Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV): MASCC/ESMO guideline for antiemetics in radiotherapy: update 2009

The effect of high-fat diet on the pharmacokinetics of ondansetron hydrochloride tablets in healthy Chinese subjects

Background

This study aimed to assess how a high-fat diet impacts the pharmacokinetics and safety characteristics of 8 mg Ondansetron hydrochloride tablets among healthy Chinese individuals.

Subjects and methods

The findings presented here were obtained from a bioequivalence study, in which individuals were randomly assigned to consume Ondansetron hydrochloride tablets either following a meal or subsequent to a high-fat diet containing 978.6 kcal, with 54.6% of the calories derived from fat. The plasma concentrations of Ondansetron were measured through the utilization of high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) after collecting blood samples. For the computation of pharmacokinetic parameters, the non-compartmental module from Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.2 was utilized Additionally, the BE module within WinNonLin was utilized to statistically analyze key pharmacokinetic metrics, including the maximum level of concentration (Cmax), the area beneath the concentration-time curve spanning from zero to the final quantifiable time point (AUC0-t), and the area beneath the concentration-time curve extending from zero to a theoretical limitless point (AUC0-∞) in plasma. A total of 53 healthy subjects participated in the study and were divided into a fasted cohort and a postprandial cohort.

Results

Ondansetron had lower Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞in plasma when taken with food compared to when taken on an empty stomach, with the 90% confidence interval falling outside the acceptable range of 80.00%-125.00%.The occurrence of treatment-related side effects was comparable in both the fasted and postprandial groups, as was the incidence of adverse drug reactions.

Conclusion

The study concluded that the high-fat meal had a notable impact on how Ondansetron is processed in the body. Healthy subjects tolerated all treatments well and safely under both postprandial and fasted conditions.

Clinical Trial Registration

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, identifier CTR20213116.

[Update of guidelines of the AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNCM, SFCE, GFRP for the management of radio-induced nausea and vomiting]

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting have mutiple clinical consequences: delay or refusal of irradiation (decreased antineoplastic efficacy of irradiation), altered quality of life, dehydration, malnutrition, interruption of treatment, decompensation of comorbidities and aspiration. These guidelines aim at defining good clinical practices for management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).

METHODS

AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNEP, SFCE and GFRP applied an expert consensus methodology to propose updated guidelines.

RESULTS

RINV are underdiagnosed and undertreated. Assessment of the emetogenic risk depends on two main factors: 1) the irradiated anatomical localization and 2) the associated concomitant chemotherapy. In case of exclusive radiotherapy, primary antiemetic prophylaxis depends on the emetogenic risk of irradiated anatomical localization. Primary antiemetic prophylaxis is initiated at the onset of irradiation and continues until 24h after the end of the irradiation. In the case of concomitant radiochemotherapy, the emetogenic risk is generally higher for chemotherapy and the primary antiemetic prophylaxis corresponds to that of chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. In the case of persistence of these symptoms, subject to a well-conducted treatment, a rigorous diagnostic procedure must be carried out before being attributed to radiotherapy and precise evaluation of their impact. Remedial treatments are less well codified.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to know and good management practices for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

Dietary agents in the prevention of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV): review addressing the scientific observations, benefits, lacunae and future direction

PURPOSE

Radiation-induced Nausea and Vomiting (RINV) is an important side effect and conservative estimates are that 50-80% of the patients undergoing curative radiotherapy (RT) will experience some sought of retching, nausea, and/or vomiting during the course of their treatment. Conventionally, antiemetic drugs like the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and steroids are the mainstay of treatment. However, the use of these agents, especially steroids, can cause side effects and thereby negate the proposed benefits. The antiemetic effects of Centella asiatica (Indian pennywort), Hippophae rhamnoides (Sea buckthorn), oil of Mentha spicata (Spearmint) and the rhizomes of Zingiber officinale (ginger) have been addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that Indian pennywort, Sea buckthorn, Spearmint oil and ginger are beneficial in mitigating RINV. Also, of the four plants investigated in preclinical models of study, mint oil and ginger seem to be more useful and merit structured systematic translational studies to ascertain the benefit of these two agents.

Impact of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and emesis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemoradiation: a pilot prospective study and a review of literature

PURPOSE

Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, IMRT may increase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV.

METHODS

An infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant was given through a 30 min. We assessed acute toxicity using CTCAE v.4 and the incidence of CINV using the FLIE questionnaire. The evaluation of CINV was done at the second and fifth weeks of CRT and 1 week after the end. The EORTC QLQ-HN 43 questionnaire was administered before treatment beginning (baseline), at second (T1) and fifth (T2) weeks. A dosimetric analysis was performed on dorsal nucleus of vagus (DVC) and area postrema (AP).

