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

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the management of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments has evolved, several questions remain unanswered.

RECENT FINDINGS

New antiemetics have been developed these last decades with therapeutic indications to be defined according to the anticancer regimen and partly as a consequence of the assessment of individual patient risk factors. Guidelines still seem to have a low level of knowledge and compliance, with a role for scientific societies in term of dissemination and education. A number of persistent issues relating to emesis still need improvement in prevention and management. Nausea remains a subjective semantic whose evaluation should possibly benefit from educational programs. The risk classification of anticancer drugs must be regularly updated, requiring regular literature reviews and the integration of data from clinical trials relating to emerging anticancer drugs. Recent data, particularly in the context of emerging drugs, highlight the importance to consider emesis' impact beyond the 5-day period, with a potential adaptation of antiemetic prophylaxis, including the mode of administration of oral drugs.

SUMMARY

Guidelines update is presented with literature answers to the current issues in order to improve quality of patient's management in the context of emesis related to anticancer therapies.

Are the Common Genetic 3'UTR Variants in ADME Genes Playing a Role in Tolerance of Breast Cancer Chemotherapy?

We studied the associations between 3'UTR genetic variants in ADME genes, clinical factors, and the risk of breast cancer chemotherapy toxicity. Those variants and factors were tested in relation to seven symptoms belonging to myelotoxicity (anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia), gastrointestinal side effects (vomiting, nausea), nephrotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity, occurring in overall, early, or recurrent settings. The cumulative risk of overall symptoms of anemia was connected with AKR1C3 rs3209896 AG, ERCC1 rs3212986 GT, and >6 cycles of chemotherapy; leukopenia was determined by ABCC1 rs129081 allele G and DPYD rs291593 allele T; neutropenia risk was correlated with accumulation of genetic variants of DPYD rs291583 allele G, ABCB1 rs17064 AT, and positive HER2 status. Risk of nephrotoxicity was determined by homozygote DPYD rs291593, homozygote AKR1C3 rs3209896, postmenopausal age, and negative ER status. Increased risk of hepatotoxicity was connected with NR1/2 rs3732359 allele G, postmenopausal age, and with present metastases. The risk of nausea and vomiting was linked to several genetic factors and premenopausal age. We concluded that chemotherapy tolerance emerges from the simultaneous interaction of many genetic and clinical factors.

Age of Pediatric Patients Affects Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors for delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting (DCIV) in pediatric oncology patients. We collected data on pediatric patients from a tertiary care pediatric hospital in an Asian urban center. We analyzed the risk factors for DCIV in patients by univariate analysis and logistic regression. Patients were grouped according to age by the Youden index, and differences in clinical features between the high-risk and low-risk groups were calculated. In the univariate analysis, the number of chemotherapy days, pH, and blood glucose levels were significantly associated with DCIV. In the logistic regression analysis, patient age was an independent risk factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.005-1.021, P = .002). Children in the high-risk group had a higher grade of vomiting (P < .05). Age is an important risk factor for DCIV in pediatric patients, with older children tending to experience more frequent and more severe vomiting.

Body Mass Index Affects Delayed Chemotherapy-induced Vomiting in Pediatric Malignancy Patients

BACKGROUND

Delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting (DCIV) is a problem for children undergoing chemotherapy for malignant tumors. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and DCIV in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data were collected from patients with malignancies who underwent chemotherapy at our center. Independent risk factors for DCIV derived by logistic regression. The Youden Index, which calculates BMI, divides patients into a high-risk group and a low-risk group, and the difference in DCIV between the two groups was analyzed. The relationship between BMI and DCIV was assessed by calculating the frequency of vomiting episodes and the severity of vomiting.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were included in this cohort study. BMI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.811; 95% CI: 0.699-0.941), age (OR: 1.014; 95% CI: 1.006-1.021), and emetogenic grade (OR: 2.858, 95% CI: 1.749-4.671) were independent risk factors for the development of DCIV in children. Patients in the high-risk group experienced vomiting more frequently and with greater severity than those in the low-risk group ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

BMI in children with malignancy is associated with DCIV, and the incidence of DCIV decreases as BMI increases. Physicians may be able to arrange a more elaborate antiemetic prevention regimen based on the patient's BMI.

Mitigation of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea Using Adjunct Music Listening: A Pilot Study

The persistence of chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) underscores the need to consider nonpharmacologic treatments such as music listening as adjunct interventions. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and overall effects of a 30-minute adjunct music listening intervention in 12 patients experiencing CIN. Music listening was started at the time participants took their as-needed antiemetic medication, and it was repeated as needed during the 5 days after chemotherapy. Data for 66 music listening engagements were collected. A significant reduction of nausea severity (t = 10.97, p < .001) and distress (t = 9.86, p < .001) was noted overall, as well as significant reductions when examining the acute and delayed phases of nausea individually. Qualitative data on study feasibility demonstrated the intervention was well received by participants and held minimal operational difficulty. Investigator feasibility data suggested good understanding of data collection tools. Improvements to the study design have been collected and will form the basis of the future randomized controlled trial.

