A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of i.v. dolasetron mesilate in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

Prevention of Radiotherapy-Induced Emesis

The severity of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing radiotherapy is lower than that associated with chemotherapy regimens, but its duration may be considerably longer. Total body irradiation and irradiation of the upper part of the abdomen or whole abdomen are considered the most emetogenic regimens in radiotherapy. Instead, the emetogenic potential is considered moderate in radiotherapy of the thorax, pelvis and lower half-body irradiation, and low in radiotherapy of head and neck, extremities, brain and skin. In contrast to the very extensive literature on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis, relatively few studies have been published on patients submitted to radiotherapy. Metoclopramide, prochlorperazine and cannabinoids offer only limited symptom control in patients undergoing radiotherapy of moderate to severe emetogenic potential. Double-blind randomized studies showed the superior antiemetic efficacy of the 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to placebo and to the older antiemetic drugs in patients submitted to single dose or fractionated doses of radiotherapy to the upper abdomen, to lower hemibody radiotherapy and to total body irradiation. In all these cases the 5-HT3 antagonists should be considered the antiemetic treatment of choice and should be administered as prophylactic agents. The optimal duration of antiemetic therapy with the 5-HT3 antagonists is unknown. Whether corticosteroids added to the 5-HT3 antagonists will increase their antiemetic efficacy, as in chemotherapy-treated patients, remains to be demonstrated in double-blind controlled trials. Patients submitted to radiotherapy of low emetogenic risk do not require any antiemetic prophylaxis. In this case a rescue antiemetic treatment can be administered if patients present vomiting or moderate to severe nausea.

Radiation-Induced Emesis: A Problem with Many Open Questions

Radiation-induced emesis (RIE) is often considered to be less frequent and less severe than nausea/vomiting encountered in patients receiving chemotherapy, although the issue has only been addressed in a few studies. It is possible that radiation oncologists undervalue the clinical relevance of RIE. If untreated, sickness produces an adverse effect on the patient's quality of life and may cause interruption of the treatment with possible unfavorable effects on tumor control. A prospective observational trial on RIE has recently been published by the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy (IGARR). The study evidenced that the overall cumulative incidence of vomiting and nausea occurred in about 40% of patients undergoing radiotherapy, and that the irradiated site, radiation field size, and previous chemotherapy were significant risk factors. Patients submitted to abdominal radiotherapy were at major risk of vomiting and nausea (71%), followed by those treated on the thorax, brain, head and neck, and pelvis (49%, 40%, 40%%, and 39%, respectively). Few small randomized clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of various antiemetic drugs in preventing RIE. Generally, patients who entered these trials were those submitted to total body irradiation, half body irradiation or upper abdomen irradiation because of the greater risk of developing nausea and/or vomiting. The few controlled trials published have shown that dopamine receptor antagonists were effective in only about 50% of patients, whereas 5-hydroxytrypta-mine antagonists were more effective. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of antiemetics have recently been published by MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) and ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Unfortunately, their recommendations were quite different, when classifying radiation emetogenic risk categories and when giving indications for the use of antiemetic drugs. However, MASCC and ASCO recommendations both suggested a prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid for patients submitted to high emetogenic radiotherapy. There is evidence about the effectiveness of oral dexamethasone alone in fractionated upper abdomen radiotherapy and the use of a rescue antiemetic treatment as a possible alternative to the prophylaxis. Many questions remain open, and other prospective controlled trials on RIE are needed to answer them. Considering that radiotherapy to the abdomen, pelvis and thorax presents the most frequent problems in radiation oncology clinical practice, future trials on RIE should deal with these irradiated sites. The IGARR is carrying out a double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing prophylactic ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron and dexamethasone given as a rescue treatment in patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy to the upper abdomen.

Effectiveness and toxicity of conventional radiotherapy treatment for painful spinal metastases: a detailed course of side effects after opposing fields versus a single posterior field technique

Background

Conventional radiotherapy for painful spinal metastases can be delivered with a single posterior-anterior (PA) or two opposed anterior-posterior (APPA) fields. We studied the effectiveness and toxicity of both techniques and studied whether treatment technique was predictive for abdominal and skin toxicity.

Patients and methods

Within the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study, 343 patients received 8 Gray in a single fraction or 24 Gray in six fractions for painful spinal metastases. Treatment technique was not randomized. At baseline and weekly during follow-up, patients reported pain and other physical complaints. Any complaint increasing within 4 weeks after treatment was noted as a side effect. Pain response was calculated according to international standards, taking into account changes in pain score and medication. Repeated measurement analyses and multivariate logistic analyses were performed.

