It is too early to know if intelligence determines cancer incidence and survival.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Humans↗
Biomedical subjects
M S Aapro
Publications and source records attributed to M S Aapro.
EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer: 2006 update.
Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, and may have a detrimental effect on quality of life (QoL). We previously conducted a systematic literature review (1996-2003) to produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.[Bokemeyer C, Aapro MS, Courdi A, et al. EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2201-2216.] We report here an update to these guidelines, including literature published through to November 2005. The results of this updated systematic literature review have enabled us to refine our guidelines based on the full body of data currently available. Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, and in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The addition of further Level I studies confirms our recommendation that in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be initiated at a Hb level of 9-11 g/dL based on anaemia-related symptoms rather than a fixed Hb concentration. Early intervention with erythropoietic proteins may be considered in asymptomatic anaemic patients with Hb levels 11.9 g/dL provided that individual factors like intensity and expected duration of chemotherapy are considered. Patients whose Hb level is below 9 g/dL should primarily be evaluated for need of transfusions potentially followed by the application of erythropoietic proteins. We do not recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy who have normal Hb levels at the start of treatment, as the literature has not shown a benefit with this approach. The addition of further supporting studies confirms our recommendation that the target Hb concentration following treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be 12-13 g/dL. Once this level is achieved, maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia, with studies supporting the use of epoetin alfa and epoetin beta weekly and darbepoetin alfa given every week or every 3 weeks. We do not recommend the use of higher than standard initial doses of erythropoietic proteins with the aim of producing higher haematological responses, due to the limited body of evidence available. There is Level I evidence that, within reasonable limits of body weight, fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. This analysis confirms that there are no baseline predictive factors of response to erythropoietic proteins that can be routinely used in clinical practice if functional iron deficiency or vitamin deficiency is ruled out; a low serum erythropoietin (EPO) level (only in haematological malignancies) appears to be the only predictive factor to be verified in Level I studies. Further studies are needed to investigate the value of hepcidin, c-reactive protein, and other measures as predictive factors. In these updated guidelines, we explored a new question of whether oral or intravenous iron supplementation increases the response rate to erythropoietic proteins. We found no evidence of increased response with the addition of oral iron supplementation, but there is Level II evidence of improved response to erythropoietic proteins with the addition of intravenous iron. However, the doses and schedules for intravenous iron supplementation are not yet well defined, and further studies in this area are warranted. The two major goals of erythropoietic protein therapy are prevention or elimination of transfusions and improvement of QoL. The total body of evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are reduced following treatment with erythropoietic proteins. This analysis also confirms that QoL is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease following erythropoietic protein therapy, with more robust evidence now available that QoL was improved in studies investigating early intervention in cases of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced anaemia. There is only indirect evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase. None of the studies addressed the question in a prospective, randomised fashion, and so the Taskforce does not recommend dose escalation as a general approach in all patients who are not responding. There is still insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Our analysis of survival endpoints in studies involving patients receiving radio(chemo)therapy found that most studies were inconclusive, with no clear link between the use of erythropoietic proteins and survival. Likewise, we found no clear link between erythropoietic therapy and other endpoints such as local tumour control, time to progression, and progression-free survival. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia occurs in cancer patients following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, and the fear of this condition developing should not lead to erythropoietic proteins being withheld in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Additional trials are warranted, especially to define the optimal doses and schedules of intravenous iron supplementation during erythropoietic therapy. While our review did not address cost benefit evaluations in detail, the consensus is that studies taking into account all real determinants of cost and benefit need to be performed prospectively.
Anemia↗
A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase). RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.
Adult↗
EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours.
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.
Antineoplastic Agents↗
[Prevention and management of radiotherapy complications].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Humans↗
Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment.
BACKGROUND: We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin). RESULTS: Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.
Adult↗
[Medical oncology].
Patients are more and more often coming to see the physician with reprints from the Oracle of modem times, (the Internet). Facing the rapid development of new anticancer drugs, even the expert can have difficulties in knowing which ones have already rigorous comparative trials and which results are really clinically significant, leading to important improvements in the treatment of patients with solid tumors. In past years we had already noticed that in some cancer types, these progresses unfortunately sometimes remain of marginal importance. Survival benefits are not always well established and, confronted with the exploding costs of medicine, the physician may not always want to use some promising drugs. This review summarizes results of some of the most important randomized clinical trials, but does not attempt to solve the cost-benefit question.
Humans↗
[Medical oncology].
Progresses in medical oncology seem to be speeding up. New drugs developed these last years have been submitted to comparative trials, and many results lead us to expect improvements in the treatment of patients with solid tumors. Unquestionable in some cancer types, these progresses unfortunately sometimes remain marginal in other fields. Survival benefits are not always well established and, confronted with the exploding costs of medicine, the physician might tend to refrain from using some promising drugs. This review is summarizing results of the most important trials, while trying to present data in a context useful to the clinician.
Breast Neoplasms↗
ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (NV).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Antiemetics↗
EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.
Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, yet it is difficult to identify a single cause due to its multifactorial aetiology. We conducted a systematic literature review (1996-2003) to produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer (see ). Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, in patients undergoing cancer surgery and following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. The Hb level at which erythropoietic protein therapy should be initiated is difficult to determine as it varied between studies; a large number of Level I studies in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease enrolled patients with a Hb concentration </=105 g/L, but none compared the effect of different baseline Hb levels on the response to treatment. Similarly, several studies defined the target Hb concentration as 120-130 g/L following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, but none specifically addressed the correlation between target Hb level and clinical benefit in a randomised fashion. Level I evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are significantly reduced with erythropoietic protein therapy in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used to prevent cancer anaemia (approximately 20% reduction compared with controls). We found indirect Level I and III evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase (absolute increases in response rate ranged from 8% to 18%). However, none of these studies examined the effect on response rates of a longer treatment period at the lower dose, or performed a randomised comparison of a dose increase versus an unchanged dose. There is Level I evidence to show that quality-of-life (QOL) is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease, particularly in patients achieving a Hb response to erythropoietic protein therapy. There are insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week (TIW) is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. There is Level III evidence that initial doses of erythropoietic proteins considered to be higher than current standard practice produce higher haematological responses in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease. Level I evidence demonstrates that several baseline patient parameters (e.g., low endogenous erythropoietin [EPO] concentration, age <60 years, Hb concentration >/=90 g/L) impact upon the response to erythropoietic proteins when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. Evidence indicates that endogenous EPO concentration impacts on response in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies, but is not a valid parameter in patients with solid tumours. There is Level I evidence that fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used at the start of therapy to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia, but maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) occurs following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used prophylactically in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Level I evidence supports the effectiveness of erythropoietic proteins to prevenroteins to prevent anaemia in non-anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or in those undergoing cancer surgery. However, these are non-licensed indications and we do not currently recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients who have normal Hb values at the start of treatment. Additional trials are warranted, especially on the issues of iron replacement and cost-effectiveness of erythropoietic protein therapy, as well as on tumour response/progression and survival.
Anemia↗
Phase II study of fotemustine in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. A trial of the EORTC Gynecological Cancer Group.
30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, all platinum pretreated, were treated with an induction cycle of fotemustine. Maintenance therapy was given to 6 patients. No objective response was observed among the 21 evaluable patients. The main toxicities were gastrointestinal, with grade 3 nausea and vomiting reported in 40% of the patients, and haematological, with grade 4 leucopenia reported in 2 patients and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 5 patients. Therefore, no role has been demonstrated in our cohort for the use of fotemustine, a nitrosourea, in pretreated ovarian cancer.
Adult↗
EORTC Cancer in the Elderly Task Force guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors in elderly patients with cancer.
Increasing age is not, in itself, a contraindication to cancer chemotherapy. Myelosuppression, however, a common adverse consequence of the administration of many standard-dose chemotherapy regimens to both young and elderly patients with cancer, increases with age. The risk of development of febrile neutropenia may contribute to a reluctance to administer chemotherapy in the elderly patient population. We conducted a detailed literature search (1992-2002) to derive evidence-based conclusions on the value of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor (CSF) administration in elderly patients receiving chemotherapy. Sufficient evidence allows us to affirm that prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infections in elderly patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) or urothelial tumours. Lack of available trial data does not allow similar conclusions to be drawn for other cancers studied, but it is likely that similar benefits would accrue from the use of prophylactic G-CSF. There is insufficient evidence to extend this recommendation to include the use of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). There are insufficient data available to allow the evaluation of the impact of prophylactic CSF on the incidence of toxic deaths in elderly patients with cancer and this is a crucial question for geriatric oncology practice. There is no evidence in elderly patients that the delivery of standard-dose chemotherapy on schedule improves efficacy measures. The data show that febrile neutropenic events are more likely to occur during the first and second cycles of chemotherapy, thus prophylactic measures should be considered early in the course of treatment. Furthermore, since systematic dose reduction can impact on outcome, primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for all elderly patients receiving curative myelotoxic chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (CHOP) or CHOP-like) is indicated and we suggest a risk-adapted strategy with primary prophylactic G-CSF administration in high-risk patients. Dose intensification, through dose interval reduction, facilitated by prophylactic G-CSF, improved survival in elderly patients with some specific diseases. There is a need for further well-designed studies to identify the elderly patients who will benefit most from prophylactic G-CSF. To achieve this, we strongly urge the design of and participation in further trials.
Aged↗
A randomized double-blind trial to compare the clinical efficacy of granisetron with metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis.