RESULTS

Between March and November 2020, 24 patients were enrolled. No correlation was found between nausea and DVC mean dose (p = 0.573), and AP mean dose (p = 0.869). Based on the FLIE questionnaire, patients reported a mean score of 30.5 for nausea and 30 for vomiting during week 2 and 29.8 for nausea and 29.2 for vomiting during week 5. After treatment ended, the mean scores were 27.4 for nausea and 27.7 for vomiting. All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-HN 43. Significantly higher scores at T2 assessment than baseline were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV reduced incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting. No correlation has been found between nausea and median dose to DVC and AP.

ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases

After liver and lungs, bone is the third most common metastatic site (Nystrom et al., 1977). Almost all malignancies can metastasize to the skeleton but 80% of bone metastases originate from breast, prostate, lung, kidney and thyroid cancer (Mundy, 2002). Introduction of effective systemic treatment in many cancers has prolonged patients' survival, including those with bone metastases. Bone metastases may significantly reduce quality of life due to related symptoms and possible complications, such as pain and neurologic compromise. The most serious complications of bone metastases are skeletal-related events (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, pain, or other symptoms requiring an urgent intervention such as surgery or radiotherapy. In turn, growing access to modern diagnostic tools allows early detection of asymptomatic bone metastases that could be successfully managed with local treatment avoiding development of SRE. The treatment for bone metastases should focus on relieving existing symptoms and preventing new ones. Radiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic bone metastases, providing durable pain relief with minimal toxicity and reasonable cost-effectiveness. Historically, the dose was prescribed in one to five fractions and delivered using simple planning techniques. While 3D-conformal radiotherapy is still widely used for treating bone metastases, introduction of highlyconformal radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have opened new therapeutic possibilities that should be considered in selected patients with bone metastases.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

A review on radiation induced nausea and vomiting: "Current management strategies and prominence of radio sensitizers"

Radiations dissipated are high energy waves used mostly as treatment intervention in controlling the unwanted multiplication of cell. About 60%-65% of cancer treatment requires radiation therapy and 40%-80% of radiation therapy causes RINV which are true troublemakers. Radiation therapy (RT) is targeted therapy mostly used to treat early stages of tumour and prevent their reoccurrence. They mainly destroy the genetic material (DNA) of cancerous cells to avoid their unwanted growth and division. The RINV affects the management and quality of life of patients which further reduces the patient outcome. RINV depends on RT related factors (dose, fractionation, irradiation volume, RT techniques) and patient related factors like (gender, health conditions, age, concurrent chemotherapy, psychological state, and tumour stage). RT is an active area of research and there is only limited progress in tackling the RINV crisis. Advanced technological methods are adopted that led to better understanding of total lethal doses. Radiation therapy also affects the immunity system that leads to radiation induced immune responses and inflammation. Radio sensitizers are used to sensitize the tumour cells to radiations that further prevent the normal cell damage from radiation exposure. There is a need for future studies and researches to re-evaluate the data available from previous trials in RINV to make better effective antiemetic regimen. The article focuses on radiation therapy induced nausea and vomiting along with their mechanism of action and treatment strategies in order to have a remarkable patient care.

Effectiveness of nursing interventions in preventing and treating radiotherapy side effects in cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions in radiotherapy patient care and to summarize the evidence on the experience and acceptability of interventions reported by health professionals involved in the prevention and treatment of side effects.

METHOD

A mixed-method systematic review. Quantitative and qualitative studies are presented.

RESULTS

Twelve studies published between 2013 and 2017 were included. Most interventions found focused on skin care, oral care, nausea and vomiting and nursing consultation. In accordance with high level of evidence and recommendation grade of the studies, the use of Calendula officinalis and thyme honey were considered effective for preventing and treating radiodermatitis and mucositis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The quality of evidence of nursing interventions is weak. Although there are studies with a strong design and a high level of evidence, publication of nursing interventions is not enough and does not present a high quality to support practice to plan an effective patient-centered care.

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: a clinical audit of prophylactic antiemetic use

Introduction:

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a common side effect of single fraction palliative radiotherapy. Patients experiencing RINV have significantly reduced quality of life and a prescription of prophylactic antiemetics, principally 5-HT3 antagonists, is recommended. There is a growing body of evidence relating to indications for this, but as yet there are no national guidelines.

Methods:

A retrospective audit aimed to determine the extent to which patients at high and moderate emetogenic risk receiving single fraction radiotherapy were prescribed prophylactic emetic medication in line with the current evidence base.

Results:

A total of 60 patients were included in the audit; of these patients, 50 were consented for the risk of nausea and/or vomiting. Prophylactic antiemetics were only prescribed to 28 (46·7%) of all audited patients. Out of the 50 patients who provided informed consent, only 24 (48%) were prescribed an antiemetic prior to their treatment.

Conclusion:

Antiemetic prescribing for single fraction patients at moderate to high emetogenic risk at a large regional centre is underutilised in relation to published evidence. Amended guidance and further audits are recommended to ensure that this patient group is best supported.

Recent advances in clinical studies of selenium supplementation in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is one of the most important and common therapies for cancer patients. Selenium has been shown to be capable of reducing the side effects of radiotherapy because selenoproteins have anti-oxidative functions against reactive oxygen species that are induced by the radiation. They also function in DNA-repair and cytokine control.