Results

Patients were mainly treated on the thoracic (34%) and lumbar (53%) spine and 73% received a PA field. Pain response was similar between both techniques (74%). In patients treated at the thoraco-lumbar and lumbar spine, with multiple fractions, significantly more abdominal complaints were noticed. In multivariate analysis, radiotherapy technique did not predict for side effects.

Conclusion

Conventional radiotherapy of painful spinal metastases provides limited toxicity. Radiotherapy technique is not an independent predictor of abdominal and skin toxicity of irradiation.

A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.

RESULTS

From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11-1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported "emetic episode/event" measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., "response," "control," "success") that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.

A review of dolasetron as management of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

Objective. To systematically review the literature about the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, dosing, and adverse effects of dolasetron, and to define its role in the management of chemotherapy-and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

Data Synthesis. A MedLine search was conducted using 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, antiemetics, chemotherapy toxicity, dolasetron, emesis, nausea, and vomiting as search terms. Reference lists and bibliographies of pertinent articles were also identified and reviewed. Both preclinical and clinical literature were reviewed and analyzed.

Data Synthesis. Dolasetron is a serotonin type 3 (5-HT3)-receptor antagonist with potent antiemetic effects in the management of nausea and vomiting. Following administration, dolasetron is rapidly converted to hydrodolasetron, which is believed to be responsible for the drug's antiemetic activity. Results of multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this agent in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis, including that induced by cisplatin. As a single agent, dolasetron produces a complete response rate (RR) in 44% to 57% of patients treated with cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) and in 59% to 80% of patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, such as cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) therapy. When combined with dexamethasone, the RRs are increased. Dolasetron is well tolerated, with headache (24%) and diarrhea (12%) the most commonly reported adverse effects. The efficacy and safety of dolasetron are comparable to those observed with other 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. According to four recently published clinical practice guidelines for use of antiemetics, dolasetron is an appropriate first-line option for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Further clinical trials will determine the optimal dose and the role of this highly effective antiemetic agent for other purposes, such as treatment of delayed emesis and emesis resulting from radiation therapy and high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplantation.

Prophylactic Management of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The incidence of nausea and vomiting after radiotherapy is often underestimated by physicians, though some 50–80% of patients may experience these symptoms. The occurrence of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) will depend on radiotherapy-related factors, such as the site of irradiation, the dosing, fractionation, irradiated volume, and radiotherapy techniques. Patients should receive antiemetic prophylaxis as suggested by the international antiemetic guidelines based upon a risk assessment, taking especially into account the affected anatomic region and the planned radiotherapy regimen. In this field the international guidelines from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines as well as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are widely endorsed. The emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists, steroids, and other antiemetics will be reviewed in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen.

Radiation induced nausea and vomiting

Radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a frequent complication of radiotherapy and still often underestimated by radiation oncologists. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8 weeks period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting affect quality of life. Approximately, 50-80 percent of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience these symptoms if no appropriate prophylaxis is applied. The incidence and severity are influenced by the specific RT regimen and by patient-specific factors. Patients should receive antiemetic prophylaxis as suggested by the international antiemetic guidelines based upon a risk assessment, taking especially into account the planned radiotherapy regimen. In this field the guideline from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Clinical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Medical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines are wildly endorsed. The emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and steroids will be discussed in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen.

Prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the palliative treatment of bone metastases

PURPOSE

To document the incidence and timing of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) in the treatment of bone metastases among patients receiving prophylaxis with a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist.

METHODS

Patients receiving single (SF) or multiple fraction (MF) palliative radiotherapy (RT) of moderate or low emetogenic risk for bone metastases were prescribed prophylactic Ondansetron. The frequency and duration of prophylaxis and the use of rescue antiemetics were left to the discretion of the treating physicians. Patients documented episodes of nausea (N) and vomiting (V) in daily diaries before and during RT, and until 10 days following RT completion. Rates of complete prophylaxis (CP) for N&V, respectively (CP = no event and no rescue medication), were calculated for the acute phase (the period from the start of RT to the first day following RT completion inclusive) and the delayed phase (the second to tenth days following RT completion inclusive).

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled, and 32 were evaluable. CP rates were as follows: moderate-risk SF group (n = 16), acute phase (CP for N = 56%, CP for V = 69%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 31%, CP for V = 44%); moderate-risk MF group (n = 7), acute phase (CP for N = 71%, CP for V = 57%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 43%, CP for V = 57%); low-risk SF group (n = 8), acute phase (CP for N = 50%, CP for V = 100%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 43%, CP for V = 57%); and low-risk MF group (n = 1), acute phase (CP for N = 100%, CP for V = 100%) and delayed phase (CP for N = 100%, CP for V = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite prophylaxis, RINV was common among patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, especially during the delayed phase.