A Smartphone-Based Decision Support Tool for Predicting Patients at Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Retrospective Study on App Development Using Decision Tree Induction

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are the two most frightful and unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy. CINV is accountable for poor treatment outcomes, treatment failure, or even death. It can affect patients' overall quality of life, leading to many social, economic, and clinical consequences.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the performances of different data mining models for predicting the risk of CINV among the patients and developed a smartphone app for clinical decision support to recommend the risk of CINV at the point of care.

METHODS

Data were collected by retrospective record review from the electronic medical records used at the University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. Patients who received chemotherapy and standard antiemetics at the oncology outpatient service from June 1, 2010, to July 31, 2012, were included in the study. There were six independent data sets of patients based on emetogenicity (low, moderate, and high) and two phases of CINV (acute and delayed). A total of 14 risk factors of CINV were chosen for data mining. For our study, we used five popular data mining algorithms: (1) naive Bayes algorithm, (2) logistic regression classifier, (3) neural network, (4) support vector machine (using sequential minimal optimization), and (5) decision tree. Performance measures, such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity with 10-fold cross-validation, were used for model comparisons. A smartphone app called CINV Risk Prediction Application was developed using the ResearchKit in iOS utilizing the decision tree algorithm, which conforms to the criteria of explainable, usable, and actionable artificial intelligence. The app was created using both the bulk questionnaire approach and the adaptive approach.

RESULTS

The decision tree performed well in both phases of high emetogenic chemotherapies, with a significant margin compared to the other algorithms. The accuracy measure for the six patient groups ranged from 79.3% to 94.8%. The app was developed using the results from the decision tree because of its consistent performance and simple, explainable nature. The bulk questionnaire approach asks 14 questions in the smartphone app, while the adaptive approach can determine questions based on the previous questions' answers. The adaptive approach saves time and can be beneficial when used at the point of care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study solved a real clinical problem, and the solution can be used for personalized and precise evidence-based CINV management, leading to a better life quality for patients and reduced health care costs.

Quality of Life Associated with Nausea and Vomiting from Anthracycline-Based Chemotherapy: A Pooled Data Analysis from Three Prospective Trials

BACKGROUND

There is limited work on the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on quality of life (QoL) in adriamycin-cyclophosphamide (AC)-treated patients with breast cancer. The objectives of the study were the following: (a) to confirm if symptoms of CINV led to lower QoL during AC; (b) to evaluate the pattern of changes in patients' QoL during multiple cycles of AC; and (c) to assess if the QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent cycles of AC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a secondary pooled data analysis that included 303 Chinese patients with breast cancer who received 1,177 cycles of adjuvant AC in three prospective antiemetic studies. QoL data were based on Functional Living Index-emesis (FLIE) scored over three to four AC cycles. CINV symptoms assessed included "no significant nausea" (NSN), "significant nausea" (SN), "no vomiting" (NoV), "vomiting" (V), and complete response (CR).

RESULTS

Across all AC cycles, the mean scores for the FLIE nausea domain for patients who experienced NSN versus SN were 10.92 versus 53.92, respectively (p < .0001), with lower scores indicating better QoL; the mean scores for the FLIE vomiting domain for patients who experienced NoV versus V were 1.44 versus 19.11, respectively (p < .0001), with similar results across subsequent cycles. Analysis of the effect of the QoL in cycle 1 on the QoL of subsequent cycles revealed the following: for the nausea domain, among patients who had cycle 1 FLIE scores ≥ versus < the mean, the corresponding scores in cycle 2 were 6.87 versus 36.71 (p < .0001); whereas those for cycle 3 were 7.07 versus 36.87 (p < .0001); and those for cycle 4 were 5.92 versus 21.48 (p < .0001). Similar findings were observed for the vomiting domain. Netupitant + palonosetron- or aprepitant/olanzapine-based antiemetics had significantly better QoL outcomes.

CONCLUSION

CINV had a significant impact on the QoL of patients with breast cancer treated with AC over multiple cycles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this post-hoc analysis of three prospective studies on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), quality of life (QoL) using contemporary antiemetic regimens in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) was evaluated. During the first and subsequent AC cycles, QoL was significantly better for patients who did not experience vomiting or significant nausea. QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent AC cycles. Furthermore, recent regimens involving olanzapine/aprepitant or netupitant-palonosetron were associated with a positive impact in QoL. Antiemetic guideline-consistent practice and higher clinician awareness of the impact of CINV on QoL can further mitigate the negative effects of CINV on QoL.

Evaluation of Adherence to Antiemetic Treatment Guidelines in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Teaching Hospitals in Tehran