PURPOSE

We explored the benefits and risks of selenium supplementation in radiotherapy in our previous review to establish guidelines. In the current study, we expanded the search to cover recent advances in clinical studies of selenium supplementation in radiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted an initial screening in the PubMed using the MeSH terms and keywords "selenium", "radiation", "therapy", and "radiotherapy" using the same methodology applied in our previous review. We identified 121 articles published between January 2013 and December 2019. We then identified eight articles (six studies) on selenium and radiotherapy by excluding 113 articles.

RESULTS

In selenium supplementation studies, selenium doses of 300-500 μg/day with duration of 10 days to 6 months were used. Selenium supplementation improved the selenium nutritional conditions of the patients and reduced the side effects of radiotherapy. Selenium supplementation did not reduce the effectiveness of radiotherapy, and no toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSION

The results of our previous and current reviews showed that selenium supplementation offers specific benefits for several cancer types treated with radiotherapy. Here, we suggest a new guideline for selenium supplementation in radiotherapy. We recommend determining the selenium status of the patients before radiotherapy, and in cases of deficiency (<100 μg/L serum selenium level), selenium supplement can be beneficial.

A multidisciplinary expert opinion on CINV and RINV, unmet needs and practical real-life approaches

Introduction: A range of combination chemotherapy regimens are currently used in clinical practice. However, international antiemetic guidelines often only categorize the emetogenic potential of single agents rather than the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. To manage the nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic combinations, guidelines suggest antiemetics that are appropriate for the component drug with the highest emetogenic potential. Furthermore, antiemetic guidelines generally do not consider the influence of other factors, including individual patient characteristics, on the emetic effects of cancer treatments. Similarly, the emetogenic potential of radiotherapy is stratified only according to the site of radiation, while other factors contributing to emetic risk are overlooked.Areas covered: An Expert Panel was convened to examine unresolved issues and summarize the current clinical research on managing nausea and vomiting associated with combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy.Expert opinion: The panel identified the incidence of nausea and vomiting induced by multi-drug combination therapies currently used to treat cancer at different anatomic sites and by radiotherapy in the presence of other risk factors. Based on these data and the clinical experience of panel members, several suggestions are made for a practical approach to prevent or manage nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy regimens and radiation therapy.

SUPR-3D: A randomized phase iii trial comparing simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy versus 3d conformal radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: study protocol

Background

Bone metastases in the lower spine and pelvis are effectively palliated with radiotherapy (RT), though this can come with side effects such as radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). We hypothesize that high rates of RINV occur in part because of the widespread use of inexpensive simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy (SUPR), over more complex and resource intensive 3D conformal RT, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods

This is a randomized, multi-centre phase III trial of SUPR versus VMAT. We will accrue 250 patients to assess the difference in patient-reported RINV. This study is powered to detect a difference in quality of life between patients treated with VMAT vs. SUPR.

Discussion

This trial will determine if VMAT reduces early toxicity compared to SUPR and may provide justification for this more resource-intensive and costly form of RT.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03694015.

Date of registration: October 3, 2018.

Acupuncture for radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Assessing the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture therapy for treating patients with radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is the main purpose of this systematic review protocol.

METHODS

The following electronic databases will be searched from inception to Sep 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database. All published randomized controlled trials in English or Chinese related to acupuncture for RINV will be included. The primary outcome is the severity and frequency of RINV during radiotherapy. The secondary outcomes is the physical condition and quality of life after radiotherapy. Two reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and assessment independently. The assessment of risk of bias and data synthesis will be conducted with Review Manager Software V.5.2.

RESULTS

The results will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence for researchers in this subject area.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of our study will provide evidence to judge whether acupuncture is an effective intervention for patients suffered from RINV.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019130952.

Update Breast Cancer 2019 Part 2 - Implementation of Novel Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients in Clinical Practice

The treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer has developed further in recent years. In addition to therapeutic progress in the established subgroups (hormone receptor and HER2 status), there are now therapies which are geared to individual molecular characteristics, such as PARP inhibitor therapy in BRCA-mutated patients. In addition to this, tests are being developed which are intended to establish additional markers within subgroups in order to predict the efficacy of a therapy. PI3K mutation testing in HER2-negative, hormone-receptor-positive tumours and PD-L1 testing of immune cells in triple-negative tumours are expected to become established in clinical practice in order to select patients for the respective therapies. With new therapeutic approaches, new adverse effects also appear. The management of these adverse effects, just as those of classical therapy (supportive therapy), is essential with the introduction of new treatments in order to preserve patients' quality of life. Knowledge regarding measures to preserve and improve quality of life has significantly increased in recent years. Lifestyle factors should be taken into account, as should modern therapeutic methods. This review summarises the latest studies and publications and evaluates them in regard to the relevance for clinical practice.

