• Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. • The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. • The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. • Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). • All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) defines supportive care as “the prevention and management of the adverse effects of cancer and its treatment. This includes management of physical and psychological symptoms and side effects across the continuum of the cancer journey from diagnosis through treatment to post-treatment care. Supportive care aims to improve the quality of rehabilitation, secondary cancer prevention, survivorship, and end-of-life care”. This article will provide an overview of modern supportive care in cancer, discussing its definition, its relationship with palliative care, models of care, “core” service elements (multi-professional/multidisciplinary involvement), the evidence that supportive care improves morbidity, quality of life, and mortality in various groups of patients with cancer, and the health economic benefits of supportive care. The article will also discuss the current and future challenges to providing optimal supportive care to all oncology patients.

Objectives Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Methods Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers. Results Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted. Conclusion Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

The conventional drug development pathway in oncology, spanning 10-15 years, has long been slow, costly, and complex, often marked by late-stage failures due to efficacy or safety concerns. We aimed to develop this position paper, based on a literature review and by sharing experience, skills, and works of the different co-authors, in order to propose a new approach to the clinical trials' process. In the past decade, the field has undergone major transformation. Innovative trial designs and fast-track regulatory pathways, such as priority review, breakthrough designation, accelerated approval, and fast-track processes, have significantly shortened timelines from phase I to market approval. While these approaches have enabled quicker access to promising therapies, they have also exposed gaps in postmarketing safety and highlighted the need for tailored adverse event management strategies. These emerging safety challenges call for multidisciplinary evaluation and the integration of advanced monitoring technologies. This manuscript introduces a comprehensive, adaptive fast-track safety evaluation framework designed to support oncology drug development. It aims to enhance patient safety while preserving the benefits of accelerated regulatory pathways.

The prompt introduction of supportive care for patients with cancer leads to a better quality of life, potential survival benefits, and improvements in treatment safety. Considering that patients’ needs vary, descriptive assessments could serve as a compass for an efficient and prompt healthcare response. The aim of this study was to identify supportive care needs in newly diagnosed patients according to cancer type. A retrospective study was conducted by collecting data from the case consultation and medical records of a comprehensive cancer center in France. Patients’ needs were divided into twelve domains: nutrition, psychological support, psychiatric support, social care, physiotherapy, addictology, pain management, palliative care, pharmacology, complementary and alternative practice (CAM), sexual health, and speech therapy. Out of 6217 newly diagnosed patients of various cancer types who sought medical care at Gustave Roussy in 2021, 2541 (41%) required supportive cancer care (SCC), and of them, 1331 patients (52%) required two or more different SCC specialist interventions. The top five interventions were dietary (for 60% of patients), physiotherapy (33%), psychology (29%), social care (28%), and pain management (16%). Subgroup analysis according to cancer department highlighted additional specific needs: CAM for breast cancer patients (11%), speech specialist (27%) and addictologist (22%) interventions for ENT patients, psychiatry consultations for neurological patients (16%), and palliative care for dermatology patients (23%). The aforementioned data suggest that an early, multidisciplinary supportive care intervention should be required. Assembling human resources at the time of diagnosis within a dedicated day unit would be the next appropriate step in developing personalized care pathways related to the highlighted needs.