Antiemetics revisited

In the past few years a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone has been shown to be the most efficacious antiemetic prophylaxis of acute emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis oral metoclopramide or ondansetron, both combined with dexamethasone, offer similar antiemetic protection. Due to its lower cost the metoclopramide regimen remains the treatment of choice, whereas the ondansetron one is a valid alternative treatment that may be preferred in patients who present acute emesis. In the prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy ondansetron and dexamethasone have been shown superior to placebo. On the other hand, a recent observational study suggested that patients presenting acute vomiting or acute moderate-severe nausea, having a high incidence of delayed emesis, should always receive antiemetic prophylaxis. Instead, patients obtaining complete protection from acute emesis may not require any antiemetic prophylaxis.

Clinical and methodological issues in antiemetic therapy: a worldwide survey of experts' opinions. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

During the 1995 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Congress, a consensus conference was planned by the Subcommittee for Antiemetics. To define the topics to be discussed, a questionnaire containing both clinical and methodological issues was sent to 118 experts in 31 countries. The questionnaire contained 33 items on clinical and 19 items on methodological issues, and each response was rated on a 4-level categorical scale. The clinical issues were evaluated for interest, that is clinical importance, and feasibility, that is availability of sufficient data to make them suitable topics for the consensus conference. About 60% of questionnaires were returned, with a small number of missing responses. The responses to the items of clinical interest showed that about two-thirds of the issues identified by the Subcommittee were found by the experts to be of at least high interest, but often the availability of data was found to be insufficient for their discussion. Prevention of acute emesis induced by cisplatin and by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and the optimal intravenous dose and schedule of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were the items with the highest interest and feasibility. The issues in the methodological section were also mostly found to be of at least high interest. The distinction between acute and delayed emesis, the evaluation of the persistence of antiemetic efficacy in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy and the statistical analysis of delayed emesis were the methodological issues in which the highest interest was recorded. Data collected will be used to define the main topics to be discussed during the planned consensus conference.

Localization of aspergillosis to the central nervous system among patients with acute leukemia: report of 14 cases. Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell'Adulto Infection Program

We retrospectively studied a consecutive series of 100 patients with acute leukemia and aspergillosis to evaluate the clinical findings and risk factors for colonization of the central nervous system (CNS) by Aspergillus species. The diagnosis of CNS aspergillosis was made in 14 patients on the basis of the following criteria: neurological signs of CNS involvement (13 of 14 patients); cerebral CT scan findings (9 of 12); microbiological findings (6 of 12); and histological findings at autopsy (11 of 11). The majority of patients had severe neurological complications (i.e., hemiparesis or seizures), due mainly to brain abscesses or mycetomas. Autopsies were performed on 11 of 14 patients and provided evidence that CNS localization was secondary to invasive aspergillosis; in each case, the most likely primary focus of infection was the lung. Although all patients had received oral antimycotic prophylaxis and had received timely empirical antifungal treatment, they all died within a median time of 5 days from the onset of neurological symptoms. Analysis of the characteristics of patients with invasive aspergillosis did not reveal any difference between those with CNS localization and those without CNS localization.

Therapeutic equivalence of single oral doses of dolasetron mesilate and multiple doses of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. European Dolasetron Comparative Study Group

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was designed to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of single oral doses of dolasetron mesilate with that of the approved oral, multiple-dose regimen of ondansetron in 399 cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Single oral doses of 25, 50, 100 or 200 mg of dolasetron mesilate were administered 1 h prior to the initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Multiple doses of ondansetron (8 mg x 3 or 8 mg x 4) capsules, or matching placebo for patients randomised to dolasetron, were given 1.5 h before and 6.5, 14.5 and 22.5 h after the start of chemotherapy (total dose = 32 mg). Efficacy was evaluated for 24 h after the initiation of chemotherapy. The most frequently used moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents included cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and carboplatin (28.4, 23.1 and 20.6% of patients, respectively). A statistically significant (P < 0.001) linear dose-response relationship was observed over the entire dolasetron dosage range for all efficacy parameters. Complete response rates were 45.0, 49.4, 60.5 and 76.3% for 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg dolasetron mesilate, respectively, and 72.3% of ondansetron patients. A single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to ondansetron for all efficacy parameters and patient satisfaction was high. Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between any of the dolasetron mesilate doses, or between dolasetron and ondansetron. Headache was most frequently reported (approximately 15% for each drug). No clinically important changes in vital signs or clinical laboratory parameters were observed with either drug. In conclusion, a single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to multiple-dose ondansetron in the prevention of emesis and nausea following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Comparative studies of various antiemetic regimens