The present study evaluated adherence to antiemetic guidelines for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in four tertiary university teaching hospitals in Tehran. This prospective observational study enrolled 382 adult patients on chemotherapy at oncology centers affiliated to medical universities located in Tehran. Patients were followed up during their chemotherapy cycles. Risk factors related to CINV were evaluated, and information on antiemetic prescribing patterns was gathered using direct interview and patient medical records. Guideline adherence was found to be low; however, 81.3% of the patients experienced chemotherapy without CINV. Low frequency of adherence to the guidelines in prescription patterns does not mean that prescription patterns were very different. Indeed, some drugs were added to base guideline recommendation regiments, since in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy categories, some novel antiemetics recommended by international guidelines are not yet included in Iranian pharmacopeia. It was shown that two drug classes were added as a common practice, namely, H1/H2 antagonists and dopamine receptor antagonist (metoclopramide). Statistically significant differences were found between antiemetic prescribing patterns of physicians and chemotherapy regimen category (aspect of emetogenic potential) (p < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed regimen in the minimal-emetic-risk category and the low-emetic-risk category was reported to be the combination of corticosteroids, 5HT3, and H1/H2 antagonists, 33% and 66.1% respectively. Moreover, corticosteroids +5HT3 and H1/H2 antagonists + NK1 antagonist were found to be the most frequently prescribed regimen in the moderate-emetic-risk category (39.7%) and high-emetic-risk category (41.8%). Antiemetic prescribing patterns were not completely compatible with the guidelines in moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy categories. Differences were detected in two states of over- and undertreatment. The present study confirmed low level of adherence of antiemetic prescribing patterns with international guidelines. However, it could not be proved that high levels of adherence with the guidelines result in reduction of CINV incidence. Complete success in CINV control cannot be achieved only by adherence to the established guidelines as novel antiemetics recommended by the guidelines have not been included in the Iranian pharmacopeia as yet. The authors do recommend implementation of strategies for increasing guideline-compliant prescriptions with the aim of improving patients' outcomes. We also suggest that policymakers in healthcare system point more critically to overprescribing as an issue of concern.

Factors Associated with Chemotherapy Induced Nausea in Cancer Patients: A Case-Control Study

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is one of the most common and uncomfortable symptoms in cancer patients, and different factors can be associated with it. Objectives: This study aimed to determine different factors associated with CIN in cancer patients. Methods: A total of 144 cancer patients were selected by convenience sampling. The patients at acute phase of chemotherapy were assigned to case group (n = 58) if they had nausea or to control group (n = 86) if they did not have nausea. The patients' data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire including items on potential factors for CIN through interviews with the patients and according to their medical records. Logistic regression models were used to conduct data analysis, and the correlations in question were expressed as odds ratio (OR) at 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The results showed that the chance of nausea increased by 6.4, 2.4, 1.2, and 1.5 times in case of expected nausea, pain, carbohydrate intake, and smelling a specific odor, respectively. The increasing nausea-inducing effect of drugs led to increased chance of post-chemotherapy nausea (OR = 2.366). Conclusions: Having pain, expecting nausea, carbohydrate intake, smelling a certain odor, and high emetogenic potential of chemotherapy are effective in the development of CIN.

Clinical utility of a prediction tool to differentiate between breast cancer patients at high or low risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

A personalized risk model (PRM) that can categorize patients into high or low risk of ≥ grade 2 acute and/or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was previously developed. The current study assessed whether the PMR could accurately stratify patients' risk for other commonly used CINV endpoints.

METHODS

Data was pooled from a previously reported trial evaluating CINV in patients with breast cancer (BC) receiving neo/adjuvant anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The predictive ability of the PRM was compared to patient experience of any self-reported significant nausea, any vomiting, complete cycle response, and use of rescue medications, over all cycles of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Data was available from 242 patients over 819 chemotherapy cycles. Irrespective of the chosen antiemetics, significant nausea was common when evaluated across repeated cycles of treatment with an overall incidence of 24.2% in low-risk patients and 34.6% in high-risk patients. Patients identified as high risk of CINV using the PRM were 4.73 (p = 0.011) times more likely to develop significant nausea than those identified as low risk. The PRM did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups in overall vomiting, complete cycle response, or rescue medications use.

CONCLUSION

The PRM was able to identify patients at greater risk of significant nausea but not the other CINV endpoints. As nausea remains a pertinent issue for patients with BC, the PRM could be used to identify these patients a priori for innovative treatment strategies.

[Establishment of naive Bayes classifier-based risk prediction model for chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting]

OBJECTIVE

To establish a risk prediction model of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting based on naive Bayes classifier.

OBJECTIVE

We collected the basic information, treatment protocols and follow-up data from 300 patients receiving chemotherapy in the Oncology Department of Second Xiangya Hospital from July to September, 2020. Correlation analysis was carried out between the potential factors related to nausea and vomiting in the treatment plan and the individual characteristics of the patients. For the two characteristics with a correlation coefficient greater than 0.8, their contribution to the area under curve (AUC) was calculated, and the characteristic with a smaller contribution was removed. The naive Bayes classifier in the machine learning library scikit-learn was used as the prediction model of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and 10-fold stratified-shuffled-split cross-validation was used to obtain the final result of the model. The machine learning model was trained using 70% of the samples, and 30% of the samples were used as the test set to assess the performance of the model.

OBJECTIVE

The sensitivity of the model for predicting the risk of nausea and vomiting due to acute chemotherapy was 0.83±0.04 (95%CI: 0.80-0.86) with a specificity of 0.45±0.03 (95%CI: 0.42-0.47) and an AUC of 0.72±0.04 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75). The sensitivity of the model for predicting the risk of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was 0.84±0.01 (95%CI: 0.83-0.86) with a specificity of 0.48±0.03 (95%CI: 0.45-0.52) and an AUC of 0.74±0.02 (95%CI: 0.72-0.77).