A prospective cohort study of patient-reported vomiting, retching, nausea and antiemetic use during neoadjuvant long-course radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Antiemetic guidelines suggest daily prophylaxis with a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) as an option for patients receiving long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal cancer, despite the risks that 5-HT3RA-induced constipation may pose. We explored the incidence of patient-reported vomiting, retching, nausea and antiemetic intake among patients in this setting to determine if these risks are justified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a single-centre non-randomised prospective cohort study of adult patients receiving long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Patients recorded symptoms and medication intake daily until 7 days following treatment completion.

RESULTS

From 33 evaluable patients, we collected 1407 days of patient-reported data. Vomiting was reported by 7 patients (21%), retching by 5(15%) and nausea by 21(64%). No patients were administered prophylactic antiemetics. The median number of days with vomiting was 2, and the cumulative number of days for all affected patients was 22 (1.6% of 1407 evaluable days). There were no differences in PTV or small bowel loop V15Gy, V45Gy and V50Gy volumes between patients that did and did not vomit.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of days with vomiting was only 1.6%. 5-HT3RA prophylaxis during long-course neoadjuvant treatment seems unnecessary.

Taxane, platinum and 5-FU prior to chemoradiotherapy benefits patients with stage IV neck node-positive head and neck cancer and a good performance status

PURPOSE

The benefit of adding docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) induction chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains uncertain. We aimed to investigate whether ICT is well tolerated when given with prophylactic treatment against predicted adverse effects and which patients benefit most.

METHODS

A single-centre audit identified 132 HNSCC patients with stage IVa/b neck node-positive disease, prescribed TPF followed by CRT. TPF involved three cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2 IV) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2 IV) on day 1 plus 5-FU (750 mg/m2 IV) on days 2-5. Planned CRT was 66 Gy in 30 fractions of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2 IV) at the beginning of week 1 and 4 (days 1 and 22). All patients received prophylactic antibiotics and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 39.5 months. 92.4% of patients completed three cycles of TPF; 95.5% of patients started chemoradiotherapy. Grade 3/4 adverse events were low (febrile neutropenia 3.0%), with no toxicity-related deaths. 3-year overall survival was 67.2%; disease-specific survival was 78.7%; locoregional control was 78.3%. Distant metastases rate was 9.8% (3.0% in those without locoregional recurrence). Good performance status (p = 0.002) and poor tumour differentiation (p = 0.018) were associated with improved overall survival on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

With prophylactic antibiotics and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor TPF was well tolerated with good survival outcomes. TPF should remain a treatment option for stage IV neck node-positive patients with a good performance status. The use of tumour grade to aid patient selection for TPF warrants investigation.

VMAT radiation-induced nausea and vomiting in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy: The incidental effect of low-dose bath exposure

Background and purpose

To investigate the hypothesis on low-dose bath exposure related to radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) in adjuvant breast volumetric modulated arch therapy (VMAT).

Methods and materials

A total of 106 consecutive breast cancer patients (pts) treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) with VMAT from January 2013 to May 2016 were evaluated retrospectively. For each pt, a planning CT was reimported and the coeliac plexus and gastroesophageal junction with gastric mouth (GEJCPs) were contoured as a new organ at risk (OAR) in the upper abdominal area. RINV was associated with Dmax and Dmean to GEJCPs. Univariate analysis with χ², t-test, and Pearson’s covariance was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Of 106 pts, 64% complained of acute RINV according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03. RINV was related to Dmax > 10 Gy and Dmean > 3 Gy to GEJCPs (P < 0.005). The radiation breast side and planning target volume (PTV) correlated with RINV.

Conclusions

RINV in VMAT breast radiotherapy could be a new emerging acute side effect due to a low dose bath to upper abdominal structures such as the GEJCPs. A Dmax < 10 Gy and Dmean < 3 Gy to GEJCPs should be constrained in VMAT planning to minimize RINV risk in breast radiotherapy.

Correlation between delivered radiation doses to the brainstem or vestibular organ and nausea & vomiting toxicity in patients with head and neck cancers - an observational clinical trial

Objective

Today intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can be considered the standard of care in patients with head and neck tumors. IMRT treatment plans are proven to reduce acute treatment related side effects by optimal sparing of organs at risk (OAR). At the same time, areas that were out of the former 3D fields now receive low radiation doses. Amongst those areas the brainstem (BS) and the vestibular system (VS) are known to be physiologically connected to nausea and vomiting (NV). In our study we tried to find out, if doses to these areas are linked to NV.

Material & Methods

NV were assessed at different time points during treatment in 26 patients leading to 98 documented toxicity scores that were later correlated to dose deposition in the described areas. Patients were either treated with normo-fractionated or simultaneously integrated boost IMRT plans in a curative approach. Subareas of the BS as well as the VS were delineated. Toxicity was rated based on the common toxicity criteria (CTCAE Version 4.0). Other factors such as age, gender, chemotherapy, location of the tumor, irradiated volume and unilateral dose to the VS were taken into account and analyzed also.