Since 1981, when high-dose intravenous metoclopramide was demonstrated to be efficacious, slow but constant improvement in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis has been achieved. Today, a combination of a serotonin receptor 3 (5-HT3) antagonist plus dexamethasone can be considered the most efficacious treatment for the prevention of emesis induced by cisplatin and by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Which 5-HT3receptor antagonist should be used? Preclinical differences among 5-HT3receptor antagonists have been reported with regard to selectivity of receptor binding, potency, dose response, and duration of action. Twelve comparative studies among 5-HT3receptor antagonists have been carried out. Unfortunately, all these trials have some important shortcomings (patient population not large enough to show small but clinically important differences; not blinded studies; no association with steroids to maximize treatment efficacy) and, therefore, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Very recently three large, well-conducted double-blind comparative studies have been published. All three showed that 5-HT3receptor antagonists have almost identical antiemetic efficacy and tolerability. Therefore, the choice among the 5-HT3receptor antagonists should be based only on the acquisition cost of the prescribed dose in each country for each compound.

Methodology of trials with antiemetics

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can today be controlled with the "new" antiemetics or with their various combinations in a high percentage of patients. Despite this, for some subgroups of patients, certain chemotherapy regimens and some aspects of the phenomenon (delayed presentation), emesis remains a critical problem. Hence, there is the necessity for a continuous effort in the search for new drugs or better treatment modalities and the absolute requisite that these efforts be carried out according to a sound and verified trial methodology. Nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic agents are extremely variable phenomena, depending not only on the characteristics of chemotherapy regimens and of the patient population, but also on a subjective feeling generated by the impact of the care system on the patient's individual situation. Therefore, precisely because of this high variability, large comparative trials should be carried out to ensure that the sample is sufficiently representative for the most efficacious antiemetic regimen to be detected. In this field, some of the main problems arising in all clinical trials have their own specificity, particularly the study design, whether completely randomized or cross-over, the follow-up and the importance of prognostic factors. Among these, age, gender and previous chemotherapy with experience of nausea and vomiting have been confirmed as important. In addition, some topics must clearly be highlighted: the definition of the response variables and the assessment of variability of the results obtained with the same antiemetic regimen from one cycle of chemotherapy to the next (i.e. persistence). The greater attention devoted today to delayed emesis raises some methodological questions: this paper suggests some possible solutions for a better evaluation of this phenomenon.

Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program

Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have been standard therapy for suspected infections in granulocytopenic cancer patients, especially those with profound long-lasting granulocytopenia. With the advent of new broad-spectrum bactericidal antibiotics such as extended-spectrum cephalosporins or carbapenems, the need to combine beta-lactams with aminoglycosides became more controversial. The objective of this prospective randomized multicenter study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of meropenem monotherapy with those of the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Of 1,034 randomized patients, 958 were assessable in the intent-to-treat analysis for response to antibacterial therapy, including 483 in the meropenem group and 475 in the ceftazidime-plus-amikacin group. The median durations of neutropenia were 16 and 17 days, respectively. A successful outcome was reported in 270 of 483 (56%) patients treated with monotherapy compared with 245 of 475 (52%) patients treated with the combination group (P = 0.20). The success rates in the monotherapy group and the combination group were similar by type of infection (single gram-negative bacteremia, single gram-positive bacteremia, clinically documented infection, and possible infection). The occurrence of further infections assessed in patients for whom the allocated regimen was not modified did not differ between the two groups (12% in both groups). Mortality due to the presenting infection or further infection was relatively low (8 patients treated with the monotherapy compared with 13 patients treated with the combination). A total of 1,027 patients were evaluable for adverse events; the proportion of those who developed adverse effects was similar between the two groups (29% in both groups), and only 19 (4%) patients in the monotherapy group and 31 (6%) in the combination group experienced an adverse event related or probably related to the study drug. Allergic reactions were the only reason for stopping the protocol antibiotic(s) (3 and 5 patients, respectively). This study confirms that monotherapy with meropenem is as effective as the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin for the empiric treatment of fever in persistently granulocytopenic cancer patients, and both regimens were well tolerated.