OBJECTIVE

The naive Bayes classifier model has a good performance in predicting the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

A dynamic prediction engine to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Cancer remains the second major cause of death in the United States over the last decade. Chemotherapy is a core component of nearly every cancer treatment plan. Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) are the two most dreadful and unpleasant side-effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Several patient-specific factors affect the risk of CINV. However, none of the guidelines consider those factors. Not all of the patients have the similar emetic risk of CINV. Despite the improvements in CINV management, as many as two-thirds of chemotherapy patients still experience some degree of CINV. As a result, physicians use their personal experiences for CINV treatment, which leads to inconsistent managements of CINV.

OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of this study is to improve the prevention of CINV using precise, personalized and evidence-based antiemetic treatment before chemotherapy. In CINV prediction, one of the interesting factors is that CINV has two distinct and complex pathophysiologic phases: acute and delayed. In addition, the risk factors and their associations are different for different emetogenic chemotherapies (e.g., low, moderate, and high). There are six contexts considering the combination of phases and emetogenicity levels. This will require the creation of six different models. Instead, our objective was to describe a single framework named "prediction engine" that can perform prediction query without losing the sensitivity to each context. The prediction engine discovers how the patient-related variables and the emetogenecity of chemotherapy are associated with the risk of CINV for each phase.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study. The data were collected by retrospective record review from the electronic medical record system used at the University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. An association rule-based dynamic and context-sensitive Prediction Engine has been developed. Physicians receive feedback about CINV risks of patients from the CINV decision support system based on patient-specific factors.

RESULTS

The prediction performance of the system outperformed many popular prediction methods and all the results of CINV risk prediction published in the literature. Best prediction performance was achieved using the rule-ranking approach. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87.85 %, 87.54 %, and 88.2 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The system used the patient-specific risk factors for making personalized treatment recommendations for CINV. It solved a real clinical problem that will shorten the gap between clinical practices and evidence-based guidelines for CINV management leading to the practice of personalized and precise treatment recommendation, better life quality of patient, and reduced healthcare cost. The approach presented in this article can be applied to any other clinical predictions.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

The effect of breathing exercise on nausea, vomiting and functional status in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of breathing exercise on nausea, vomiting, and functional status in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 60 breast cancer patients in the ambulatory chemotherapy unit of a university hospital. The data were collected using Patient Information Form, Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLI-C), Visual Analog Scale, and Patient Diary. The patients were followed up for the first seven days. While the control group received routine nursing care until the posttest, the intervention group received breathing exercise for six days. On the seventh day, FLI-C was repeated for all the patients.

RESULTS

It was determined that the patients in the intervention group had less number of nausea, vomiting, and retching episodes after the breathing exercise (p < 0.05) and experienced lower severity of nausea (p < 0.05) compared to patients in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Consequently, it was determined that the breathing exercise reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting and retching in breast cancer patients and affected positively functional status of patients.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Exploring Nurses' Understanding of Anticipatory Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

To explore nurses' self-reported understanding of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) in patients with cancer.

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

12 oncology RNs were recruited from University Hospital Limerick in Ireland.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

Data were collected via semistructured interviews and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach with a focus on the manifest content.

FINDINGS

The following themes were identified.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Although oncology nurses may understand the importance of assessing and treating patients on an individual basis throughout the course of treatment, formal ANV assessments are warranted to ensure the implementation of best practice. The findings of the current study can guide oncology nurses' approach to the assessment and management of ANV.

Effect of Music Therapy with Periorbital Massage on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting In Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trail

Introduction: Music and massage therapy are among the approaches of complementary medicine. Patients with cancer have been hugely encouraged in recent years to use complementary medicine to relieve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The present study was conducted to determine the effect of music and periorbital massage therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Methods: The present single-blind clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing chemotherapy who were randomly assigned to control and music plus massage therapy groups. Two interventions were concurrently carried out on patients in music plus massage therapy group while receiving chemotherapy medication, but the control group received no intervention. Rhodes questionnaire was used to assess nausea and vomiting before and 24 hours after chemotherapy. Data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistical tests (Chi-square and t-tests). Results: Music plus periorbital massage therapy significantly reduced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy compared to the control group. Conclusion: According to the results, using music plus periorbital massage improves nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and can be considered as a complementary medicine method in conjunction with other medicinal therapies to relieve symptoms of patients with cancer.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with trajectories of chemotherapy-induced nausea

PURPOSE

Between 19 and 58% of oncology patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). In a sample of outpatients with breast, gastrointestinal (GI), gynecological, and lung cancer, the study purposes were to evaluate for inter-individual differences in the severity of CIN over two cycles of chemotherapy (CTX) and to determine which demographic and clinical characteristics and GI symptoms were associated with higher initial levels as well as with the trajectories of CIN severity.

METHODS

Patients completed study questionnaires at six time points over two cycles of CTX. These questionnaires provided information on demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the occurrence of twelve GI symptoms. Hierarchical linear modeling based on full maximum likelihood estimation was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1251 patients, 47.2% reported CIN. Across two cycles of CTX, lower functional status scores and higher levels of comorbidity were associated with higher initial levels of CIN. Younger age and emetogenicity of the CTX regimen were associated with higher initial levels as well as worse trajectories of CIN. The occurrence of five GI symptoms (i.e., vomiting, lack of appetite, constipation, feeling bloated, and difficulty swallowing) was associated with higher initial levels of CIN. The occurrence of mouth sores was associated with higher initial levels as well as with worst trajectories of CIN.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to identify distinct demographic, clinical, and GI symptom characteristics associated with CIN severity. These findings suggest that the etiology of CIN is complex and may warrant interventions beyond standard antiemetics.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Risk factors for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with low-emetic-risk chemotherapy: a prospective, observational, multicenter study

Purpose

Improvement in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is needed. There is limited information on antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing low-emetic-risk chemotherapy (LEC), and the optimal antiemetic treatment is not well understood. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors for delayed CINV to aid in the development of individualized treatments.

