom frequency was also found to be significantly related to greater distress in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from multiple physical and psychological symptoms. Better symptom control or palliative care is needed. Greater frequency of reported symptoms may also indicate a subconscious bid by patients for care and reassurance - thus tailored intervention to manage distress should be offered.