Antiemetic placebo: Reduce adverse drug interactions between chemotherapeutic agents and antiemetic drugs in cancer patients

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy often require a wide range of drugs to manage symptoms of their cancer. The adverse drug interactions are common in the field of medical oncology. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to have a considerable effect on the physical and psychological well-being of patients with cancer, despite significant advances in antiemetic drugs since the 1990s. Fortunately, evidence-based interventions suggested that to a certain extent antiemetic effects can be achieved by use of placebo appropriately. Placebo effect can be reinforced by conferring much meaning. Thus physician can replace antiemetic drugs with reinforced meaningful antiemetic placebo to get better prevention and treatment efficacy for CINV while reduce the unnecessary adverse drug interactions induced by antiemetic drugs and chemotherapeutic agents.

5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with or without short-course dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation induced emesis: a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (SC19)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for the control of radiation induced emesis (RIE) when added to ondansetron during days 1 to 5 of fractionated radiotherapy. The study had two hypotheses: ondansetron and dexamethasone could provide superior control of RIE over ondansetron alone during the prophylactic period and; the combination could provide sustained control of RIE during subsequent fractions of radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2001 to Jan 2004, 211 patients receiving radiotherapy (> or = 15 fractions) to the upper abdomen were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 8 mg bid with either dexamethasone 4 mg daily or placebo during fractions 1 to 5. Rescue antiemetics were provided.

RESULTS

During the prophylactic period there was a trend for improved complete control of nausea in the dexamethasone arm (50% v 38%; P = .06) while complete and partial control of emesis, average nausea score, and use of rescue medications were similar in the two groups. During the overall study period patients receiving dexamethasone had better complete control of emesis (23% v 12%; P = .02) and a lower average nausea score (0.28 v 0.39; P = .03); there was a trend towards less use of rescue medications with dexamethasone (70% v 80%; P = .09); other outcomes were similar on the two arms. Quality of life analysis showed a significant difference in appetite.

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron as prophylaxis provides a modest improvement in protection against RIE during moderately emetogenic fractionated radiotherapy. It is a potentially useful addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in this setting.

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To report recommendations given in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) International Consensus Conference regarding the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A steering committee under MASCC auspice chose panel participants for the guidelines development process on prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis (RIE). Pertinent information from published literature as of March 2004 was reviewed for the guideline process. Both the MASCC level of scientific confidence and level of consensus, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) type of evidence and grade for recommendation were adopted.

RESULTS

Total body irradiation is classified at high risk, upper abdomen at moderate, lower thorax, pelvis, cranium (radiosurgery) and craniospinal at low, head and neck, extremities, cranium and breast at minimal risk. The recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy are as follows: prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist in patients at high and moderate risk levels of RIE (+/-dexamethasone in the former group), prophylaxis or rescue with a 5-HT3 antagonist in the low risk group, and rescue with dopamine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in minimal risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations represent a valid tool for prophylaxis and treatment of RIE in clinical practice.

Granisetron in the control of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a comparison with other antiemetic therapies

Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) can be one of the most distressing symptoms of radiotherapy treatment, which if incompletely controlled may last for several weeks with fractionated radiotherapy and prevent completion of the planned treatment course. Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists with or without corticosteroids for highly and moderately emetogenic radiotherapy, though only granisetron and ondansetron are currently indicated for RINV in most countries. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in RINV in both placebo-controlled and comparative studies. In this paper the clinical experience with granisetron in RINV is reviewed, and its efficacy and safety compared with other antiemetic therapies.

Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV): antiemetic guidelines

As many as 40-80% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience nausea and/or vomiting, depending on the site of irradiation. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8 weeks period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting could affect quality of life. Furthermore, uncontrolled nausea and vomiting may result in patients delaying or refusing further radiotherapy. Nausea and vomiting are often underestimated by radiation oncologists. Incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting depend on RT-related factors (single and total dose, fractionation, irradiated volume, radiotherapy techniques) and patient-related factors (gender, general health of the patient, age, concurrent or recent chemotherapy, psychological state, tumor stage). Current antiemetic guidelines prescribe the emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommend the use of 5-HT(3) antagonists with or without a steroid for prophylaxis in moderately and highly emetogenic treatment (MASCC, ASCO, ASHP, NCCN). The new proposed guidelines summarise the updated data from the literature and take into consideration the existing guidelines. According to the irradiated area (the most frequently studied risk factor), the proposed guidelines are divided into four levels of emetogenic risk: high, moderate, low and minimal. They offer guidance to prescribing physicians for effective antiemetic therapies in RINV.