Patients and methods

This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 13 hospitals and included patients with solid cancers undergoing LEC. A total of 222 patients were enrolled between September 2013 and November 2014. The participants completed a daily diary for 5 days after the commencement of the first cycle of LEC to describe the daily incidence of CINV (yes/no). Furthermore, the participants described the severity of nausea and the amount of food intake with the help of VAS.

Results

Two hundred and ten patients provided their data that were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression to examine the risk factors for delayed CINV. History of CINV, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score ≥1, acute CINV, and single-day antiemetic prophylaxis were identified as independent risk factors for delayed CINV.

Conclusion

The current use of antiemetic prophylaxis according to the recommended guideline appears to effectively control delayed CINV in patients undergoing LEC. Therefore, patients with the abovementioned risk factors should be carefully observed, and their treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms. The use of multiple-day dexamethasone may be beneficial for those patients who develop acute CINV, especially when it is accompanied by anorexia.

Risk Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea in the Week Before the Next Cycle and Impact of Nausea on Quality of Life Outcomes

CONTEXT

Despite current advances in antiemetic treatments, between 19% and 58% of oncology patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN).

OBJECTIVES

Aims of this post hoc exploratory analysis were to determine occurrence, severity, and distress of CIN and evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress; and quality of life (QOL) outcomes between oncology patients who did and did not report CIN in the week before chemotherapy (CTX). Demographic, clinical, symptom, and stress characteristics associated with CIN occurrence were determined.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1296) completed questionnaires that provided information on demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL. Univariate analyses evaluated for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL scores between the two patient groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate for factors associated with nausea group membership.

RESULTS

Of the 1296 patients, 47.5% reported CIN. In the CIN group, 15% rated CIN as severe and 23% reported high distress. Factors associated with CIN included less education; having childcare responsibilities; poorer functional status; higher levels of depression, sleep disturbance, evening fatigue, and intrusive thoughts; as well as receipt of CTX on a 14-day CTX cycle and receipt of an antiemetic regimen that contained serotonin receptor antagonist and steroid. Patients in the CIN group experienced clinically meaningful decrements in QOL.

CONCLUSION

This study identified new factors (e.g., poorer functional status, stress) associated with CIN occurrence. CIN negatively impacted patients' QOL. Pre-emptive and ongoing interventions may alleviate CIN occurrence in high-risk patients.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background

Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed.

Patients and methods

Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0–32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm.

Results

Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67–0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV.

Conclusions

The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Mitigation With Music Interventions

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Despite three decades of studies examining music interventions as a mitigant of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), to date, no systematic review of this literature exists.
.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Keywords for all databases were music, chemotherapy, and nausea.
.

DATA EVALUATION

All studies were appraised for methodology and results.
.

SYNTHESIS

10 studies met inclusion criteria for review. Sample sizes were generally small and nonrandomized. Locus of control for music selection was more often with the investigator rather than the participant. Few studies controlled for the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered, nor for known patient-specific risk factors for CINV.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The existing data have been largely generated by nurse scientists, and implications for nursing practice are many, because music interventions are low-cost, easily accessible, and without known adverse effects. However, this specific body of knowledge requires additional substantive inquiry to generate clinically relevant data.

Genetic Influence on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Narrative Review

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a phenomenon common to patients being treated for a solid or hematologic malignancy. This adverse effect to cancer treatment persists in about half of all patients receiving highly emetogenic treatment, despite prophylaxis with serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3]) antagonists, steroids, and additional agents. Two broad categories increase risk for CINV: the emetogenic potential of chemotherapeutic drugs and patient-specific risk factors, such as younger age, female gender, low or no alcohol intake, and history of motion sickness or pregnancy-induced nausea. Despite these predictors for CINV, guidelines for prophylaxis continue to be based solely on the emetogenicity of agents administered. New strategies for CINV are unlikely until additional data emerge.
.

The Effect of a Standardized Ginger Extract on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled Trial

Ginger supplementation could be an effective adjuvant treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). The aim of this clinical trial was to address significant methodological limitations in previous trials. Patients (N = 51) were randomly allocated to receive either 1.2 g of standardised ginger extract or placebo per day, in addition to standard anti-emetic therapy, during the first three cycles of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was CIN-related quality of life (QoL) measured with the Functional Living Index- Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included acute and delayed nausea, vomiting, and retching as well as cancer-related fatigue, nutritional status, and CIN and vomiting-specific prognostic factors. Over three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, nausea was more prevalent than vomiting (47% vs. 12%). In chemotherapy Cycle 1, intervention participants reported significantly better QoL related to CIN (p = 0.029), chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related QoL (p = 0.043), global QoL (p = 0.015) and less fatigue (p = 0.006) than placebo participants. There were no significant results in Cycle 2. In Cycle 3, global QoL (p = 0.040) and fatigue (p = 0.013) were significantly better in the intervention group compared to placebo. This trial suggests adjuvant ginger supplementation is associated with better chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life and less cancer-related fatigue, with no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo.

