Validation and psychometric assessment of a short clinical scale to measure chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the MASCC antiemesis tool

Prehospital nausea and vomiting after trauma: Prevalence, risk factors, and development of a predictive scoring system

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common problems in trauma patients and potentially dangerous during trauma resuscitation. These symptoms are present in up to 10% of ambulance patients, but their prevalence in trauma patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of prehospital nausea and vomiting in trauma patients and evaluate antiemetic usage.

METHODS

Prospective, cohort study of trauma resuscitation patients transported by ambulance to a major trauma centre. Patients with hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure <90, heart rate >120) or Glasgow Coma Scale score <14 on arrival were excluded. Nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were recorded.

RESULTS

Convenience sample of 196 trauma resuscitation patients (68% men; age, 42 ± 18 years, mean Injury Severity Score 8 ± 7) were interviewed over the 5-month study period, of a total 369 admitted trauma patients (53%). Seventy-five (38%) patients reported some degree of nausea, 57 (29%) moderate or severe nausea, and 15 (8%) vomited. Older age and female gender were associated with vomiting (p < 0.01). Seventy-nine patients (40%) received a prophylactic antiemetic. Of these, four became nauseous (5%), compared with 71 of 117 (61%) for patients not given an antiemetic (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital nausea and vomiting are more common in our cohort of trauma patients than the reported rates in the literature for nontrauma patients transported to hospital by ambulance. Only 40% of patients receive prophylactic antiemetics, but those patients are less likely to develop symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V, epidemiological study.

Patient-centered management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Oncology providers frequently underestimate the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and patients often are reluctant to report symptoms. Inadequate patient-provider communication is a significant barrier to optimal management of this debilitating toxicity.

METHODS

The author reviews relevant published data and methods to optimize the clinical care of patients receiving chemotherapy with moderate-to-high emetogenic potential.

RESULTS

Patient reticence plus physician expectations that patients will report symptoms accurately lead to lapses in communication and suboptimal clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication strategies should serve to encourage patients to share the responsibility for establishing goals of therapy and understanding the risks and benefits of their selected antiemetic regimen, thereby becoming active participants in their own cancer care.

The impact of chemotherapy-related nausea on patients' nutritional status, psychological distress and quality of life

PURPOSE

Nausea is a troublesome and distressing symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy. While vomiting is well controlled with current antiemetics, nausea is a more difficult symptom to manage. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of nausea on nutritional status, quality of life and psychological distress.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study over two cycles of chemotherapy. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a measure of nutritional status (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at the end of each chemotherapy cycle (around day 10 post-chemotherapy).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 104 patients, primarily female, receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. While vomiting was minimal (5.2-14.6 % of the patients), high levels of nausea were observed (55.2-72.9 %), and severe nausea (>6 on a 0-10 scale) was reported by 20.5-29.2 % of the participants. Severe nausea had a borderline significant impact in relation to physical functioning (p = 0.025) and a significant impact on nutritional status (severe acute nausea, p = 0.003; severe delayed nausea, p = 0.017). Clinically meaningful changes were observed in relation to the FACT-G total score.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea does have an impact on nutritional status and physical functioning and can impair anxiety and quality of life. As a key symptom associated with other symptoms, it is imperative that greater attention is given to managing treatment-related nausea through innovative non-pharmacological and nutritional interventions.

Tools for assessing nausea, vomiting, and retching

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and retching are recognized as having an impact on patients' overall physical well-being, quality of life, and treatment decisions. Although there are many tools available to measure aspects of these symptoms, few offer a complete and concise clinical assessment.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive overview of the various instruments available for the assessment of cancer-related nausea, vomiting, and retching. Analysis included symptoms measured, period evaluated, type of questions posed, and aspects of each symptom measured.

METHODS

Searches were conducted to find relevant articles using nationally recognized oncology Web sites and 4 electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE/CINAHL and CINAHL/EBSCO, and Cochrane.

RESULTS

This review includes a total of 25 instruments that were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria of having been developed, or adapted, for the adult population, with an oncology focus.

CONCLUSION

The ideal instrument would include measurement of all 3 symptoms while remaining clear, concise, and clinically relevant.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although only 1 instrument came close to meeting these criteria, this review provides nurses with specific information on a variety of instruments to assist providers in selecting the most appropriate instrument for their specific clinical setting. This comprehensive critique of instruments is important for nurses attempting to select a tool to guide optimum care for patients in the clinical setting.

Chemotherapy outpatients' unplanned presentations to hospital: a retrospective study

GOAL OF WORK

This descriptive, retrospective study sought to identify the nature and magnitude of chemotherapy outpatients' unplanned presentations and admissions to the emergency department and/or cancer centre at a large metropolitan tertiary hospital, and to explore the antecedents to those presentations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective data were collected for outpatients who made an unplanned presentation to a large metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia between October 1, 2006 and September 30, 2007. Detailed information was collected for those who had received cytotoxic chemotherapy at the hospital's cancer centre within the 6 months prior to the unplanned presentation to hospital. Demographic and explanatory variables were identified, including: reasons for presentation, cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy regimens, and position in the chemotherapy trajectory.