Treatment implications for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting in specific patient groups

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) affect the management and quality of life of cancer patients. Current guidelines for RINV prevention recommend prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic radiotherapy regimens. Randomised trials have compared such antagonists with conventional antiemetics, and have demonstrated their efficacy and safety. Special consideration is needed for antiemetic treatment in certain patient groups, particularly the elderly and those with renal or hepatic impairment. Radiation oncologists should be aware of the effect on antiemetic treatment of factors such as comorbid conditions (particularly cardiovascular disease), polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions, and choose the agent with the lowest potential for additional complications. The most appropriate antiemetic treatment to improve patient compliance and quality of life should ideally combine proven efficacy with uncomplicated administration and convenient dosing regimens.

The effect of timing of dolasetron administration on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting

Dolasetron (12.5 mg IV) is effective in both preventing and treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery. However, the optimal timing of dolasetron administration and its effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. One-hundred-five healthy, consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded study. Group 1 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV 10-15 min before the induction of anesthesia; Group 2 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of the laparoscopy (79 +/- 48 min later than Group 1); and Group 3 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of anesthesia (93 +/- 52 min later than Group 1). The incidence of PONV, complete responses (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication within the 24-h period after anesthesia), recovery profiles, and patient satisfaction were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for rescue antiemetics, did not differ significantly among the three groups. The percentages of patients with complete responses to the study drug within the first postoperative 24 h were also similar in all three groups (55%, 59%, and 52% for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The early and intermediate recovery profiles, including resumption of a normal diet and patient satisfaction with the control of PONV, were not different among the three study groups. Dolasetron 12.5 mg IV administered before the induction of anesthesia is as effective as dolasetron given at the end of laparoscopy or at the end of anesthesia in preventing PONV after outpatient laparoscopy.

IMPLICATIONS

The timing of dolasetron administration appears to have little effect on its efficacy when administered as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

Radiation-induced emesis: a prospective observational multicenter Italian trial. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

A prospective observational multicenter trial was carried out to assess the incidence, pattern, and prognostic factors of radiation-induced emesis (RIE), and evaluate the use of antiemetic drugs in radiation oncology clinical practice.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-one Italian radiation oncology centers took part in this trial. The accrual lasted 2 consecutive weeks, only patients starting radiotherapy in this period were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were age under 18 years, and concomitant chemotherapy. Evaluation was based on diary cards filled in daily by patients during radiotherapy and 1 week after stopping it. Diary cards recorded the intensity of nausea and any episode of vomiting and retching. Prophylactic and symptomatic antiemetic drug prescriptions were also registered.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty-four patients entered the trial, and 914 were evaluable. Irradiated sites were: breast in 211 patients, pelvis in 210 patients, head and neck in 136 patients, thorax in 129 patients, brain in 52 patients, upper abdomen in 42 patients, skin and/or extremities in 37 patients, and other sites in 97 patients. Vomiting and nausea occurred in 17.1% and 37.3% of patients, respectively, and 38.7 % patients had both vomiting and nausea. At multifactorial analysis, the only patient-related risk factor that was statistically significant was represented by previous experience with cancer chemotherapy. Moreover, two radiotherapy (RT)-related factors were significant risk factors for RIE, the irradiated site and field size. In fact, a statistically significant higher percentage of RIE was registered in upper abdomen RT and RT fields > 400 cm2. Although nonstatistically significant, patients receiving RT to the thorax and head and neck presented a higher incidence of RIE. Only a minority (14%) of patients receiving RT were given an antiemetic drug, and the prescriptions were more often symptomatic than prophylactic (9% vs. 5%, respectively). Different compounds and a wide range of doses and schedules were used; however, there is some evidence from our data that in spite of antiemetic prophylaxis, 46% of patients had vomiting, and 58% had nausea. The majority (93%) of the prophylactic group received oral 5-hydroxytriptamine receptor (5-HT3) antagonist (8 mg/day, 7 days/week). In the symptomatic group, 54% and 41% patients received 5-HT3 antagonists and metoclopramide, respectively. At multivariate analysis, no patient- or RT-related risk factor for RIE was found to influence significantly the prophylactic or symptomatic use of antiemetics.

CONCLUSION

Our study provided useful data on epidemiology and characteristics of RIE. Previous chemotherapy, field size, and irradiated site (upper abdomen) were the only significant prognostic factors of RIE. A remarkable incidence of RIE was found in patients submitted to thoracic and head and neck RT. With this background of knowledge, it will be possible to better plan further studies on this important problem. Moreover, the low rate of antiemetics use and the wide variety of doses and schedules employed suggest the need to reinforce the "evidence based" approach to identify the best antiemetic approach to RIE.