International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and are more likely to have a recurrence of VTE and bleeding while taking anticoagulants. Management of VTE in patients with cancer is a major therapeutic challenge and remains suboptimal worldwide. In 2013, the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME), established to reduce the global burden of VTE in patients with cancer, published international guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in patients with cancer is an emerging treatment trend that needs to be addressed based on the current level of evidence. In this Review, we provide an update of the ITAC-CME consensus recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. These guidelines aim to address in-hospital and outpatient cancer-associated VTE in specific subgroups of patients with cancer.

The Benefit of Pro Re Nata Antiemetics Provided With Guideline-Consistent Antiemetics in Delayed Nausea Control

BACKGROUND

Delayed nausea after chemotherapy remains a symptom of interest. Clinicians often provide additional and/or pro re nata (p.r.n.) antiemetics with guideline-consistent antiemetics in an attempt to achieve further symptom control. Whether the usage of additional and/or p.r.n. antiemetics provide added benefit remains as a question.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the benefit of providing additional antiemetics and/or p.r.n. antiemetics with guideline-consistent antiemetics in the control of nausea, functioning, and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of 143 breast cancer patients who received guideline-consistent antiemetics for anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy was conducted. Instruments included vomiting frequency and nausea intensity items of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30.

RESULTS

Providing p.r.n. antiemetics alleviated the incidence of significant nausea (intensity, ≥3) in the delayed phase. The experience of nausea contributed to symptom incidence in the next phase and cycle. The intensity of delayed nausea demonstrated a moderate negative correlation with physical and role functioning and global health/QOL.

CONCLUSION

Providing patients with strategies to further control nausea (p.r.n. antiemetics) in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics is recommended for practice. Because the nausea experience contributes to symptom incidence in the next phase and cycle and because the nausea intensity demonstrated a significant relationship with function and global health/QOL, proactive supportive approaches are strongly recommended.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delayed nausea control may be improved by adhering to guideline-consistent antiemetics and using p.r.n. antiemetics. Delayed nausea control would contribute to patients' functioning and QOL.

Late chronotypes are associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, that is, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery, has been commonly used for locally advanced breast cancer to improve the surgical outcomes and increase the opportunity for breast-conserving therapy. Women with breast cancer often receive an anthracycline-based regimen as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with a high risk of emesis. Despite the development of novel antiemetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as a major adverse effect, affecting the quality of life of the patients. However, the factors predicting CINV in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. In this single-institution, prospective, observational study conducted at an outpatient cancer centre in the Republic of Korea from November 2013 to March 2016, we analysed women with breast cancer who planned to be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CINV was assessed after chemotherapy by using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool. Of a total of 143 participants, 7 patients were lost to follow-up and 2 patients were excluded due to changes in their treatment plan; thus, 134 patients were finally included in the analyses. Overall, 48.5% of the participants experienced CINV, with delayed CINV prevalence (42.5%) being more common than acute (39.6%). In the univariate analyses, overall CINV was significantly associated with late chronotypes (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-8.87; p = 0.009), a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10-4.37; p = 0.026) and anxiety (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.81; p = 0.036). In the multivariate analyses, late chronotypes (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.27-9.79; p = 0.015) and a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.31-6.13; p = 0.008) remained significantly associated with CINV. In conclusion, in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, late chronotypes were found to have an increased risk of CINV; these data suggest that clinicians need to assess and consider the chronotype in the management of CINV.

A prospective, observational, multicenter study on risk factors and prophylaxis for low emetic risk chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The incidence of and the risk factors for nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing low emetic risk chemotherapy (LEC) are unclear. The aim of the study was to provide information on these topics by performing a multicenter, observational, prospective study.

METHODS

The study consisted of patients who were administered first-time LEC that was consistent or inconsistent with current guidelines. Using the visual analog scale, patients recorded their daily food intake and the occurrence and severity of nausea over a 5-day treatment period.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between patients undergoing guideline-consistent (n = 89) or guideline-inconsistent (n = 121) prophylaxis (30.3 vs. 22.3%, respectively; P = 0.19). Logistic regression analysis identified a history of nausea and LEC other than taxanes as independent risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing LEC. The mean daily visual analog scale scores for nausea severity and a decrease in food intake were <25 mm throughout the entire observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-consistent prophylaxis appeared to control nausea and vomiting effectively in patients undergoing LEC. However, patients with a history of nausea and receiving LEC other than taxanes should be carefully observed and treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms.

An Analysis of Behavioral and Genetic Risk Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Japanese Subjects

There are individual differences in the frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. We investigated the individual variability in susceptibility to CINV with focus on both behavioral factors and genetic factors in Japanese cancer patients. We performed a prospective study to investigate the association between patient attributes (backgrounds and habits as well as gene polymorphisms) and anorexia, nausea, or vomiting in 55 Japanese cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy at Nagoya University Hospital. We found that gender (female), use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, susceptibility to motion sickness, and anxiety were associated with the frequency of CINV. Gene polymorphisms of rs1076560 (dopamine D₂ receptor gene), rs6766410 (serotonin 5-HT_3C receptor gene) and rs4680 (catechol-O-methyltransferase gene) were also associated. Our data suggest that these attributes may thus be risk factors for CINV. Our results provide novel information that can be used to predict the incidence of CINV in Japanese patients undergoing chemotherapy; this can help provide a substantial improvement in supportive care for patients with different types of cancer.