Ondansetron clinical pharmacokinetics

Ondansetron is a potent and highly selective serotonin 5-HT3-receptor antagonist which has demonstrated important antiemetic activity and good tolerability in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron is completely and rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract after oral administration, and does not accumulate with repeated oral administration. Owing to hepatic first-pass metabolism, its bioavailability is only about 60% compared with ondansetron administered by infusion over 15 minutes. Bioavailability is slightly increased when administered after a standard meal, and is not influenced by coadministration of antacids; a slightly enhanced bioavailability has been observed in patients with cancer. Since the time to reach peak concentration is 0.5 to 2 hours after oral ingestion, the drug should be administered at least 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Possible alternative ways of administration of ondansetron include intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal administration, and oral controlled-release formulations. Ondansetron is widely distributed (volume of distribution approximately 160L) and binds moderately (70 to 76%) to plasma proteins; the elimination half-life averages approximately 3.8 +/- 1 hours. Clearance occurs by hepatic metabolism (95%) rather than renal excretion. Metabolites do not play a role in the activity of the drug, and there is no evidence of genetic polymorphic metabolism. Although aging is associated with decreased clearance and increased bioavailability, dosage adjustments are not required for the elderly, and may be necessary only in patients with severe hepatic impairment. Chemotherapeutic agents do not seem to modify the pharmacokinetics of ondansetron. There remains the question of whether control of emesis is related to systemic availability of ondansetron and, in consequence, the optimal dose and schedule of ondansetron is still to be identified with certainty.

Are there differences among the serotonin antagonists?

The serotonin-receptor (5-HT3) antagonists combined with dexamethasone are considered the antiemetic therapy of choice in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. As there are now several compounds on the market, the dilemma of preference is particularly relevant. In preclinical studies some differences among the three marketed drugs (ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron) have emerged. In particular, tropisetron and granisetron have a greater potency and duration of action and seem to have a greater selectivity toward the 5-HT3 receptor with respect to ondansetron. Furthermore, while with tropisetron and granisetron there is a linear dose/response relationship, this does not seem to be the case for ondansetron. These preclinical differences, however, do not seem to correlate with the clinical antiemetic activity of these compounds. In fact, although the number of comparative studies is small, with all of them presenting several shortcomings (small number of patients, not blinded studies, no association with steroids, sponsored trials), it seems that the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron is very similar. If these data are confirmed, the least expensive of the 5-HT3 antagonists should be the drug of choice. We feel, however, that the answer to this rather difficult question of choice will come from very large, independent, methodologically correct studies designed to show small but clinically significant differences (i.e., less than 10% in complete protection from emesis). These trials, which require about 1000-1500 patients, are ongoing and the one carried out as a multicenter study by the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research is close to conclusion.

Preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia: fluconazole compared with oral amphotericin B

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluconazole and oral amphotericin B in preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia.

DESIGN

A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial.

SETTING

30 hematologic units in tertiary care or university hospitals.

PATIENTS

820 consecutive, afebrile, adult patients with acute leukemia and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole, 150 mg, as a once-daily capsule, or amphotericin B suspension, 500 mg every 6 hours.

MEASUREMENTS

An intention-to-treat analysis was done for 820 patients: 420 treated with fluconazole and 400 treated with oral amphotericin B.

RESULTS

Definite systemic fungal infection occurred in 2.6% of fluconazole recipients and 2.5% of amphotericin B recipients; suspected systemic fungal infection requiring the empiric use of intravenous amphotericin B occurred in 16% of fluconazole recipients and 21% of oral amphotericin B recipients, a difference of 5 percentage points (95% CI for difference, -0.02% to 10%; P = 0.07). Superficial fungal infection was documented in 1.7% of fluconazole recipients compared with 2.7% of amphotericin B recipients, a difference of one percentage point (CI of difference, -0.9% to 3%; P > 0.2). The distribution of fungal isolates in systemic and superficial fungal infection was similar in both groups. The overall mortality rate accounted for 10% in both groups. An excellent compliance was documented for 90% of patients treated with fluconazole compared with 72% of those treated with amphotericin B suspension, a difference of 18 percentage points (CI for difference, 13% to 23%). Side effects were documented less frequently in fluconazole than in amphotericin B recipients (1.4% compared with 7%, a difference of 5.6 percentage points; CI for difference, 2% to 8%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Fluconazole was at least as effective as oral amphotericin B in preventing systemic and superficial fungal infection and the empiric use of amphotericin B in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia but was better tolerated.

