Yoga, Geriatric Assessment, and Nausea/Vomiting Addressed in
Session on Supportive Care and Survivorship Issues
Marie E. Wood, MD, of the Familial
Cancer Program at the University of Vermont, Burlington, addressed
clinically relevant issues in supportive care and survivorship at
the Best of ASCO® Annual Meeting '11 in Miami.
Delayed
Nausea and Vomiting
Two studies addressed the
problem of chemotherapy-related delayed nausea and vomiting. In the
large University of Rochester Community Clinical Oncology Program
study (N = 1,021), 55% of patients experienced delayed nausea and
16% had delayed vomiting. In a comparison of four preventive
approaches, palonosetron was no more effective than granisetron
when both antiemetics were provided with dexamethasone on day 1 of
chemotherapy and with prochlorperazine on days 2 and
3.1
Patients receiving
dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (in the comparison of dexamethasone
vs no dexamethasone on these days) had significantly less delayed
nausea but no reduction in delayed vomiting. Patients receiving
aprepitant (Emend)/dexamethasone had significantly less delayed
vomiting but no benefit over prochlorperazine in controlling
nausea. The group receiving aprepitant plus palonosetron plus
dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant/dexamethasone on days 2 and 3
had the lowest rate of delayed vomiting (8% vs 14%-24% in other
groups).
"This was a large study that included many
groups and comparisons, though it did not study aprepitant alone,"
Dr. Wood noted, indicating that such data would help determine how
best to use this agent. The study also raised doubts that
palonosetron is more effective than other 5HT3 receptor antagonists
when part of a combination regimen, she added.
A second randomized phase
III study of 68 germ cell tumor patients receiving a 5-day
cisplatin-based regimen found that aprepitant given with a 5HT3
receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone increased the complete
response rate (no vomiting, no rescue medication).2
Aprepitant was started at 125 mg on day 3, with 80 mg given on days
4 to 7. Complete responses were observed in 42% of the aprepitant
arm vs 13% of controls (5HT3 receptor antagonist/dexamethasone;P
< .0001).
ASCO guidelines, which
recommend aprepitant/dexamethasone for patients receiving
high-emetic risk agents, are largely based on consensus. "But now
we have more level 1 evidence that aprepitant/dexamethasone does
improve delayed nausea and vomiting," Dr. Wood said. "The results
may challenge how we think about and potentially treat delayed
nausea and vomiting, in that we use aprepitant starting on day 3 of
multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy.… Unfortunately, no matter
how you cut it, delayed nausea remains a significant problem."
Thromboprophylaxis
A study of 3,212 cancer
patients demonstrated the benefit of thromboprophylaxis with a
novel ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin with high anti-factor Xa
and residual anti-factor IIa activities.3 With
subcutaneous semuloparin (20 mg/d), the rate of venous
thromboembolism was reduced by 64%, from 3.4% with placebo to 1.2%
(P < .0001), with very low rates of major or clinically
relevant bleeding.
"Prophylaxis reduces the
thrombosis risk in cancer patients by 50% [64% in this study], but
it does not change survival," Dr. Wood noted, adding that cost
(high copays) is an issue, as is quality of life, due to the need
for daily injections.
Prophylaxis may be
reasonable based on individual risk, she said. Most risk is related
to site: stomach, pancreas, and brain carry the highest risk, while
breast, colorectal, and head and neck cancer have the lowest. Other
risk factors are prechemotherapy platelet count > 350 ×
109/L, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, white cell count > 11
× 109/L, and body mass index > 35.
A published predictive
model based on risk factors can determine 6-month risk of venous
thromboembolism.4 "It may be reasonable to think about
thromboprophylaxis in patients with more than a 10% risk," she
said.
Yoga's
Benefits Documented
In the first study of
yoga to include a control group, regular practice of yoga was able
to buffer the effects of radiotherapy on both patient-reported and
biologic endpoints.5 The benefits were more than
"stretching and social support," the authors concluded.