Clinical Practices and Outcomes on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Management in South Korea: Comparison with Asia-Pacific Data of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis Burden of Illness Study

Purpose

This study reported patient outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens and evaluated its adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in the Korean population subset of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study.

Materials and Methods

This subgroup analysis evaluated 158 Korean patients receiving HEC or MEC and compared the data (wherever possible) with that of 648 patients from the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. Study endpoints included evaluation of primary CINV prophylaxis and adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in cycle 1 (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] Quality Oncology Practice Initiative [QOPI]).

Results

In South Korea and the AP, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT₃-RA) prophylaxis for the acute phase was administered to 79/80 patients (98.8%) for HEC and 70/71 patients (98.6%) for MEC regimens (QOPI-1). Triple regimen (corticosteroid–5HT₃-RA–neurokinin 1-RA) was initiated in 46/80 patients (57.5%) for prophylaxis of acute CINV in cycle 1 of HEC (QOPI-3). Double regimen (corticosteroid–5HT₃-RA, with or within NK₁-RA) was initiated in 61/71 patients (83.1%) for control of acute CINV in cycle 1 of MEC a(QOPI-2).

Conclusion

Active management of CINV is necessary in cycle 1 of HEC in South Korea, despite higher rates than the AP region. Adherence to the international guidelines for CINV prophylaxis requires attention in the acute phase in cycle 1 of the HEC regimen.

Integrative review of factors related to the nursing diagnosis nausea during antineoplastic chemotherapy

Objective

to identify factors related to the nursing diagnosis nausea among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Method

integrative review conducted in four electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS) using the key words: neoplasia, antineoplastic agents and nausea.

Results

only 30 out of 1,258 papers identified met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent related factors were: being younger than 50 years old, motion sickness, being a woman, emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy, anxiety, conditioned stimulus, and expecting nausea after treatment.

Conclusion

this review's findings, coupled with the incidence of nausea among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, reveal an important difference between evidence found and that used by NANDA International, Inc. Even though it provides an appropriate definition of related factors, it does not mention chemotherapy, despite the various studies addressing the topic using different designs and presenting various objectives and outcomes.

Longitudinal Association of Poor Sleep Quality With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) include older age, female sex, alcohol consumption, and a history of motion sickness. Although gastrointestinal symptoms are found to be related with sleep and mood in other conditions, little is known about their effects on CINV.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer who had recovered from surgery before receiving a first cycle of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before chemotherapy by using the following: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) and chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) were defined according to a numeric rating scale (0-10) as follows: ≥3, nausea; ≥1, vomiting.

RESULTS

Between February 2012 and May 2014, data were collected from 198 patients. Chemotherapy-induced nausea occurred in 35.4% of patients, and CIV occurred in 31.3%. Chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-5.46; p = 0.024) and pretreatment nausea (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 1.84-12.62; p = 0.001). Likewise, CIV was significantly associated with poor sleep quality (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.21-5.78; p = 0.015) and pretreatment nausea (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.23-7.66; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor sleep quality increases risk of CINV in patients with breast cancer. Sleep problems should be assessed and considered in the management of CINV.

Anticipatory Nausea, Risk Factors, and Its Impact on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Results From the Pan European Emesis Registry Study

CONTEXT

Anticipatory (prechemotherapy) nausea (AN) is a classic conditioned symptom not responding well to current antiemetics. Minimal work has been done to assess its risk factors and impact on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate risk factors for AN and assess its impact on CINV development.

METHODS

We analyzed data (n = 991) from a prospective observational multisite study in eight European countries over three cycles of chemotherapy. Patient/treatment characteristics were collected before chemotherapy. History of nausea/vomiting (yes/no), patient expectation of CINV (0-100 mm visual analog scale, [VAS]), and prechemotherapy anxiety (0-100 mm VAS) also were collected before chemotherapy. A patient-completed diary during each chemotherapy cycle obtained information on AN in the 24 hours before chemotherapy administration and nausea and vomiting (episodes of vomiting and severity of nausea) daily for five days after administration of chemotherapy (0-100 mm VAS).

RESULTS

AN was reported by 8.3%-13.8% of patients, increasing in frequency and intensity over each cycle. Every 1 mm increase in AN on the VAS was significantly associated with 2%-13% of increase in the likelihood of CINV (all P-values <0.05). Key predictors of AN in Cycle 1 included metastatic disease and prechemotherapy anxiety. However, predictors of AN in subsequent cycles included prechemotherapy anxiety and AN and CINV experience in the previous cycle, the latter being the strongest predictor (odds ratio = 3.30-4.09 for CINV outcomes over the cycles).