Antiemetics in cancer chemotherapy: historical perspective and current state of the art

Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting can today be controlled with available antiemetics in a high percentage of patients but emesis remains a problem for some patients, with certain drugs and with repeated cycles of chemotherapy. The fundamental steps of clinical research in antiemetics towards the improvement of the control of nausea and vomiting with new drugs or combinations are presented. Special emphasis is given to cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting because of the frequency and relevance of this phenomenon. The use of high-dose metoclopramide, its combination with steroids, and later the addition of lorazepam or diphenhydramine represented the evolving standard of the 1980s, with the level of complete protection from vomiting improving from 30%-40% to 60%-70% with the three-drug combination. The introduction of new agents such as the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has recently offered new possibilities because of their activity and lack of toxicity. In particular, the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone is today the most efficacious and least toxic antiemetic treatment for prevention of emesis in patients treated with a single high dose or low repeated doses of cisplatin. A comparison of different 5-HT3 antagonists, always in combination with steroids, is now considered necessary. For patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy the use of steroids can still be considered the standard treatment. In this setting, the role of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, alone or in combination with steroids, has to be better defined through large, well-planned clinical trials, which should have a cost-effectiveness analysis as one of their goals.

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide regimens: a hospital perspective from Italy

In a large double-blind study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Italy, 289 patients underwent 3 consecutive cycles of cisplatin chemotherapy. Antiemetic treatment with ondansetron plus dexamethasone was more efficacious and better tolerated, but also more expensive, than treatment with metoclopramide plus both dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. To evaluate the different costs of the 2 antiemetic regimens, we conducted a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. Direct costs of antiemetic therapy (acquisition cost of drugs, materials and time spent by nurses to prepare and administer therapies), cleanup after emesis, rescue medication and adverse events were evaluated. Antiemetic drug acquisition costs per patient were 5.23-fold higher for the ondansetron regimen than for the metoclopramide regimen. However, when the costs of materials and nursing time required to prepare and administer the antiemetic regimens were included, this ratio was 3.77. Furthermore, including the cost of emesis, rescue antiemetic treatments and medication used to treat adverse events, hospital costs per patient were 3.21-fold higher with the ondansetron regimen during the first cycle, 3.08-fold higher during second cycle and 2.89-fold higher during third cycle of chemotherapy. Complete protection from vomiting and from both vomiting and nausea with ondansetron occurred, respectively, in 78.7 and 69.1% of patients in the first cycle, 73.8 and 57.3% in the second cycle, and 74.2 and 58.1% in third cycle of chemotherapy. Corresponding figures for the metoclopramide regimen were 59.5 and 50.4%, 53.6 and 37.1%, and 46.8 and 27.3%, respectively. Thus, the cost per successfully treated (completely protected) patient was 2.43- and 2.34-fold higher, respectively, for ondansetron at the first cycle, 2.23- and 1.99-fold higher, respectively, at second cycle, and 1.82- and 1.36-fold higher, respectively, at third cycle. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that, while ondansetron has a greater acquisition cost than metoclopramide, the ondansetron regimen costs per successfully-treated patient substantially decrease when all direct hospital costs are taken into account.

Reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Current perspectives and future possibilities

Nausea and vomiting are among the most distressing adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. In the last 10 years considerable advances in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis have been made. From an analysis of the results obtained in patients receiving moderately- to severely-emetogenic drugs the following guidelines in choosing the best antiemetic treatment can be given: 1. For the prevention of acute emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin (> or = 50 mg/m2) or by low doses (20 to 40 mg/m2) repeated for 4 to 5 days, the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone is the most efficacious and least toxic antiemetic therapy. 2. For the prevention of delayed emesis the combination of oral dexamethasone plus metoclopramide seems to offer the best protection, although over 40% of patients still experience delayed nausea and vomiting. 3. For the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic drugs, corticosteroids (dexamethasone or methylprednisolone) are efficacious and safe antiemetic agents. Although equally efficacious, the serotonin (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists, due to their higher acquisition costs, are indicated only in patients refractory to corticosteroids or in those who cannot use them. Unresolved problems in antiemetic research include: (i) identification of the best antiemetic treatment for those areas of cancer chemotherapy where adequate data are lacking, such as high dose regimens for bone marrow transplantation; (ii) optimisation of treatment for the most widely used chemotherapy regimens; and (iii) identification of the best rescue treatment for patients who fail to respond to antiemetic prophylaxis. Although many new 5-HT3 antagonists are currently being studied, the possible improvement in efficacy and tolerability brought about by these agents will probably only be marginal.