BACKGROUND: The prophylactic use of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons), after the first 24 h (acute phase) of exposure to emetic chemotherapy, to decrease the incidence of 'delayed phase' emesis increases costs. We designed a study to evaluate the efficacy of a setron (granisetron) in the delayed phase, compared with metoclopramide, each combined with a corticosteroid. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients on their first course of single-day emetic chemotherapy (cisplatin, carboplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and others) received granisetron 2 mg p.o. and dexamethasone 8 mg p.o. on day 1, followed for 5 days by dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. od combined with either metoclopramide 20 mg p.o. tds or granisetron 1 mg bd in a double-blinded double-dummy protocol. Patients evaluated the results using a diary card. Randomization was stratified by institution, sex, emetic chemotherapy naïve versus previous, alcohol consumption and platinum versus non-platinum regimen. RESULTS: 131 evaluable patients received granisetron in the delayed phase, and 127 received metoclopramide. Control of acute emesis in both arms was similar (86% granisetron; 85% metoclopramide). The 35 patients experiencing acute emesis had poor control in the delayed phase, with only four granisetron and three metoclopramide patients having no or mild nausea and no vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: In daily practice, a combination of oral dexamethasone and oral granisetron achieves an extremely high control of acute emesis (86% protection). Our data suggest that routine prescription of setrons for delayed phase control is not advisable as it increases costs without any benefit for the majority of patients. Delayed emesis in the rare patients with acute phase emesis remains an unsolved problem.
Administration, Oral↗
Doxorubicin versus doxorubicin and cisplatin in endometrial carcinoma: definitive results of a randomised study (55872) by the EORTC Gynaecological Cancer Group.
BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy yields better response rates which do not always lead to a survival advantage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reported differences in the efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) versus combination therapy with cisplatin (CDDP) in endometrial adenocarcinoma lead to significant advantage in favour of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically-proven advanced and/or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma and were chemo-naïve. Treatment consisted of either DOX 60 mg/m(2) alone or CDDP 50 mg/m2 added to DOX 60 mg/m2, every 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were entered and median follow-up is 7.1 years. The combination DOX-CDDP was more toxic than DOX alone. Haematological toxicity consisted mainly of white blood cell toxicity grade 3 and 4 (55% versus 30%). Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 3 and 4 alopecia (72% versus 65%) and nausea/vomiting (36 % versus 12%). The combination DOX-CDDP provided a significantly higher response rate than single agent DOX (P <0.001). Thirty-nine patients (43%) responded on DOX-CDDP [13 complete responses (CRs) and 26 partial responses (PRs)], versus 15 patients (17%) on DOX alone (8 CR and 7 PR). The median overall survival (OS) was 9 months in the DOX-CDDP arm versus 7 months in the DOX alone arm (Wilcoxon P = 0.0654). Regression analysis showed that WHO performance status was statistically significant as a prognostic factor for survival, and stratifying for this factor, treatment effect reaches significance (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.03, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to single agent DOX, the combination of DOX-CDDP results in higher but acceptable toxicity. The response rate produced is significantly higher, and a modest survival benefit is achieved with this combination regimen, especially in patients with a good performance status.
Adenocarcinoma↗
Patients' estimation of overall treatment burden: why not ask the obvious?
PURPOSE: We investigated the clinical validity of patients' estimation of overall treatment burden. This measure was expected to be responsive to the wide spectrum of reactions on treatment and thus less precise for specific effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After the first chemotherapy within a randomized, double-blind trial of the prophylaxis for delayed emesis (SAKK 90/95), 249 patients documented nausea and vomiting daily for 6 days. Over the whole period, they estimated nausea/vomiting (N/V) burden and overall treatment burden by linear analog-self assessment (LASA) indicators and documented other side effects. RESULTS: At day 6, the two burden indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.58) in accordance with their different concepts. No, partial, or total control of delayed emesis (days 2 to 6) was reflected in a consistent pattern by both indicators, with a stronger and more significant effect (P <.001) on changes in N/V burden than overall treatment burden. In contrast, toxicity other than N/V, assessed independently by patients and physicians, was mainly associated with overall treatment burden. Patients who indicated at least one other side effect rated their overall burden substantially higher than those with no indication of other toxicity (P <.0001). Physician-rated toxicity had a similar effect (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: A direct patient estimation of overall treatment burden by a LASA indicator may serve as an end point in clinical trials, particularly when treatments with different toxicity profiles are being compared. It is complementary to physicians' ratings of specific toxicities and a major component of patient-rated symptom checklists and quality-of-life measures.
Aged↗
Progress in the treatment of breast cancer in the elderly.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Age Factors↗
Developments in cytotoxic chemotherapy: advances in treatment utilising vinorelbine.
Vinorelbine is a third generation vinca alkaloid which has been in clinical development for 15 years. Recent exploration of its pre-clinical activity has revealed unexpected evidence of potential synergy with taxane compounds and early clinical results support the suggestion of enhanced efficacy particularly in breast cancer. The initial studies establishing the clinical activity of vinorelbine in breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer have been extended to encompass a thorough evaluation of its contribution to combination chemotherapy for these disorders. In the treatment of breast cancer useful activity has been established for vinorelbine in combination with anthracyclines, anthracenediones, antimetabolites and the taxanes; additive toxicity is not a limiting factor. The activity of vinorelbine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer is significantly extended by incorporation into schedules utilising cisplatin and other agents. Vinorelbine has also demonstrated useful activity in the treatment of a wide range of other malignancies including prostatic carcinoma, multiple myeloma, cancer of the ovary, cervix and head and neck and malignant lymphomas.
Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic↗