Risk factors at pretreatment predicting treatment-induced nausea and vomiting in Australian cancer patients: a prospective, longitudinal, observational study

Evaluation of risk factors predicting chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting: results from a European prospective observational study

CONTEXT

Demographic, personal, clinical, and behavioral factors predicting chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been assessed in the past, but inconsistencies exist in the literature, studies have methodological shortcomings, and many risk factors have been examined in cross-sectional studies and univariate analyses.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the predictive power of personal and treatment-related characteristics in the development of CINV, using a large and prospectively evaluated sample of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients receiving routine chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a multicountry, multisite prospective study over three cycles of chemotherapy. Adult patients from eight European countries about to receive highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were recruited. Clinicians completed a case report form at or before the initial chemotherapy treatment, recording patient demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. Participants completed a daily patient diary for six days per chemotherapy cycle describing their CINV experience. Baseline patient data also included a history of nausea/vomiting (yes/no), patient expectation of nausea (0-100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]), prechemotherapy anxiety (0-100 mm VAS), and prechemotherapy nausea (0-100 mm VAS) measured during the 24-hour period before chemotherapy initiation.

RESULTS

There were 991 evaluable patients with complete Cycle 1 data, 888 for Cycle 2 data, and 769 for Cycle 3 data. A complex picture of predictor variables was shown, with different contribution of variables to the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV. Key predictor variables included the use of antiemetics inconsistent with international guidelines, younger age, prechemotherapy nausea, and no CINV complete response in an earlier cycle (all at P < 0.05). Anxiety, history of nausea/vomiting, and expectations of nausea were important predictors for some phases and cycles but not consistently across the CINV pathway.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide clarity for the relative contribution of a set of characteristics in the development of CINV. Following evidence-based clinical antiemetic guidelines is of paramount importance, alongside treating patients with increased risk for CINV more aggressively, which both could lead to more optimal CINV management. These data can assist clinicians in making decisions about the antiemetic management of their patients.

Predictors of response to palliative care intervention for chronic nausea in advanced cancer outpatients

PURPOSE

Nausea is a frequent and distressing symptom in advanced cancer patients. The objective of this retrospective study was to determine predictors of response to palliative care consultation for chronic nausea in advanced cancer outpatients.

METHODS

Eligible patients included were outpatient supportive care center seen consecutively for an initial consultation and who had one follow-up visit within 30 days of the initial consultation. We reviewed the medical records of 1,273 consecutive patients, and 444 (35 %) were found to meet the eligibility criteria. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Nausea response was defined as an improvement of at least 30% between the initial visit and the first follow-up. We used logistic regression models to assess the possible predictors of improvement in nausea.

RESULTS

Overall, 112 of 444 patients (25%) experienced moderate/severe chronic nausea (ESAS item score ≥4/10). Higher baseline nausea intensity was significantly related to constipation (r = 0.158; p = 0.046) and all the symptoms assessed by the ESAS (p < 0.001). Sixty-eight of the 112 (61%) patients with moderate/severe nausea at baseline showed a significant improvement at the follow-up visit (p < 0.001). The main predictors for nausea response were improvement of fatigue (p = 0.005) and increased appetite (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline nausea was associated with all the ESAS symptom and improvement of fatigue and lack of appetite predicted a lower frequency of nausea at follow-up. More research is necessary to better understand the association between nausea severity and other symptoms and to predict which interventions will yield the best outcomes depending on the mix and severity of symptoms.

Development and preliminary validation of a risk prediction model for chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

A number of risk factors have been implicated in the development of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV). Our aim was to develop a risk prediction model and identify patients at high risk for developing CINV before their chemotherapy treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multisite, observational, prospective longitudinal design was used. Participants were 336 chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients providing 791 assessments. They completed measures to assess potential risk factors for CINV, including socio-demographic and clinical/treatment-related characteristics, symptom distress, expectations for CINV and state-trait anxiety. CINV was measured with the MASCC Antiemesis Tool. Participants were divided randomly to a training set (=286) and a test set (=50). Random-effects models were run to ascertain the contribution of risk factors in the development of CINV using the training sample. Specificity and sensitivity of the model were assessed in both sets of samples.

RESULTS

Younger age, history of nausea/vomiting, trait anxiety and fatigue were linked with higher levels of CINV, and use of moderately and low emetogenic chemotherapy were linked with lower CINV. The model's specificity were 55.4 and 50.0 % and sensitivity were 80.3 and 79.0 % in the training and test sample, respectively. A dynamic web-based tool is freely available for use by clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This model of risk prediction for CINV can be an aid to clinical decision-making and assist clinicians to rationalise antiemetic use with their patients.