The study randomized 178
breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy to yoga or
stretching three times a week for 6 weeks during treatment, or to a
waitlist control group. Fatigue was diminished in the yoga and
stretch groups, whereas it increased among waitlist controls
(P < .05). Yoga also significantly improved physical
functioning (as assessed by the SF‑36 health survey) compared with
controls, and was associated with significantly higher general
health scores, steeper cortisol slope, and greater heart rate
variability vs the control or stretch groups.
"There is mounting
support for the importance of yoga and other integrated therapy in
the care of cancer patients," Dr. Wood commented.
Survivorship
Plans
Survivorship care plans
are advocated by the Institute of Medicine, but do they really
improve health outcomes? Canadian researchers concluded that the
survivorship care plan adopted by their centers had no impact on
patient-reported outcomes or adherence to follow-up
guidelines.6
All 408 early breast
cancer patients were transitioning from oncology care to their
primary care physician. One group received a formal survivorship
care plan, which consisted of a treatment summary, patient version
of follow-up guidelines, and local supportive care resources,
reviewed with the patient by a nurse. Their primary care physician
received copies of these documents, guidelines, and a reminder
table of recommended follow-up visits and tests. The control group
had a discharge visit and their physicians received a discharge
letter, according to usual practice.
At 12 months, the
intervention group demonstrated no additional improvement in
psychosocial adjustment (the primary endpoint) or any of the
secondary outcomes (continuity of care, health-related quality of
life [SF-36], patient satisfaction, and guideline adherence).
"This was a different
result than the investigators had hypothesized," she noted.
However, the study did prove that patients can be successfully
transferred to a primary care physician; less than 10% in each arm
returned to their oncologist for care.
Brief
Screening Tool
The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is
an appropriate but time-consuming method of predicting tolerance to
cancer treatment in older patients.7 French
investigators reported that the brief G8 assessment (Fig. 1) was
more sensitive than the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES)-13, a
13-item function-based self-report questionnaire, in predicting an
abnormal CGA.
The ONCODAGE project
validated the G8 among 1,425 patients with a variety of cancer
types. Overall, abnormal test rates on the CGA, G8, and VES-13
were, respectively, 80.1%, 68.4%, and 60.1%. The G8 screening tool
was more sensitive than the VES-13 though equivalent in other
parameters. Both brief screening tests were administered in less
than 5 minutes, whereas the mean time for the CGA was 67
minutes.
"An abbreviated tool is
good at picking up patients who may benefit from a more thorough
evaluation (CGA) or collaborative care," she said, reminding
physicians that "geriatric assessment that screens for
vulnerability actually predicts survival in cancer patients." ■
Disclosure: Dr. Wood reported no
potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Hayes holds stock in
Oncimmune, LLC, has served as a consultant for Chugai
Pharmaceuticals and Biomarker Strategies, and has received research
funding from Pfizer, Novartis, and Veridex (Johnson &
Johnson).
SIDEBAR: Who Should
Manage Survivorship Care?
References
1. Morrow GR, Roscoe
JA, Heckler C, et al: A phase III study for prevention of delayed
nausea. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract 9012. Presented June 6, 2011.
2. Brames MJ, Picus J,
Yu M, et al: Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover
study evaluating a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone with or
without aprepitant in patients with germ cell tumor receiving 5-day
cisplatin combination chemotherapy. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract 9013. Presented June 6, 2011.
3. Agnelli G, George
DJ, Fisher W, et al: The ultra-low molecular weight heparin
semuloparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients
with cancer receiving chemotherapy. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract LBA9014. Presented June 6, 2011.
4. Khorana AA, Kuderer
NM, Culakova E, et al: Development and validation of a predictive
model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis.
Blood 111:4902-4907, 2008.
5. Cohen L, Chandwani
K, Raghuram NV, et al: Effect of yoga on quality of life, cortisol
rhythm, and heart rate variability for women with breast cancer
undergoing radiotherapy. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract 9009. Presented June 6, 2011.
6. Grunfeld E, Levine
MN, Julian JA, et al: Results of a multicenter randomized trial to
evaluate a survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors. 2011
ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract 9005. Presented June 4, 2011.
7. Soubeyran P, Bellera C, Goyard J, et al: Validation of the G8
screening tool in geriatric oncology. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting.
Abstract 9001. Presented June 5, 2011.