Results

The majority (65.4%) of our patients experienced an episode of NV at least once during treatment. NV was more frequent when treating the oropharyngeal region compared to the hypopharyngeal region, as well as when patients were female and/ or of a younger age. Nevertheless, upon statistical analysis (ROC analysis, ‘within/ between analysis’) no significant association between delivered doses to subareas and toxicity could be demonstrated.

Conclusion

In our analysis, no significant correlation between radiation dose to the BS or the VS and the occurrence of NV could be found. Therefore, until conclusive data are available, we recommend to rely on the published data regarding OAR tolerance within the BS and not to compromise on dose coverage.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0846-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Patient-practitioner perception gap in treatment-induced nausea and vomiting

This UK cohort analysis of a European survey evaluated the differences between health professionals and cancer patients regarding the perceived incidence, impact and drug management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV/RINV). The UK healthcare system is unique in that it has dedicated oncology clinical nurse specialists. The analysis found that more patients experienced nausea following their most recent treatment cycle than vomiting. Health professionals overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients' daily lives, particularly in cases of mild and moderate nausea/vomiting. The level of antiemetic cover initiated and degree of symptom control was often suboptimal. Patients under-reported symptoms, primarily because they considered nausea/vomiting an inevitable side effect of treatment. Altogether, 42% of patients reported full adherence to their antiemetic regimen. Leading factors for non-adherence included not having a 'preventive mindset', low symptom severity and a reluctance to increase pill burden. In conclusion, there is a perceptual gap between health professionals and patients around experiences of CINV/RINV. Advances in management depend on enhancing health professional-patient communication, and reporting and understanding nausea as a distinct issue.

An Overview of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is common occurrence in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. When radiation is prescribed to certain sites, it can lead to retching, vomiting, and nausea that can lead to impairments on quality of life and even effect adherence to treatment regimes. The present study reports select literature examining RINV phenomena and reviews mechanisms of RINV as well as current management strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using search strategies such as "radiation-induced nausea vomiting," "RINV," and "radiation and antiemetics." The search was limited to articles published from January 2000 to April 2016 and those that involved humans and were published in English. Information regarding emetic risk of each treatment and management strategies used were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this select review. The current evidence regarding the standard antiemetics for RIINV are discussed, as well as upcoming therapies and future potential endeavors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients treated with emetogenic radiotherapy are at risk of experiencing RINV. RINV has the potential to impact patient quality of life and treatment delivery and optimal prophylactic strategies should be implemented, particularly in radiation naïve patients. More awareness on these topics is warranted, so that standard antiemetic regimens can be used in both the prophylactic and rescue settings.

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: Is ABO blood group as important as radiation and patient-related factors? An observational study

Despite the improvements in cancer screening and treatment, it still remains as one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Nausea and vomiting as the side effects of different cancer treatment modalities, such as radiotherapy, are multifactorial and could affect the treatment continuation and patient quality of life. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the possible linkage between ABO blood groups and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV), also its incidence and affecting factors.One hundred twenty-eight patients referring to Tohid hospital of Sanandaj, Iran, were selected and the patients and treatment-related factors were determined in a cross-sectional study. Patients' nausea and vomiting were recorded from the onset of treatment until 1 week after treatment accomplishment. Also, previous possible nausea and vomiting were recorded. The frequencies of nausea and vomiting and their peak time were examined during the treatment period.The association between ABO blood group and the incidence of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) were significant and it seems that A blood group patients are the most vulnerable individuals to these symptoms. The association between Rhesus antigen and the time of maximum severity of RINV may indicate that Rhesus antigen affects the time of maximum severity of RINV. The incidence of RINV was not affected by karnofsky performance status, but it was related to the severity of RINV. Furthermore, among the factors affecting the incidence of nausea and vomiting, nausea and vomiting during patient's previous chemotherapy, radiotherapy region, and background gastrointestinal disease were shown to be three important factors.In addition to familiar RINV-affecting factors, ABO blood group may play an important role and these results address the needs for further studies with larger sample size.

Phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous palonosetron (PAL) in primary malignant glioma (MG) patients receiving standard radiotherapy (RT) and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ)

BACKGROUND

In malignant glioma (MG) patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) with concomitant temozolomide, chemoradiation-induced nausea and vomiting (cRINV) degrades quality of life (QoL) and reduces treatment adherence, which thereby potentially compromises cancer control.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-week phase II single-arm trial of PAL, a second-generation 5-HT3RA antiemetic, for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving radiation therapy (RT; 54-60 Gy) and concomitant daily temozolomide (TMZ; 75 mg/m(2)/dX42d). Each week before radiation, patients received single-dose palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg IV (total = 6 doses). With safety/tolerability as the primary endpoint, the study was designed to differentiate between toxicity rates of 25 % (unacceptable) and 10 % (acceptable) toxicity rates. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients achieving cRINV complete response (CR: no emesis or rescue antiemetic) and QoL. Patients reported adverse effects in Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events diaries; recorded vomiting, nausea, and rescue medication use in diaries (which were used to assess cRINV-CR); and reported QoL 4 days/week using the Modified Functional Living Index-Emesis (M-FLIE) and Osoba nausea and vomiting/retching modules.