MAIN RESULTS

The Cancer Institute NSW figures indicate that each year approximately 518 outpatients are treated with chemotherapy at the participating cancer centre. During the study period, 316 cancer outpatients made 469 unplanned presentations to either the Cancer Centre or the hospital emergency department. Of those outpatients presented, 233 (73.7%) had received chemotherapy in the previous 6 months and made a total of 363 presentations. Of these 363 presentations, 253 (69.7%) occurred within 4 weeks of receiving chemotherapy. The majority of presentations by those who had received chemotherapy in the previous 6 months resulted in hospital admission (87.6%) for a median length of stay of 5 days. The most frequent presentation symptoms were nausea and/or vomiting (45.2%), pain (27%), fever and/or febrile neutropenia (23.4%), shortness of breath (19.3%), dehydration (12.1%), anaemia (8.8%), fatigue (8.8%), diarrhoea (8.8%), and anxiety and/or depression (5.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy outpatients have significant unmet needs following treatment, indicating an urgent need for improved continuity of care and better integration of primary and tertiary health care services.

An oral history of MASCC, its origin and development from MASCC's beginnings to 2009

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents an oral history from the mid-1980s to 2009 of the start and evolution of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) as seen through the recollections of the founders and early leaders. The growth of the supportive cancer care movement and MASCC's contribution to oncology supportive care is described.

DISCUSSION

As science was making progress towards better cancer treatment, a group of professionals began to research ways to prevent or mitigate the symptoms and side effects that accompany the disease and its treatments. Joining forces, they created an international, multidisciplinary organization to address and promulgate evidence-based practices of cancer supportive care. Through annual international scientific symposia, a peer-reviewed journal, an accessible website, and study group projects such as guidelines and tools, MASCC is accomplishing its mission.

Progress in the Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis: New Agents and New Studies

New agents and studies have demonstrated benefit in improving antiemetic therapy. Incorporating evidence-based guideline recommendations and appropriate emesis assessments are key components to achieving the best practice.

Understanding the concept of chemotherapy-related nausea: the patient experience

The aim of this study was to explore the experience of chemotherapy-related nausea in patients with cancer. A qualitative study was carried out with 17 patients who had experienced nausea during their chemotherapy in the UK and USA. Nausea was described as distressing and complex symptom. Patients attempted to construct an understanding of nausea using cognitive processes such as analysing their experience of nausea and related symptoms, attributing causation to nausea and comparing their experiences not only to their own expectations, but also to others' symptom experiences. A number of concurrent and associated symptoms linked with nausea were identified. Preliminary evidence emerged for nausea as part of a cluster of symptoms. Anti-emetic medication, provider-directed management strategies and self-management strategies were used by patients to minimize the effects of nausea. Self-management techniques, such as dietary strategies, were rooted in participants' understanding of nausea and their beliefs about what caused nausea, and there was little evidence of guidance from professionals beyond advice about medication management. This study reveals some of the complexities behind chemotherapy-induced nausea, including a potential symptom cluster, and contributes towards a clearer understanding of this symptom and its effects on patients' lives.

A review of patient self-report tools for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

GOALS OF WORK

The assessment of chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting and retching (CINVR) is important and to date no review has comprehensively assessed available patient self-report tools. The aim was to undertake a review of their utility, content and psychometric properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One thousand three hundred and forty-seven citations were identified by electronic and hand searches resulting in 24 non-duplicate abstracts, 15 articles for analysis, and six articles, which fitted the inclusion criteria. E-mail investigations discovered a further scale, resulting in seven measures.

RESULTS

The review highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of current tools. The multiple domains, phases and aspects of CINVR signify that the assessment tools varied markedly. The diverse requirements of research and clinicians also contribute to the variation. There was a notable disparity in the quality of scales and paucity in terms of their development and psychometric evaluation. We found that several self-assessment scales currently perceived as well-validated tools have problems in terms of their validity, reliability and appropriateness.

CONCLUSIONS

The constituents of a scale relevant for both clinical and research use were assessed and it was recommended that a modular tool focusing on two domains (nausea and vomiting); two phases (acute and delayed); measuring the aspects of occurrence, frequency, intensity alongside duration and functional interference; and antiemetic use and adverse events should be developed. Based on these recommendations, further research into an appropriate scale would minimise conceptual confusion, increase clinicians' understanding and control of CINVR, decrease patient distress and could have equal utility in both a clinical and a research setting.

A prospective observational study of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in routine practice in a UK cancer centre

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess levels of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in routine practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was an observational prospective evaluation using patient self-reports. One hundred and two patients with cancer in a single cancer centre in UK receiving their first chemotherapy treatment participated in the study and were followed up over four cycles, providing a total of 272 assessments of nausea and vomiting. Data was collected with the use of the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT), which is an eight-item short clinical scale assessing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Results indicated that acute vomiting was experienced by 15.7% of the patients in cycle 1 and delayed vomiting by 14.7%, while acute nausea was present in 37.3% of the patients and delayed nausea in 47.1%, increasing over the subsequent cycles. Moderately emetogenic and highly emetogenic chemotherapy had the highest incidence of CINV, whereas patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy showed significant levels of delayed nausea. Acute symptoms were more easily controlled than delayed symptoms.

DISCUSSION

The data suggest that, while vomiting is well controlled, nausea remains a significant problem in practice, and optimal management of CINV is yet to be achieved. Understanding more clearly the biological basis of nausea will assist in managing this complex symptom more effectively in practice.