Prevention of delayed nausea: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the following four regimens for controlling delayed nausea (DN): group 1: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 2: granisetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 3: aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with aprepitant + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and group 4: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients received doxorubicin, epirubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary end point was average nausea assessed four times daily on days 2 and 3. Primary analyses were whether nausea control would be improved by using palonosetron versus granisetron on day 1 (group 1 v group 2); by adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (group 1 v group 4); and by using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine (group 3 v group 4). Statistical significance was set at P = .017.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four, 234, 241, and 235 evaluable patients were accrued to groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Adjusted mean differences for the three planned analyses were as follows: palonosetron versus granisetron: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.20; P = .72); adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3: 0.20 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.41; P = .01); and using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine: -0.03 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.19; P = .56).

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 reduced DN. Palonosetron and granisetron have similar effects on DN. The beneficial effect of adding aprepitant for control of DN was the same as adding prochlorperazine.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in patients with cancer treated with low emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

BACKGROUND

The incidence of overall (acute and delayed) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events among patients treated with single- and multi-day low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) is not well established. We studied a cohort of patients receiving LEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)-RAs) (Group 2), to determine the overall rate of CINV and the proportion of patients experiencing delayed CINV (days 2-7 of a CT cycle) in a hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with cancer diagnosis initiating single-day and multi-day LEC for the first time between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective database. CINV events (ICD-9-CM codes for nausea, vomiting, or volume depletion or CINV-related rescue medications) were assessed descriptively. A generalized linear multivariate regression model was developed, estimating the overall CINV event rate among Group 1 and 2 patients in the follow-up period (first of eight chemotherapy [CT] cycles or 6 months).

RESULTS

In the follow-up period, out of a total of 10,137 overall CINV events (single-day and multi-day LEC), 8783 events (86.6%) were identified in single-day LEC treated patients. Within single-day LEC treated events, in the first cycle, of 3184 events, 2996 (94.1%) events were delayed. Average number of delayed events per patient remained consistent throughout the eight cycles (3.1 [1st cycle] vs. 2.9 [8th cycle]; P = 0.842]). Among 2439 patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with a 5-HT(3)-RA, 10.1% (n = 247) initiated palonosetron. Regression analysis indicated that Group 1 patients (versus Group 2) had a 15.2% reduction in CINV event rate per CT cycle; P = 0.0403. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis, delayed CINV comprised a major proportion of overall CINV among cancer diagnosed patients on single-day LEC. Additionally, palonosetron prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower overall CINV event rate versus other 5-HT(3)-RA prophylaxis in single- and multi-day LEC treatment.

Likelihood of a subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) event in patients receiving low, moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC/MEC/HEC)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the likelihood of subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events following a first chemotherapy administration CINV event in patients receiving single-day low, moderately, or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC, MEC, or HEC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted utilizing Georgia Cancer Specialists, Florida Cancer Specialists, and ACORN electronic medical records databases (April 2006 through July 2009). Patients were included who received more than one single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC administration (oral or intravenous) with no chemotherapy 3 months prior to the first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration. Two cohorts, patients with a first administration CINV and no first administration CINV, were created and followed for 6 months. A multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of subsequent CINV, controlling for age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, number of chemotherapy administrations, gap between LEC, MEC, or HEC administrations, and number of different LEC, MEC, or HEC agents administered.

RESULTS

A total of 10,586 patients met the inclusion criteria (LEC = 3099; MEC = 5172; HEC = 2315). Of those patients, 4.4% (n = 136), 7.8% (n = 402), and 13.8% (n = 320) experienced a CINV event with their initial single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC administration, respectively. The unadjusted subsequent CINV rate was higher in the cohorts with first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV for all groups receiving LEC (33.1% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.0001), MEC (46.5% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.0001), or HEC (59.1% vs. 26.9%; p < 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, patients with first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV were 3.1, 3.8, and 3.7 times more likely to have a subsequent CINV compared to patients without a first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV (Odds Ratio: 3.05 [95% CI: 2.08-4.48, p < 0.0001]; 3.77 [95% CI: 3.04-4.68, p < 0.0001]; and 3.70 [95% CI: 2.88-4.74, p < 0.0001], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis, patients receiving single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC who had a prior CINV were at increased risk of subsequent CINV. Further studies assessing increased risk of a subsequent CINV events are warranted given this study represents an assessment of electronic medical record data within select community-based populations under usual care.