RESULTS

We enrolled 38 patients (mean age 59 years, 55 % female, 95 % white, 68 % used oral corticosteroids, 76 % reported low alcohol use). Four patients (10.5 %) experienced unacceptable treatment-related toxicity, defined as any grade 3, 4, or 5 non-hematologic toxicity. M-FLIE and Osoba scores showed no evidence of treatment impact on QoL. Overall, cRINV-CR rates for 6 weeks ranged from 67-79 %.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose weekly PAL is a safe and tolerable antiemetic for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving standard RT and concomitant TMZ.

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.

Ondansetron rapidly dissolving film for the prophylactic treatment of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting-a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of an ondansetron rapidly dissolving film (rdf) in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (rinv). Rapidly dissolving film formulations facilitate drug delivery in circumstances in which swallowing the medication might be difficult for the patient.

METHODS

Patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy at risk for rinv were prescribed ondansetron rdf 8 mg twice daily while on treatment and were asked to complete a nausea and vomiting-specific daily diary, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (flie), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C15 Palliative (qlq-C15-pal). Patients were categorized as receiving primary or secondary prophylaxis based on whether they had already experienced emetic episodes. "Overall control" was defined as a maximum increase of 2 episodes of nausea or vomiting from baseline. "Acute phase" was defined as the days during radiation until the first day after radiation; "delayed phase" was defined as days 2-10 after radiation.

RESULTS

The study accrued 30 patients. Rates of overall control for nausea and for vomiting during the acute phase in the primary prophylaxis group were 88% and 93% respectively; during the delayed phase, they were 73% and 75%. Rates of overall control for nausea and for vomiting during the acute phase in the secondary prophylaxis group were both 100%; during the delayed phase, they were 50%. The number of nausea and vomiting episodes was found to be significantly correlated with the flie and qlq-C15-pal questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron rdf is effective for the prophylaxis of rinv.

Symptom clusters of gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life tool

OBJECTIVE

The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument is a validated nausea and vomiting specific quality of life (QOL) tool originally created as a 3-day test of the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on cancer patients' daily life. The primary objective of the present study was to retrospectively explore the use of the FLIE from data obtained in a previously published study of patients with gastrointestinal radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and compare the extracted symptom clusters on a weekly basis for the entirety of gastrointestinal cancer patients' radiotherapy treatments.

METHODS

QOL was assessed on a weekly basis using the 18-item FLIE questionnaire for patients' radiotherapy treatments. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed at each visit. The internal consistency and reliability of the derived clusters was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Robust relationship and correlation among symptoms was displayed with biplot graphics.

RESULTS

A total of 460 FLIE assessments were completed for the 86 gastrointestinal patients who underwent radiotherapy. Two components were consistently identified except for week 5 where only one component was identified. Component 1 contained the items "Q10-Q18" which included all vomiting items. Component 2 included all nausea items from "Q1 to Q9". All the variables were well accounted for by two components for most weeks of treatment with excellent internal consistency. Biplots indicate that the two symptom clusters were evident at each week, with the exception of the first week of treatment. Strong correlations were seen between the effect of nausea on patients' ability to make meals, patients' ability to do tasks within the home, and patients' willingness to spend time with family and friends.

CONCLUSION

The high internal consistency at all timepoints indicates that the FLIE QOL instrument is useful for the RINV population.

Image-guided radiation therapy using surgical clips for localization of colonic metastasis from thyroid cancer

A 67-year old man with a history of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) presented with metastatic disease to the left colon in the form of a 6.1x1.0 cm bleeding, ulcerated mass. Radiopaque surgical clips were used as fiducial markers to localize the gross tumor volume (GTV) as well as the corresponding clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). Daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance was utilized to verify the tumor position. Inter- and intrafraction movement of the tumor mass was assessed. Gastrointestinal bleeding was controlled using palliative image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).

Aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for bone metastases: a prospective pilot study

PURPOSE

We evaluated the novel combination of aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (rinv) among patients receiving moderately-emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases.

METHODS

In this single-centre two-arm nonrandomized prospective pilot study, patients undergoing single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) received aprepitant 125 mg and granisetron 2 mg on the day of radiotherapy and aprepitant 80 mg on each of the first 2 days after the day of radiotherapy. Patients undergoing multiple-fraction radiotherapy (20 Gy in 5 fractions) received aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 of radiotherapy, aprepitant 80 mg on days 3 and 5 of radiotherapy, and granisetron 2 mg on every day of radiotherapy. Symptoms and total medication intake were recorded daily during the acute phase (day 1 of radiotherapy until the first day after the last day of radiotherapy), and the delayed phase (days 2-10 after the last day of radiotherapy). Control of vomiting, retching, and nausea was defined as no symptoms and no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Control rates for single-fraction patients (n = 13) were 100% for acute nausea, 62% for delayed nausea, 100% for acute vomiting and retching, and 85% for delayed vomiting and retching. Control rates for multiple-fraction patients (n = 6) were 67% for acute nausea, 83% for delayed nausea, 67% for acute vomiting and retching, and 83% for delayed vomiting and retching. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities attributable to the study intervention were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of aprepitant and granisetron was safe and efficacious for the prophylaxis of rinv after both single- and multiple-fraction moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases. Our results require confirmation in a larger population.