Ondansetron

Ondansetron is the first selective antagonist of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (type 3) marketed for the prevention of emesis induced by antineoplastic agents. Ondansetron has been shown to be more active and less toxic than high-dose metoclopramide in patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy. Furthermore, when dexamethasone was added to ondansetron, its antiemetic efficacy increased significantly. In the prevention of emesis induced by a high single dose of cisplatin or by repeated low doses, ondansetron combined with dexamethasone has been shown to be the more efficacious and less toxic antiemetic treatment. However, in the prevention of delayed emesis from cisplatin, its role is still to be defined. In patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents, ondansetron has shown an efficacy superior or equal to standard doses of metoclopramide, but is less toxic. Moreover, when compared with dexamethasone, its antiemetic efficacy and tolerability is similar; in this group of patients ondansetron should be used only when steroids fail. Ondansetron toxicity is generally mild; in particular, it does not induce extrapyramidal reactions. The most frequent side-effects are headache and constipation.

Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients

Two studies were sequentially conducted to validate a new questionnaire which takes into consideration the most important variables which could influence quality of life evaluation. Particular attention was given to the methodology employed to collect data and to the patients' characteristics. In the first study 80 consecutive cancer patients were randomised to twice fill in one of four different types of questionnaire, each one characterised by a different polarisation of semantic and syntactic extreme values of the visual linear analogue (for instance, "very much" always on the right, regardless of the semantic value of the answer; positive semantic value always on the right, regardless of whether it was "very much" or "not at all"; and so on). The second study, conducted on 60 lung cancer patients, consisted in testing the reliability (by measuring the reproducibility in different ways) and the validity (by performing a factor analysis) of the type of questionnaire indicated by the first study as the most reliable. The internal coherence was also evaluated by measuring the effects of physical and psychological conditions on the responses.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis: the state of the art

In the last decade research on antiemetic therapy has determined relevant advances in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis. In fact, 70-80% of patients submitted to highly or moderately emetogenic drugs achieve complete protection against vomiting during the first cycle of chemotherapy. In the prevention of acute emesis induced by a high single dose (> or 50 mg/m2) or a low dose (20-40 mg/m2) of cisplatin repeated for 4-5 days, a combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone was shown to be more efficacious and less toxic than the combination of high dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine. Few studies have been performed for the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin. At present, the combination of oral dexamethasone plus metoclopramide seems to offer the best protection and should be considered the treatment of choice. For the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic drugs, corticosteroids (dexamethasone and methylprednisolone) and the new 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have a similar efficacy and a low toxicity. On a cost basis, corticosteroids must be considered the drug of choice while 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should be used only in patients refractory to corticosteroids or in those who cannot tolerate them.

The new fluorinated quinolones for antimicrobial prophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients

Fluoroquinolones are the most attractive agents for prophylactic use in neutropenic cancer patients, due to their broad antimicrobial spectrum, high concentration in the faeces, systemic bactericidal activity, uncommon emergence of resistant strains and good tolerability. They have proved to be more effective than placebo, oral non-absorbable antibiotics or cotrimoxazole in the prevention of Gram-negative infections. In a prospective, randomised multicentre study performed by the GIMEMA infection program, ciprofloxacin was demonstrated to be more effective than norfloxacin for the reduction of febrile episodes, use of systemic antibiotics, and Gram-negative infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. The greater efficacy may be related to its better systemic or greater antibacterial activity. The potential problems related to the prophylactic use of fluoroquinolones are the increasing prevalence of Gram-positive infections caused by streptococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci; the reported emergence and nosocomial spread of resistant strains, especially among coagulase-negative staphylococci; the lack of their usefulness as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Fluoroquinolones are today the better choice for preventing Gram-negative infections in neutropenic patients and ciprofloxacin should probably be preferred. More information on their efficacy and their relationship to the overall susceptibility of micro-organisms in patients with cancer would be valuable, and careful monitoring of patients treated with these drugs is therefore warranted.

Issues in the measurement of nausea

Measurement of nausea is essential for the evaluation of efficacy of antiemetic treatment. Frequency, duration and intensity of nausea should be assessed in all trials. Three different methods: a discrete scale (DS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a continuous chromatic analogue scale (ACCS) of measuring nausea and four different dimensions maximal intensity, (MI); entity, (E); duration, (D) and quantity, (Q) were evaluated in 849 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. A substantial agreement between the different scales was found and no advantage was shown for using an analogue (VAS) rather than a discrete (DS) scale. There was a trend towards increasing sensitivity in detecting differences as the dimension of nausea used encompassed wider aspects of this symptom (Q more sensitive than E more sensitive than MI).