PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia remains a potentially life-threatening complication of anticancer chemotherapy, but some patients are at low risk for serious medical complications. The purpose of this study was to develop an internationally validated scoring system to identify these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Febrile neutropenic cancer patients were observed in a prospective multinational study. Independent factors assessable at fever onset, predicting low risk of complications, on a randomly selected derivation set, were assigned integer weights to develop a risk-index score, which was subsequently tested on a validation set. RESULTS: On the derivation set (756 patients), predictive factors were a burden of illness indicating absence of symptoms or mild symptoms (weight, 5; odds ratio [OR], 8.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.15 to 16.38) or moderate symptoms (weight, 3; OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 2.18 to 6.29); absence of hypotension (weight, 5; OR, 7.62; 95% CI, 2.91 to 19.89); absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (weight, 4; OR, 5.35; 95% CI, 1.86 to 15.46); presence of solid tumor or absence of previous fungal infection in patients with hematologic malignancies (weight, 4; OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.97 to 12.95); outpatient status (weight, 3; OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.02 to 6.04); absence of dehydration (weight, 3; OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.89 to 7.73); and age less than 60 years (weight, 2; OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.51 to 4.01). On the validation set, a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk-index score ≥ 21 identified low-risk patients with a positive predictive value of 91%, specificity of 68%, and sensitivity of 71%. CONCLUSION: The risk index accurately identifies patients at low risk for complications and may be used to select patients for testing therapeutic strategies that may be more convenient or cost-effective.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessed the effects of epoetin alfa on transfusion requirements, hematopoietic parameters, quality of life (QOL), and safety in anemic cancer patients receiving nonplatinum chemotherapy. The study also explored a possible relationship between increased hemoglobin and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-five patients with solid or nonmyeloid hematologic malignancies and hemoglobin levels ≤ 10.5 g/dL, or greater than 10.5 g/dL but ≤ 12.0 g/dL after a hemoglobin decrease of ≥ 1.5 g/dL per cycle since starting chemotherapy, were randomized 2:1 to epoetin alfa 150 to 300 IU/kg (n = 251) or placebo (n = 124) three times per week subcutaneously for 12 to 24 weeks. The primary end point was proportion of patients transfused; secondary end points were change in hemoglobin and QOL. The protocol was amended before unblinding to prospectively collect and assess survival data 12 months after the last patient completed the study. RESULTS: Epoetin alfa, compared with placebo, significantly decreased transfusion requirements (P = .0057) and increased hemoglobin (P < .001). Improvement of all primary cancer- and anemia-specific QOL domains, including energy level, ability to do daily activities, and fatigue, was significantly (P < .01) greater for epoetin alfa versus placebo patients. Although the study was not powered for survival as an end point, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a trend in overall survival favoring epoetin alfa (P = .13, log-rank test), and Cox regression analysis showed an estimated hazards ratio of 1.309 (P = .052) favoring epoetin alfa. Adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa safely and effectively ameliorates anemia and significantly improves QOL in cancer patients receiving nonplatinum chemotherapy. Encouraging results regarding increased survival warrant another trial designed to confirm these findings.

Febrile neutropaenia (FN) is defined as an oral temperature of >38.3°C or two consecutive readings of >38.0°C for 2 h and an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of <0.5 × 10⁹/l, or expected to fall below 0.5 × 10⁹/l.

Despite the relevant progress achieved in the last 20 years, vomiting and, especially, nausea, continue to be two of the most distressing side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. In the late 1990s several professional organizations published recommendations on the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis in patients submitted to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Despite the considerable progress achieved in the last 30 years, vomiting and, especially, nausea, continue to be two of the most distressing side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. In the late 1990s, several professional organisations published recommendations on the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis in patients submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) published the results of the third Consensus Conference on antiemetics held in Perugia in June 2009 in Annals of Oncology in 2010 [1]. An update of these recommendations, including studies published from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2015, was discussed in Copenhagen in June 2015 and is presented in this paper. The methodology for the guideline process is described in detail in the 2010 publication [1]. To change a 2010 recommendation or for a new guideline recommendation to be accepted, a consensus of at least 67% of the expert panellists was needed. As a general rule, the panel considered changes of 10% or greater to be sufficient to warrant the changing of a recommendation.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared docetaxel with mitomycin plus vinblastine (MV) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 392) were randomized to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (n = 203) or mitomycin 12 mg/m² IV every 6 weeks plus vinblastine 6 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks (n = 189), for a maximum of 10 3-week cycles. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, docetaxel produced significantly higher response rates than MV overall (30.0% v 11.6%; P < .0001), as well as in patients with visceral involvement (30% v 11%), liver metastases (33% v 7%), or resistance to previous anthracycline agents (30% v 7%). Median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival were significantly longer with docetaxel than MV (19 v 11 weeks, P = .001, and 11.4 v 8.7 months, P = .0097, respectively). Neutropenia grade 3/4 was more frequent with docetaxel (93.1% v 62.5%; P < .05); thrombocytopenia grade 3/4 was more frequent with MV (12.0% v 4.1%; P < .05). Severe acute or chronic nonhematologic adverse events were infrequent in both groups. Withdrawal rates because of adverse events (MV, 10.1%; docetaxel, 13.8%) or toxic death (MV, 1.6%; docetaxel, 2.0%) were similar in both groups. Quality-of-life analysis was limited by a number of factors, but results were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is significantly superior to MV in terms of response, TTP, and survival. The safety profiles of both therapies are manageable and tolerable. Docetaxel represents a clear treatment option for patients with MBC progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.