Neuropharmacology and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer

Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the identification of patient risk factors, and the development of new antiemetics have led to significant improvements in CINV prevention. With the correct use of antiemetic drugs, CINV can be prevented in the majority of patients. Extensive clinical data have been considered in the development of antiemetic treatment recommendations by reliable institutions such as the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, the European Society of Medical Oncology and the American Society for Clinical Oncology. These guidelines are intended to enable physicians to incorporate the latest clinical research into their daily practice, considering CINV prevention as part of an optimal patient-centered approach to cancer management. Yet despite the availability of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence that implementation of treatment recommendations is suboptimal. Recently, guideline committees gave special consideration to patient-related risk factors (young, females) contributing to the emetogenic potential for patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. As women with breast cancer represent a particularly challenging population regarding emesis control, it is especially important that treatment recommendations are followed. This review focuses on the content of the current antiemetic guidelines, addressing the importance of how these are intended to be implemented in routine clinical practice.

Symptom management during the radiation oncology treatment course: a practical guide for the oncology clinician

Symptom management during radiation therapy is critical to providing high-quality care for patients receiving treatment. Symptoms are varied and dependent on the site irradiated. Common symptoms associated with radiation therapy include dermatitis, xerostomia, mucositis, and pneumonitis. Treatment strategies include prevention, anticipation, and development of clinical practice enabling rapid identification and management of emerging symptoms. Understanding the spectrum of symptomatology affecting irradiated patients is integral to improved quality of life and treatment efficacy.

The Efficacy of Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone in Preventing Chemoradiotherapy-induced Nausea and Emesis in Patients Receiving Daily Low-dose Cisplatin-based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Uterine Cervical Cancer: A Phase II Study

OBJECTIVES

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis is recommended by several guidelines; however, there are no evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone during CCRT.

METHODS

This is a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study.Twenty-six consecutive patients with cervical carcinoma were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m/d)-based CCRT (2 Gy/d, 25 fractions, 5 times a week). All patients received 0.75 mg of palonosetron on day 1 of each week and 4 mg of oral dexamethasone daily. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a complete response, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no antiemetic rescue medication during treatment.

RESULTS

Planned daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT was successful without delay or interruption in 46% (12/26) of the patients. The mean dose of total cisplatin was 184 (range, 136 to 200) mg/m.No patient vomited during the treatment period. The complete response rate during CCRT was 100%. A total of 81% patients were completely free from nausea. All patients tolerated the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone and completed the scheduled regimen. Five patients exhibited grade 1 Cushingoid features that resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone provided complete protection from nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT.

Adverse events across generations of bone-modifying agents in patients with solid tumor cancers reported in Phase III randomized trials

AIMS

The objective of this study is to compare adverse events experienced among different bone-modifying agents.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify Phase III bisphosphonate and bone-modifying agent trials reporting adverse effects. Thirty-seven adverse events of interest were identified for six different treatment options. Weighted linear regression modeling was performed on the adverse event proportions with treatment groups, normalized through applying natural log transformations.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in adverse events of vomiting (p = 0.045) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (p = 0.017), and combined item events of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.048), hematological and lymphatic system toxicities (p = 0.020), and any respiratory system problem (p = 0.023) between bone-modifying agent and placebo trials. The significant toxicities were observed even after adjusting for the two confounding factors of age and primary cancer site.

CONCLUSION

While adverse effects are consistently experienced more frequently in patients receiving bone-modifying agents when compared with placebos, we find that the majority of individual side effects are not significantly more frequent in patients receiving bone-modifying agents compared with placebo.

Aprepitant reduces chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children and young adults with brain tumors

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects in patients with brain tumors and may be associated with radiation and the administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Pediatric antiemetic guidelines recommend administration of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5HT3) receptor antagonists and the addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin 1 (NK1) antagonist with corticosteroids for the treatment of HEC. However, challenges persist in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with brain tumors as corticosteroids are contraindicated due to potential impairment of the blood-brain barrier permeability. The objective was to determine whether a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and the addition of aprepitant, an NK1 antagonist without a corticosteroid, were effective in reducing HEC vomiting in pediatric brain tumor patients.

METHOD

A retrospective review found that 18 patients with a history of high-grade vomiting during radiation were prescribed a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and aprepitant without a corticosteroid during their first course of HEC. To determine the efficacy of aprepitant without a corticosteroid, each recipient was matched with 2 controls who did not receiv aprepitant.

RESULTS

During HEC, controls without aprepitant were more likely to have Grade 2 or higher vomiting than the aprepitant recipients (P = .03; odds ratio = 4.15; 95% confidence interval = 1.59-10.82), after controlling for radiation-associated vomiting toxicity.