CONCLUSION

AN is a challenging symptom, and its prevention needs to consider better CINV prevention in the previous cycles as well as managing prechemotherapy anxiety.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Narrative Review to Inform Dietetics Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer that influence nutrition. They exert a detrimental effect on dietary intake, risk of malnutrition, and quality of life. Whereas CINV are primarily managed with medication, nutrition and dietetics practitioners play an important role in the management of CINV-related complications such as reduced dietary intake. This review discusses the burden of nausea and vomiting that patients with cancer can experience, including the effect on quality of life, nutritional status, and treatment outcomes. Implications for dietetics practice include the need to explore the nature of reported symptoms, identify predisposing risk factors, and to consider the use of a variety of interventions that are individualized to a patient's symptoms. There are little clinical data regarding effective dietetic interventions for nausea and vomiting. In summary, this review discusses dietetics-related issues surrounding CINV, including the pathophysiology, risk factors, prevalence, and both pharmacologic and dietetic treatment options.

Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequently experienced toxic side-effects associated with chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting can result from surgery or radiotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is potentially the most severe and most distressing. Estimates regarding the incidence of CINV vary depending on the treatment administered and individual patient characteristics.The impact of CINV on quality of life (QoL) and daily activities is considerable. Pharmacological treatments are considered routine for CINV. Clinical guidelines now recommend that patients receiving moderate emetic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens be preferentially treated with palonosetron, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in combination with dexamethasone. In addition, it has shown that single-dose fosaprepitant is equivalent to the standard 3-day aprepitant regimen (the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist). Despite these advances in antiemetic management, approximately 50% of patients receiving chemotherapy still experience nausea and/or vomiting. Further improvements are still desirable, particularly in the prevention and treatment of delayed CINV. Non-pharmacological interventions can be possible adjuncts to standard anti-emetic therapy. Using new technologies to collect patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of assessment, provide a better picture of the patient's experience of these symptoms, and provide a means to simultaneously monitor symptoms, educate patients, and collect longitudinal data.

Treatment-related problems experienced by cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a scoping review

Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience a range of treatment-related problems, and variations in prevalence exist between treatment centres. A scoping review was undertaken to map reported rates of problem prevalence in the literature. This will inform development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to monitor prevalence and severity of problems over time and assist service providers optimise supportive care provision. Two databases (Embase and Medline) were searched from 2002 to 2013. Fifty one published papers and conference abstracts reporting problem prevalence rates were identified. The papers reported 98 different problems, from which a typology of 27 problem domains was developed, including both physical symptoms and psychosocial issues. The problem domains most often studied were nausea, vomiting and fatigue. This review reflects the chemotherapy-associated problems to which researchers attach the most importance. The range in reported prevalence across studies was very broad (e.g. nausea: 9-74%), with even less frequently studied problems showing high prevalence in some studies (e.g. gynaecological problems: up to 94%). The wide variation in prevalence and range of problems experienced raises challenges for PROM development. Patients should therefore be involved in consensus exercises to assist selection of items to ensure any instrument is complete and robust.

Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen.

Nevasic audio program for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: A feasibility study using a randomized controlled trial design

PURPOSE

Pharmacological therapy is only partially effective in preventing or treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Therefore, exploring the complementary role of non-pharmacological approaches used in addition to pharmacological agents is important. Nevasic uses specially constructed audio signals hypothesized to generate an antiemetic reaction. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of Nevasic to control CINV.

METHODS

A mixed methods design incorporating an RCT and focus group interviews. For the RCT, female breast cancer patients were randomized to receive either Nevasic plus usual care, music plus usual care, or usual care only. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models. Five focus group interviews were conducted to obtain participants' views regarding the acceptability of the interventions in the trial.

RESULTS

99 participants were recruited to the RCT and 15 participated in focus group interviews. Recruitment targets were achieved. Issues of Nevasic acceptability were highlighted as weaknesses of the program. This study did not detect any evidence for the effectiveness of Nevasic; however, the results showed statistically significant less use of anti-emetics (p = 0.003) and borderline non-significant improvement in quality of life (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting a non-pharmacological intervention using such an audio program is feasible, although difficulties and limitations exist with its use. Further studies are required to investigate the effectiveness of Nevasic from perspectives such as anti-emetic use, as well as its overall effect on the levels of nausea and vomiting.

Impact of CINV in earlier cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles in Asia Pacific clinical practice

PURPOSE

We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles.

METHODS

Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen.

RESULTS

There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.

Baseline patient characteristics, incidence of CINV, and physician perception of CINV incidence following moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Asia Pacific countries

PURPOSE

This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries.

METHODS

Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV.

RESULTS

There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Rationale and design of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness study

BACKGROUND

Preventing and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain important goals. The objective of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study was to describe the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in current clinical practice in Australia and five Asian countries (China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan).

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective, observational study of CINV was conducted at 31 sites in these six countries from August 2011 through September 2012 and enrolled male and female adult patients (≥18 years of age) naïve to HEC and MEC who were scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day chemotherapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting or use of rescue therapy, during chemotherapy cycle 1 in the overall phase (0-120 h), acute phase (0-24 h), and delayed phase (>24-120 h). Study outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Primary outcomes, CINV incidence, and treatment patterns (chemotherapy, CINV prophylaxis, rescue medication prescription, and rescue medication use) were assessed by phase (overall, acute, delayed), by cycle (as appropriate), within and across countries, and by level of chemotherapy emetogenicity (HEC vs. MEC). The impact of CINV in cycle 1 on CINV in cycle 2 was analyzed for all patients with evaluable data for cycle 2. No site-specific analyses were performed. The remainder of this special series of papers reports on the results of this study.