DISCUSSION

Significantly less vomiting was identified in children receiving HEC and prescribed a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and aprepitant. Findings suggest that the addition of an NK1 antagonist may be beneficial to emetic control in this highly vulnerable population.

Moderate to severe nausea in radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy is associated with the RAI dose per body weight and was not prevented by ramosetron

To retrospectively analyze the individual risk factors for radioactive iodine (RAI)-associated nausea and vomiting, and to examine the anti-emetic effect of ramosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist) in RAI therapy. Patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma who underwent first-time RAI therapy at Nagasaki University Hospital between January 2009 and 2013 were included (N = 81). As a routine treatment, all patients were administered 30 mg of domperidone per day. Patients who underwent RAI therapy between April 2011 and January 2013 were also administered 0.1 mg of ramosetron per day in addition to domperidone. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RAI-associated nausea and vomiting of any grade were seen in 37.0 and 6.2 % of patients in total, respectively. Moderate to severe nausea (grade 2–3) was seen in 22.2 % of patients and associated with the dose of RAI per body weight (odds ratio = 1.046, p = 0.013), but not with the use of ramosetron, in multivariate logistic regression analysis. We have identified the dose of RAI per body weight to be an individual risk factor associated with moderate to severe RAI-associated nausea. This study failed to show that the combined use of ramosetron and domperidone reduced the frequency of RAI-associated nausea and vomiting.

Beam path toxicity in candidate organs-at-risk: assessment of radiation emetogenesis for patients receiving head and neck intensity modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To investigate potential dose-response relationship between radiation-associated nausea and vomiting (RANV) reported during radiotherapy and candidate nausea/vomiting-associated regions of interest (CNV-ROIs) in head and neck (HNC) squamous cell carcinomas.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

A total of 130 patients treated with IMRT with squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck were evaluated. For each patient, CNV-ROIs were segmented manually on planning CT images. Clinical on-treatment RANV data were reconstructed by a review of the records for all patients. Dosimetric data parameters were recorded from dose-volume histograms. Nausea and vomiting reports were concatenated as a single binary "Any N/V" variable, and as a "CTC-V2+" variable.

RESULTS

The mean dose to CNV-ROIs was higher for patients experiencing RANV events. For patients receiving IMRT alone, a dose-response effect was observed with varying degrees of magnitude, at a statistically significant level for the area postrema, brainstem, dorsal vagal complex, medulla oblongata, solitary nucleus, oropharyngeal mucosa and whole brain CNV-ROIs.

CONCLUSION

RANV is a common therapy-related morbidity facing patients receiving HNC radiotherapy, and, for those receiving radiotherapy-alone, is associated with modifiable dose to specific CNS structures.

Risk factors for clinician-reported symptom clusters in patients with advanced head and neck cancer in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial: RTOG 0129

BACKGROUND

Chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; however, those patients often experience multiple treatment-related symptoms or symptom clusters. Two symptom clusters have been identified for this population. Little is known about the risk factors of these symptom clusters.

METHODS

Subjects comprised 684 patients who were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. This trial compared standard fractionation radiotherapy to accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. Symptom clusters were evaluated at the end of the first and the second cycle of chemotherapy, and 3 months after the start of radiotherapy. Mixed-effect modeling was used to observe risk factors for symptom clusters.

RESULTS

Race and education were independent predictors for the head and neck cluster, whereas sex and history of tobacco use were independent predictors for the gastrointestinal cluster. Primary cancer site was only significant for the head and neck cluster when other factors were not controlled: patients with oropharyngeal cancer had more severe symptoms in the head and neck clusters than did patients with laryngeal cancer. In addition, patients receiving accelerated fractionation radiotherapy experienced more symptoms of radiomucositis, pain, and nausea at 3 months after the start of radiotherapy than those receiving standard fractionation radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic characteristics were more predictive to symptom clusters, whereas clinical characteristics, such as cancer site and treatment arms, were more significant for individual symptoms. Knowing the risk factors will enhance the capability of clinicians to evaluate patients' risk of severe symptom clusters and to personalize management strategies.

The cellular mechanisms of the antiemetic action of dexamethasone and related glucocorticoids against vomiting

Glucocorticoids, used primarily as anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory drugs, are also effective, alone or combined with other antiemetics, for preventing nausea and vomiting. Dexamethasone, one of the glucocorticoids, has been suggested as a first-line drug for preventing low-level emetogenic chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and in patients with only one or two risks for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Dexamethasone combined with 5-HT3 or tachykinin NK1 antagonists is also suggested for higher-level emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy and for patients at high risk for PONV. Glucocorticoids may act via the following mechanisms: (1) anti-inflammatory effect; (2) direct central action at the solitary tract nucleus, (3) interaction with the neurotransmitter serotonin, and receptor proteins tachykinin NK1 and NK2, alpha-adrenaline, etc.; (4) maintaining the normal physiological functions of organs and systems; (5) regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; and (6) reducing pain and the concomitant use of opioids, which in turn reduces opioid-related nausea and vomiting.